13 C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge; District 8.pdf

Planning Commission – March 26, 2024

13 C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge; District 8.pdf — original pdf

Backup

Thumbnail of the first page of the PDF — Page 1 of 669 pages

C14-85-288.166(RCA2) 1 RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AMENDMENT REVIEW SHEET CASE: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) – Sunset Ridge DISTRICT: 8 ADDRESS: 8401 and 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway SITE AREA: approximately 9.606 acres EXISTING ZONING: GO-CO-NP PROPOSED ZONING: Amendment to Restrictive Covenant PROPERTY OWNER: Los Indios Ventures, Inc. AGENT: Armbrust & Brown, PLLC (Richard T. Suttle, Jr.) CASE MANAGER: Jonathan Tomko (512) 974-1057, jonathan.tomko@austintexas.gov STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recom mends amending the Restrictive Covenant as outlined in Exhibit D: Restrictive Covenant Amendment Redlines. Please see the basis of recommendation section for more details. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION/RECOMMENDATION: February 27, 2024: Neighborhood Postponement granted to March 26, 2024, applicant is in agreement. March 26, 2024: Case is scheduled to be heard by Planning Commission CITY COUNCIL ACTION: April 4, 2024: Case is tentatively scheduled to be heard by City Council ORDINANCE NUMBER: N/A ISSUES: N/A CASE MANAGER COMMENTS: The subject tract of approximately 9.606 acres of undeveloped land. To the north is additional undeveloped land (across Southwest Parkway). To the south, east and west are single- family residences. This case seeks to add multifamily residential use as a permitted use of the property and establish a maximum impervious cover of 55% and 1:1 floor to area ratio for multifamily residential use. In exchange for the proposed modifications the project will: 1. Provide water quality controls in accordance with the Save Our Springs Initiative 1 of 669 C14-85-288.166(RCA2) 2 2. Achieve a minimum one-star rating under the Austin Energy Green Building Program 3. Restrict access to Sunset Ridge 4. Provide a minimum of four EV charging stations 5. Remove invasive species in accordance with the City of Austin Invasive Species Management Plan BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: Zoning should allow for reasonable use of the property. Austin currently has a housing shortage and an affordable housing shortage. Restricting the use of this property to prohibit multifamily residential use is unreasonable in light of this situation. The applicant has proposed modifications that address environmental quality, sustainability, transportation access, and removal of invasive species. The proposed zoning should be consistent with the goals and objectives of the City Council. Austin City Council adopted the Austin Strategic Housing Blueprint in 2017. In the last annual report (2022) HousingWorks Austin identified that Council District 8 had only attained 2% of the district’s 10-year goal for new affordable housing units. Approving this restrictive covenant agreement would help add additional income restricted affordable housing units to Council District 8, furthering this adopted goal. Intensive multifamily zoning should be located on major arterials and highways. Southwest Parkway is an ASMP level 4 roadway with 182’ of right of way. This is a major corridor by any standard and should be where intensive multifamily zoning is located. EXISTING ZONING AND LAND USES: Land Uses Zoning Site North South East West GO-CO-NP Not applicable Undeveloped land Southwest Parkway and undeveloped land SF-2-CO-NP; SF-3-NP Single-family residences SF-2-CO-NP Single-family residences; Undeveloped GO-MU-CO-NP; RR-NP Single-family residences NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AREA: Oak Hill Combined (West Oak Hill) WATERSHED: Williamson Creek – Barton Springs Zone (Contributing Zone) SCHOOLS: Oak Hill Elementary Small Middle School COMMUNITY REGISTRY LIST: Austin Independent School District, Austin Lost and Found Pets, Aviara HOA, City of Rollingwood, Covered Bridge Property Owners Association, Inc., East Oak Hill Neighborhood Association, Friends of Austin Neighborhoods, Neighborhood Empowerment Foundation, Oak Hill Austin High School 2 of 669 C14-85-288.166(RCA2) 3 Association of Neighborhoods (OHAN), Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan - COA Liaison, Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan Contact Team, Oak Hill Trails Association, SELTexas, Save Our Springs Alliance, Sierra Club, Austin Regional Group, TNR BCP - Travis County Natural Resources, Travis Country West Owners Association AREA CASE HISTORIES: NUMBER C14-06-0061 (8509 Southwest Parkway) REQUEST GO-MU-CO to GO-MU- CO (change a condition of zoning) RR and DR to MF-1-CO C14-02-0164 (Southwest Parkway C14-85- 288.166(RCA) Amend a Restrictive Covenant filed on C14-85- 288.166 COMMISSION To Grant (05-23-2006) CITY COUNCIL Approved (07-27-2006) To Grant (12-17-2002) Approved (06-05-2003) To Grant (05-11-2010) Approved (06-10-2010) RELATED CASES: SPC-2023-0448C.SH – Site plan is currently in review. ADDITIONAL STAFF COMMENTS: Comprehensive Planning Imagine Austin The initiation, termination or amending of a Restrictive Covenant is not under the purview of the policies of the Imagine Austin Comprehensive Plan and therefore an Imagine Austin compliance report has not been provided for this case. Environmental Review / Environmental Office Review FYI: The applicant is advised that this property is located in the Hill Country Roadway (HCR) Overlay. Please consider compatibility of the proposed project goals with applicable HCR requirements and update the amendment as necessary. Please provide any available exhibits associated with the proposed development of the tract. With the exception of impervious cover limits, please demonstrate other departures from current environmental code that the proposed restrictive covenant allows, including: a) Heritage tree protection, b) Cut/fill, c) Construction on slopes, etc. Staff will support the amendment if the project commits to compliance with current environmental code at the time of site plan. 3 of 669C14-85-288.166(RCA2) 4 Consider incorporating light pollution reduction criteria into the project by committing to compliance with Austin Energy Green Building ST7 Light Pollution Reduction criteria as a part of achieving 2-star Austin Energy Green Building Rating. Consider incorporating bird friendly design criteria into the project by committing to compliance with Austin Energy Green Building STEL5 Bird Collision Deterrence criteria as a part of achieving 2-star Austin Energy Green Building Rating. PARD – Planning & Design Review Residential units that are certified affordable under the SMART Housing Policy are exempt from the parkland dedication requirements per City Code § 25-1-601(C)(3). Parkland dedication will be required for any new market-rate residential units that may be proposed by a development resulting from this Restrictive Covenant amendment at the time of subdivision or site plan, per City Code § 25-1-601. Transportation and Public Works – Engineering Review Note: The applicant is proposing to restrict access to Sunset Ridge. The Austin Strategic Mobility Plan (ASMP) calls for 58 feet of right-of-way for Sunset Ridge. It is recommended that 29 feet of right-of-way from the existing centerline should be dedicated for Sunset Ridge according to the Transportation Plan with the first subdivision or site plan application. [LDC 25-6-51 and 25-6-55]. The adjacent street characteristics table is provided below: Name ASMP Classification Existing ROW Existing Pavement Sidewalks Bicycle Route ASMP Required ROW Capital Metro (within ¼ mile) Level 1 58’ 49’ 29’ No No No Level 4 154’ 182’ 112’ No Yes No Sunset Ridge Southwest Parkway Austin Water Utility No comments for a restrictive covenant amendment case. Site Plan Site Plan comments will be provided at the time of site plan submittal. INDEX OF EXHIBITS TO FOLLOW: Exhibit A: Zoning Map Exhibit B: Aerial Map Exhibit C: Applicant’s Summary Letter 4 of 669 C14-85-288.166(RCA2) 5 Exhibit D: Restrictive Covenant Amendment Redlines Exhibit E: Affordability Unlocked Certification Exhibit F: Comments from Interested Parties 5 of 6696 of 6697 of 6698 of 6699 of 66910 of 66911 of 66912 of 66913 of 669 City of Austin P.O. Box 1088, Austin, TX 78767 https://www.austintexas.gov/department/housing-planning Housing Department February 16, 2024 Affordability Unlocked Development Bonus Certification Manifold RE Sunset Ridge – (ID 923-6021) To Whom It May Concern: email: Developer Manifold RE bholland@manifoldre.com; ph: 202-440-0401) is planning to develop a 438-unit multifamily rental development known as Sunset Ridge, located at or near 8413 and 8509 Southwest Parkway, Austin, TX 78735. The applicant has elected to participate in the City of Austin’s Affordability Unlocked Development Bonus Program, Type 2, so the development can receive waivers or modifications from certain development regulations as described in Ordinance No. 20190509-027. contact: Brad Holland, (development Affordability Unlocked – Type 2 – Rental – 8413/8509 Southwest Pkwy. Total units: 438 units Minimum Required: 50% (219 units) available to households averaging 60% MFI 20% (88 units) at or below 50% MFI 50% of affordable units 2+ bedrooms (Type 2) Affordability Period (AU units): 40 Years Street Impact Fee Waivers: 176/438 units Note: This certification letter only reflects the minimum requirements for the relevant program (AU). Should the owner choose to participate in other affordability programs, the development may be subject to additional affordability restrictions and/or a longer affordability period. Proposed unit mix: 24% (107 units) at or below 50% MFI 16% (69 units) at or below 60% MFI 10% (44 units) at or below 80% MFI - 50% of affordable units 2+ bedroom The Housing Department certifies that the project, at the site plan submittal stage, meets the affordability requirements to qualify as a Type 2 development and is eligible to receive waivers and modifications of development regulations as described in Ordinance No. 20199509-027. The affordability commitments outlined in this letter qualify the development for a 100% reduction of the street impact fee only for the number of units listed in the table above. If changes are made through the review process, the applicant must notify the Housing Department and an amendment to the Affordability Unlocked Land Use and Restrictions Agreement must be made and a revised Affordability Unlocked Certification letter must be issued. An administrative hold will be placed on the building permits, until the following items have been completed: 1) the number of affordable units have been finalized and evidenced through a sealed letter from project architect, and 2) a Restrictive Covenant stating the 14 of 669affordability requirements and terms has been filed for record at the Travis County Clerk Office. Please contact me by phone at 512.978.1594 or by email at Brendan.kennedy@austintexas.gov if you need additional information. Sincerely, Brendan Kennedy, Project Coordinator Housing Department 15 of 66916 of 66917 of 66918 of 66919 of 66920 of 66921 of 669From: To: Subject: Date: Kristina Tarsha Funk, Elizabeth Opposition to Sunset Ridge Apts Wednesday, February 7, 2024 4:07:35 PM [You don't often get email from https://aka ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] . Learn why this is important at External Email - Exercise Caution Elizabeth Funk, I am writing with regards to Sunset Ridge 290 C14-85-288.166(RCA) I am AGAINST the “Restrictive Covenant Amendment” request. My concerns include, but are not limited to those that will be expressed by speakers Stuart Goodman, Chandler Harris, and any other party speaking in opposition to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments development. Thank you, Kristy Tarsha CAUTION: This is an EXTERNAL email. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious or phishing email, please report it using the "Report Message" button in Outlook or forward to cybersecurity@austintexas.gov. 22 of 66923 of 66924 of 66925 of 66926 of 66927 of 66928 of 66929 of 66930 of 66931 of 669Lilly, Leslie Kristina Tarsha Funk, Elizabeth; Johnston, Liz Re: Opposition to Sunset Ridge Apts Wednesday, February 7, 2024 4:28:30 PM Outlook-hjg24kny.png From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Hi Kristina, Thank you for your email regarding the Sunset Ridge restrictive covenant amendment listed on the Environmental Commission agenda this evening. We will make sure to forward your message to the commissioners to be considered alongside the item. In the meantime, please let me know if you have any additional questions or concerns. Best Leslie Leslie Lilly Environmental Conservation Program Manager – Environmental Policy and Review City of Austin | Watershed Protection Department C: (512) 535-8914 www.austintexas.gov/watershed > From: Kristina Tarsha Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2024 4:10 PM To: Lilly, Leslie <Leslie.Lilly@austintexas.gov> Subject: Opposition to Sunset Ridge Apts [You don't often get email from https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] External Email - Exercise Caution . Learn why this is important at Leslie Lilly, I am writing with regards to Sunset Ridge 290 C14-85-288.166(RCA) I am AGAINST the “Restrictive Covenant Amendment” request. My concerns include, but are not limited to those that will be expressed by speakers Stuart Goodman, Chandler Harris, and any other party speaking in opposition to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments development. 32 of 669Again, I am opposed to the RCA request. Thank you, Kristy Tarsha Concerned resident CAUTION: This is an EXTERNAL email. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious or phishing email, please report it using the "Report Message" button in Outlook or forward to cybersecurity@austintexas.gov. 33 of 66934 of 66935 of 66936 of 66937 of 66938 of 669Lilly, Leslie Kristin Wright Funk, Elizabeth; Johnston, Liz Re: Sunset Ridge 290 C14-85-288.166 (RCA) Wednesday, February 7, 2024 3:30:35 PM Outlook-4c3nkz3t.png From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Hi Kristin, Thank you for your email regarding the Sunset Ridge restrictive covenant amendment listed on the Environmental Commission agenda this evening. We will make sure to forward your message to the commissioners to be considered alongside the item. In the meantime, please let me know if you have any additional questions or concerns. Best Leslie Leslie Lilly Environmental Conservation Program Manager – Environmental Policy and Review City of Austin | Watershed Protection Department C: (512) 535-8914 www.austintexas.gov/watershed > From: Kristin Wright < Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2024 3:22 PM To: Lilly, Leslie <Leslie.Lilly@austintexas.gov> Cc: Graeme (husband) Wright < Subject: Sunset Ridge 290 C14-85-288.166 (RCA) [You don't often get email from https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] > External Email - Exercise Caution . Learn why this is important at Hello Leslie - We live in Travis Country West neighborhood off Southwest Parkway and I am writing regarding the Sunset Ridge 290 C14-85-288.166 (RCA) on the agenda of the Environmental Commission meeting today. My husband Graeme and I are against the “Restrictive Covenant Amendment” request. My concerns include the increase in impervious cover directly adjacent to our property on Fort Benton. Our understanding is that the property was given a larger than normally allowed amount of 39 of 669impervious cover in order to achieve their purpose. My concerns will be expressed by speakers Stuart Goodman and Chandler Harris, speaking in opposition to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments development. Thanks, Kristin and Graeme Wright 5508 FORT BENTON DR AUSTIN, TX 78735 CAUTION: This is an EXTERNAL email. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious or phishing email, please report it using the "Report Message" button in Outlook or forward to cybersecurity@austintexas.gov. 40 of 66941 of 66942 of 66943 of 66944 of 66945 of 66946 of 66947 of 66948 of 66949 of 669Hello Ms. Funk & Ms. Lilly, I am messaging you both regarding this project: • Sunset Ridge 290 C14-85-288.166(RCA) I am messaging specifically to say that my husband and I are “against” the “Restrictive Covenant Amendment” request. Our concerns include, but are not limited, to those that will be expressed by speakers Stuart Goodman, Chandler Harris, and any other parties speaking this evening in opposition to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments development. Sincerely, Peter & Keena Chung Residents of Travis Country West 5705 Sunset Ridge Austin, TX 78735 • • • Nurse Practitioner IG: @keenachung 512-981-9880 mobile Keena E. Chung, MSN, RN, CFNP, CPNP-AC 50 of 669CAUTION: This is an EXTERNAL email. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious or phishing email, please report it using the "Report Message" button in Outlook or forward to cybersecurity@austintexas.gov. 51 of 66952 of 66953 of 66954 of 66955 of 66956 of 66957 of 66958 of 66959 of 66960 of 66961 of 66962 of 66963 of 66964 of 66965 of 669From: To: Subject: Date: Barbara Bearden Funk, Elizabeth re: Sunset Ridge 290 C14-85-288.166(RCA) Wednesday, February 7, 2024 3:53:25 PM [You don't often get email from https://aka ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] . Learn why this is important at External Email - Exercise Caution We are “against” the “Restrictive Covenant Amendment” request. Our concerns include, but are not limited to those that will be expressed by speakers Stuart Goodman, Chandler Harris, and any other party speaking in opposition to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments development. Barbara and Jim Bearden 5605 Fort Benton Dr. 512.751.9735 CAUTION: This is an EXTERNAL email. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious or phishing email, please report it using the "Report Message" button in Outlook or forward to cybersecurity@austintexas.gov. 66 of 66967 of 66968 of 66969 of 66970 of 66971 of 66972 of 66973 of 66974 of 66975 of 66976 of 66977 of 66978 of 669From: To: Subject: Date: Don Gibson Funk, Elizabeth; Lilly, Leslie Sunset Ridge 290 C14-85-288.166 (RCA) Wednesday, February 7, 2024 2:21:16 PM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from this is important at https://aka ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] . Learn why External Email - Exercise Caution Elizabeth/Leslie, I am an Austin resident at 5616 Medicine Creek Drive. As I will be unable to attend the Environmental Commission meeting scheduled for 6:00PM today 2/7/24, I wanted to state directly my vehement opposition to the Restrictive Covenant Amendment request in the subject case. My personal concerns include the following: - Water, sewage, and drainage impact to area aquifer, vegetation, and wildlife - Traffic safety issues and pollution impact on Southwest Parkway & Travis Cooke Rd - Light and noise pollution to adjoining residential areas I am familiar with and support the positions that will be expressed by Chandler Harris and Stuart Goodman who will be speaking at this evening’s meeting. Please feel free to reach out to me directly at the number below with any questions. Thank you, Don Gibson (518) 573-2207 CAUTION: This is an EXTERNAL email. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious or phishing email, please report it using the "Report Message" button in Outlook or forward to cybersecurity@austintexas.gov. 79 of 669From: To: Subject: Date: Brad Dunn Funk, Elizabeth Sunset Ridge 290 C14-85-288.166 (RCA) Wednesday, February 7, 2024 2:36:12 PM [You don't often get email from https://aka ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] . Learn why this is important at External Email - Exercise Caution Hi Elizabeth, Brad Dunn 5516 Fort Benton Dr Austin, TX 78735 512-299-2982 Sent from my iPhone I just wanted to let you know that I am against the Restrictive Covenant Amendment request associated with the Sunset Ridge Development. I have shared my concerns with Stuart Goodman and Chandler Harris along with any other party that will speak tonight against this proposal. Please let me know if you have any questions. CAUTION: This is an EXTERNAL email. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious or phishing email, please report it using the "Report Message" button in Outlook or forward to cybersecurity@austintexas.gov. 80 of 66981 of 66982 of 66983 of 66984 of 66985 of 66986 of 66987 of 66988 of 66989 of 66990 of 66991 of 669From: To: Subject: Date: diana mayo Funk, Elizabeth Sunset Ridge 290 C14-85-288.166(RCA) Wednesday, February 7, 2024 2:34:45 PM [You don't often get email from https://aka ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] . Learn why this is important at External Email - Exercise Caution We live in the Travis Country West and we live off Big Timer/Travis Cook. We are against the “Restrictive Covenant Amendment” Our concerns include, but are not limited to those that will be expressed by speakers Stuart Goodman, Chandler Harris, and any other party speaking in opposition to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments development. Diana and Carlos Mayo 5524 Ft Benton Dr Austin Texas 78736 513-484-2547 CAUTION: This is an EXTERNAL email. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious or phishing email, please report it using the "Report Message" button in Outlook or forward to cybersecurity@austintexas.gov. 92 of 66993 of 66994 of 66995 of 66996 of 66997 of 669From: To: Subject: Date: Funk, Elizabeth Sunset Ridge 290 Wednesday, February 7, 2024 3:03:58 PM [You don't often get email from https://aka ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] . Learn why this is important at External Email - Exercise Caution I am against the restrictive covenant amendment request (C14-85-288.166 (RCA) ). My concerns include those that will be presented by Stuart Goodman and Chandler Harris as well as anyone speaking in opposition to the Sunset Ridge Apartments development. Thank You Lance Smith Travis Country West Resident Sent from my iPhone CAUTION: This is an EXTERNAL email. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious or phishing email, please report it using the "Report Message" button in Outlook or forward to cybersecurity@austintexas.gov. 98 of 66999 of 669100 of 669101 of 669102 of 669103 of 669104 of 669105 of 669106 of 669107 of 669Additional Comments Received on C14-85-288.166(RCA2) Email from Cara Akrout 2/26/24 3:51pm Dear Paige Ellis, My name is Cara Akrout. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 108 of 669• Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” 040, which called for a broad community The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful ‐ approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): 109 of 669 The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the 110 of 669East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress 111 of 669Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. approved ‐ 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non-partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Cara Akrout Email from Ashley Hurt 2/26/24 3:51pm Dear Paige Ellis, 112 of 669 My name is Joel and Ashley Hurt. We are owners of a home in Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 113 of 669• Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113-040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): 114 of 669 The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85- 115 of 669288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the 116 of 669disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non- partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Joel and Ashley Hurt Email from Rajinder Koul 2/26/24 3:52pm Dear Paige Ellis, 117 of 669 My name is Rajinder Koul. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes 118 of 669• Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” 040, which called for a broad community The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful ‐ approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and 119 of 669breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e- mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying 120 of 669Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 121 of 6692.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non-partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Email from Tara P. Lambropoulous 2/26/24 3:53pm Dear Paige Ellis, My name is Tara Lambropoulos. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to 122 of 669 fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the City Of Austin Case Managers. following: Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda • • • • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113-040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85- 288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: 123 of 669 In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): 01/10/24 12/23/24 12/08/23 . These documents were dated The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of On Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 12/20/23. Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious The new notice no longer included a where Manifold Investments . This documented was dated . 01/19/24 01/12/24. 01/17/24 01/18/24 124 of 669 02/07/24, 01/19/24. 02/07/24, No Interested Parties received a tree Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on regarding case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on Survey Document has a preparation date of Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology 09/20/23, The accompanying at which time a Tree until 3 days ago on November, 2023. and screams 02/07/24, 02/23/24. & again on 01/19/24 The Tree Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the 02/07/24 125 of 6692.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the 2/7/24 , as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non- partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Please publicly support the Sincerely, Tara Lambropoulos Email from Adib Masumain 2/26/24 3:54pm Dear Paige Ellis, My name is Adib Masumian. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). 126 of 669 Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” 127 of 669040, which called for a broad community The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful ‐ approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. 128 of 669 As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e- mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) 129 of 669The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the 130 of 669Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non-partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Adib Masumian Email from Mathias Brossard 2/26/24 3:55pm Dear Paige Ellis, My name is Mathias Brossard. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: 131 of 669 Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113-040, which called for a broad community dialogue 132 of 669that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. 133 of 669 As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)). The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine- grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than 134 of 669the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non- partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. 135 of 669Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, -- Mathias Brossard Email from Anne C. Geraci 2/26/24 3:56pm Dear Paige Ellis, My name is Anne Geraci and I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. 136 of 669 This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: ‐ 137 of 669 In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. 138 of 669 As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology 139 of 669Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 140 of 6692.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. approved ‐ 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non-partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Thanks, and Hook ‘em! Anne Email from James Palmer 2/26/24 3:56pm To: Dear Paige Ellis, My name is James Palmer. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you 141 of 669that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes 142 of 669• Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113-040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file 143 of 669 #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85- 144 of 669288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." 145 of 669 This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non- partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, 146 of 669 Jim Pamer Email from J. Wise 2/26/24 3:57pm Dear Paige Ellis, My name is Jaime Wise_. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: 147 of 669 • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113-040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following 148 of 669 areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” 149 of 669which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more 150 of 669dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders:The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non- partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly 151 of 669requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Email from Kiser Wayne 2/26/24 3:59pm Dear Paige Ellis, My name is Wayne Kiser. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. 152 of 669 This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code • Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113-040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: 153 of 669In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a 154 of 669deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. 155 of 669The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 156 of 669 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non- partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Wayne Kiser Email from Joseph Harris 2/26/24 3:59pm Dear Paige Ellis, My name is Chandler Harris. I am a "Interested Party" resident of Travis Country West regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: 157 of 669 Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code ‐ 040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments in a well-documented timeline. In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and provide a breakdown of what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. 158 of 669 On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This document was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other 159 of 669‐ approved planning documents City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non-partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, - Chandler Harris 5700 Sunset Ridge Austin, Texas 78735 Email from Frederick L. Clement 2/26/24 4:04pm Dear Ms. Ellis, My name is Frederick L. Clement. I am an owner in and resident of Travis Country West Neighborhood Association. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with a sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a 160 of 669Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Ms. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113-040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing 161 of 669projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down. 1) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country 162 of 669Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." 163 of 669 This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non- partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I respectfully request that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Your sincerely, Frederick L. Clement, Resident, Travis Country West Email from Nicole Johnson 2/26/24 4:05pm Dear Paige Ellis, 164 of 669 My name is Nicole Johnson. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” 165 of 669040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: ‐ In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues 166 of 669including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 167 of 6693.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non-partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Nicole Johnson, concerned Travis Country West Resident Email from Brent Kriby 2/26/24 4:16pm Dear Paige Ellis, My name is Brent Kirby. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning 168 of 669Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: 040, which called for a broad community dialogue ‐ 169 of 669 In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” 170 of 669which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." 171 of 669 This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14- 85-288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non-partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Brent Kirby Email from Brad Johnson 2/26/24 4:19pm Dear Paige Ellis, My name is Brad Johnson. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14- 85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. 172 of 669 Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code 040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: ‐ In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members 173 of 669 of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with- in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental 174 of 669Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. approved planning documents ‐ 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. 175 of 669 In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non-partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing has its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Brad Johnson Email from Tim Moreland 2/26/24 4:19pm My apology for misspelling your surname in the previous email attached below. Email from Tim Moreland 2/26/24 4:17pm Dear Paige Ellis, My name is Tim Moreland. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. 176 of 669 This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113‐040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 177 of 669 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24.The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive 178 of 669Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city‐approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line 179 of 669 with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non-partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Timothy A. Moreland Email from Morgan Reece 2/26/24 4:22pm Dear Paige Ellis, My name is Morgan Reece. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a 180 of 669Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” 181 of 669 The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113-040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted 182 of 669to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin 183 of 669Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City 184 of 669Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non- partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Morgan Reece Email from Jane Holeman 2/26/24 4:23pm Dear Paige Ellis, My name is Jane Holeman. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). 185 of 669 Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code 186 of 669 Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” 040, which called for a broad community dialogue The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: ‐ In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. 187 of 669 On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85- 188 of 669288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula 189 of 669 harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. approved ‐ 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non- partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please 190 of 669publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Jane Holeman Email from Lindsay Casteneda 2/26/24 4:27pm Dear Paige Ellis, My name is Lindsay Castañeda . I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for 191 of 669 Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113-040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in 192 of 669the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. 193 of 669 This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include 194 of 669molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders:The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non- partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable 195 of 669Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Lindsay Castañeda Email from Brad Dunn 2/26/24 4:27pm Dear Paige Ellis, My name is Brad Dunn, I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before 196 of 669 the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113-040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing 197 of 669 projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a 198 of 669deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) 199 of 669The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, 200 of 669the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non- partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Brad Dunn 5516 Fort Benton Dr Austin, TX 78735 Dear Paige Ellis, Email from Mike Holeman 2/26/24 4:29pm My name is Michael Holeman. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). 201 of 669 Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code 202 of 669 Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” 040, which called for a broad community dialogue The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: ‐ In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say 203 of 669 that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree 204 of 669Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more 205 of 669massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. approved ‐ 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non- partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes 206 of 669and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Michael Holeman Email from Diana Mayo 2/26/24 4:34pm Dear Paige Ellis, My name is Diana C Mayo. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. 207 of 669 This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113-040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: 208 of 669 In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the 209 of 669case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming 210 of 669stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. 211 of 669 In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non- partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Diana and Carlos Mayo 5524 Ft Benton Dr Austin TX 78735 512-484-2547 Email from Michelle Lee 2/26/24 4:42pm Dear Paige Ellis, My name is Michelle Lee. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration 212 of 669when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code • Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” 213 of 669 The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113-040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. 214 of 669 When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams 215 of 669sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." 216 of 669 This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non- partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. 217 of 669 Sincerely, Michelle Dear Paige Ellis, Email from Robbie Lowe 2/26/24 4:42pm I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. 218 of 669 This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” 040, which called for a broad community dialogue The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: ‐ 219 of 669 In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. 220 of 669 As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology 221 of 669Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 222 of 6692.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. approved ‐ 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non- partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Roberta R Lowe Roberta R Lowe 8613 Cobblestone Austin, TX 78735 223 of 669Email from Sam B 2/26/24 4:42pm Dear Paige Ellis, My name is ________________. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14- 85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • • • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code 224 of 669 Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113-040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was 225 of 669dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." 226 of 669 This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non-partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, ___________________ Sincerely, Richard Boekenoogen 5600 Ft. Benton Dr., Austin, Tx. 78735 A resident of Travis Country West. (I apologize but, I'm unable to write on a PDF.) Email from David Wu 2/26/24 4:43pm Dear Paige Ellis, My name is Donggang David Wu. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. 227 of 669 Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well-documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code 228 of 669 Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” 040, which called for a broad community The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful ‐ approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. 229 of 669 When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e- mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology 230 of 669Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 231 of 6693.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non-partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Donggang David Wu Email from Frank Singor 2/26/24 4:45pm Dear Paige Ellis, My name is Frank Singor. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14- 85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically 232 of 669because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” 040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: ‐ In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): 233 of 669 The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with- in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology 234 of 669Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. approved planning documents ‐ 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non-partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 235 of 669288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Email from Sheila Anderson 2/26/24 4:45pm Dear Paige Ellis, My name is Sheila Anderson. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 236 of 669• Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113-040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say 237 of 669that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24.The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole 238 of 669/ Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city‐approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 239 of 6693.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non- partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Email from Jason Bybel 2/26/24 4:52pm Dear Paige Ellis, My name is Jason Bybel. I am a resident of Travis Country West and Vice President of my community's Homeowner's Association. This email is regarding case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: 240 of 669Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113-040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed 241 of 669affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14- 85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The 242 of 669Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)). The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet. This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, 243 of 669the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non- partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Jason Bybel 5305 Fort Benton Dr. Austin, Texas 78735 Email from Wayne Kiser 2/26/24 5:01pm Dear Paige Ellis, My name is Wayne Kiser and I am an interested party. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case 244 of 669Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113-040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. 245 of 669 When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City 246 of 669Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non-partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Wayne Kiser Email from Barbara Bearden 2/26/24 5:19pm Dear Paige Ellis, Our names are Jim and Barbara Bearden. We are residents of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has 247 of 669a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state- mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections 248 of 669• Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113-040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. 249 of 669 On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree 250 of 669Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85- 251 of 669288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non- partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Jim and Barbara Bearden 5605 Fort Benton Dr. Email from Hajali Patel 2/26/24 5:25pm Dear Paige Ellis, 252 of 669 My name is __Hajiali Patel______________. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 253 of 669• Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113-040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): 254 of 669 The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. 255 of 669 Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula 256 of 669 harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non- partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The 257 of 669 Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, _Hajiali. Patel________________ Email from Haijali Patel 2/26/24 5:33pm Dear Paige Ellis, My name is Hajiali Patel. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for 258 of 669 Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113-040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in 259 of 669 the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. 260 of 669 This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to 261 of 669yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. 262 of 669 In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non- partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, _Hajiali Patel________________ Email from Nino De Falcis 2/26/24 5:33pm Dear Paige Ellis, My name is Nino De Falcis. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the 263 of 669 Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113-040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing 264 of 669projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire 265 of 669process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming 266 of 669stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. 267 of 669 In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non- partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Nino De Falcis Email from Allison Zagrodzky 2/26/24 5:34pm Dear Paige Ellis, My name is Allison Zagrodzky. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one 268 of 669reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” 040, which called for a broad community The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful ‐ approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: 269 of 669 In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced . This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. 8413 Southwest Parkway When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. 270 of 669 This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include 271 of 669molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city planning documents designed by community stakeholders:The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. approved ‐ 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non-partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I 272 of 669am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Allison Zagrodzky Email from Hajali Patel j 2/26/24 5:34pm Haji Ellis, My name is _Hajiali Patel, . I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. 273 of 669 This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113-040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: 274 of 669 In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not 275 of 669received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming 276 of 669stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. 277 of 669 In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non- partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, _____Haji Patel______________ Email from Joe Williams 2/26/24 5:41pm Dear Paige Ellis, My name is Dr. Joseph Williams. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding . I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one 278 of 669reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” 040, which called for a broad community The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful ‐ approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: 279 of 669 In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced . This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. 8413 Southwest Parkway When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. 280 of 669 This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include 281 of 669molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. approved ‐ 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non-partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I 282 of 669am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Dr. Joseph Williams Email from Neil Flores 2/26/24 5:42pm Dear Paige Ellis, My name is Neil Flores. I am a resident of Travis Country West and an interested party regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for 283 of 669Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113-040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, 284 of 669housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments 285 of 669non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more 286 of 669massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non- partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 287 of 669288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Neil Flores 8713 Cobblestone Austin, Tx 78735 Email from Batul Patel 2/26/24 5:44pm Dear Paige Ellis, My name is __Batul Patel__. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. 288 of 669 This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state- mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113-040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for 289 of 669 permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that . This document had a deadline to register as an referenced “interested party” no later than01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. 8413 Southwest Parkway When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. 290 of 669 As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e- mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on02/07/24, regarding case #: C14- 85-288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on02/07/24, until 3 days ago on02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date ofNovember, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology 291 of 669Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the 292 of 669Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non-partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS.Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14- 85-288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, __Batul Patel_________________ Email from Carey Burnett 2/26/24 5:49pm Dear Paige Ellis, My name is Carey Thomas Burnett. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. 293 of 669 Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections 294 of 669• Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113-040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. 295 of 669 On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying 296 of 669Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 297 of 669 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non- partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Carey Burnett | (512) 809-7672 5416 Fort Benton Drive, ATX 78735 Email from Wendy Prabhu 2/26/24 5:38pm Dear Paige Ellis, My name is Wendy Prabhu and I own a home in Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. 298 of 669Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well-documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” 299 of 669040, which called for a broad community dialogue that The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: ‐ In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14- 85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a 300 of 669deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)). The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with 301 of 669abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. approved ‐ 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non- partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. 302 of 669Sincerely, Wendy Prabhu Dear Paige Ellis, Email from Raj Prabhu 2/26/24 6:17pm My name is Raj Prabhu and I own a home in Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well-documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or 303 of 669recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” 040, which called for a broad community dialogue that The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: ‐ In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14- 85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 304 of 669Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology 305 of 669Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)). The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. approved ‐ 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental 306 of 669Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non- partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Raj Prabhu Email from Ricardo Viloria 2/26/24 6:30pm Dear Paige Ellis, My name is Ricardo Viloria. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: 307 of 669 Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113-040, which called for a broad community dialogue 308 of 669that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. 309 of 669 As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. 310 of 669The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed 311 of 669to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non- partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Ricardo Viloria 8520 Cobblestone Dr. Austin, Texas 78735 Email from 2/26/24 6:35pm Dear Paige Ellis, My name is Darin Mills. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning 312 of 669Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The 313 of 669 Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113-040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. 314 of 669 When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology 315 of 669 Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill 316 of 669 Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non- partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Darin Mills 5821 Sunset Rdg Austin, TX 78735 Email from Lori McKey 2/26/24 7:08pm Dear Paige Ellis, My name is Lori McKey. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed 317 of 669density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14- 85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes 318 of 669• Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: ‐ In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 319 of 6691.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP- 2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. 320 of 669 This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and 321 of 669marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. ‐ 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this 322 of 669case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non-partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi- family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Lori McKey Email from David McKey 2/26/24 7:18pm Dear Paige Ellis, My name is David McKey. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). 323 of 669 Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case , which called for a broad community dialogue 20110113-040 324 of 669# C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. . This document had a deadline to register as an 8413 Southwest Parkway When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. 325 of 669 This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more 326 of 669massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14- 85-288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. approved ‐ 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non-partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14- 85-288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, David McKey 327 of 669Email from Matthan Myers 2/26/24 7:21pm Dear Paige Ellis, My name is Matthan Myers. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account 328 of 669address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113-040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 329 of 6691.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. 330 of 669 Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." 331 of 669 This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non- partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Best, 332 of 669Matthan Myers Email from Andrie Cantu 2/26/24 7:22pm Dear Paige Ellis, My name is Andrie Cantu. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission this Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, 333 of 669challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113-040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon 334 of 669and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and 335 of 669marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non- partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly 336 of 669requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Andrie Cantu Email from Verlaine MacClements 2/26/24 7:27pm My name is Verlaine MacClements. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement 337 of 669request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113-040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: 338 of 669 In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that . This document had a deadline to register as an referenced “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. 8413 Southwest Parkway When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding 339 of 669any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e- mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. 340 of 669The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 341 of 6693.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non-partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Verlaine MacClements Email from Jonathan MacClements 2/26/24 7:31pm My name is Jonathan MacClements. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great 342 of 669consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the 343 of 669properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113-040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. 344 of 669 On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that . This document had a deadline to register as an referenced “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. 8413 Southwest Parkway When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e- mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties 345 of 669received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, 346 of 669the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non-partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, 347 of 669Jonathan MacClements Email from Eric Logue-Sargeant 2/26/24 7:36pm Dear Paige Ellis, My name is Eric Logue-Sargeant. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the City Of Austin Case Managers. following: Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code • • • • 348 of 669 Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113-040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85- 288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): 12/08/23 12/23/24 The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of On Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 12/20/23. Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. . These documents were dated 01/10/24 349 of 669 01/18/24 01/17/24 01/12/24. . 01/19/24 . This documented was dated where Manifold Investments The new notice no longer included a As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The regarding case #: C14-85- Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on Survey Document has a preparation date of Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology 02/07/24, No Interested Parties received a tree 09/20/23, The accompanying at which time a Tree until 3 days ago on November, 2023. and screams 02/07/24, 01/19/24. 02/23/24. & again on 02/07/24, 01/19/24 The Tree Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more 350 of 669 02/07/24 massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the 2/7/24 , as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non- partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Please publicly support the Sincerely, Eric Logue-Sargeant Email from Dayna Svatek 2/26/24 8:02pm Dear Paige Ellis, 351 of 669 My name is Dayna Svatek. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 352 of 669• Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113-040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): 353 of 669 The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. 354 of 669 Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula 355 of 669 harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non- partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The 356 of 669Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Email from Patty Gibson 2/26/24 8:10pm Dear Paige Ellis, My name is Patricia Gibson and I called your office this afternoon. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: 357 of 669• Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Ms. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113-040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following 358 of 669areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country 359 of 669Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more 360 of 669massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non- partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning 361 of 669Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. I appreciate your prompt attention to this very important matter for citizens that live in your district. Email from Donna Clement 2/26/24 8:12pm Dear Paige Ellis, My name is Donna Clement. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission this Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, 362 of 669protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” 040, which called for a broad community The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful ‐ approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Homeowners Association was not contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and gave a breakdown of what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments 363 of 669submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This document was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stair step topography; limestone aphanitic to fine- grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of 364 of 669Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non-partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Donna Clement 5816 Medicine Creek Drive Austin, Tx 78735 Email from Robert Anderson 2/26/24 8:23pm Dear Paige Ellis, 365 of 669 My name is Robert Anderson. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, 366 of 669protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113-040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 367 of 669Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24.The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology 368 of 669Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold 369 of 669Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non- partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Robert C Anderson Email from Erin Modde 2/26/24 8:25pm Dear Paige Ellis, My name is Erin Modde. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding. I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. 370 of 669 This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity to analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: 040, which called for a broad community dialogue ‐ In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith 371 of 669communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/23 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. 372 of 669 Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to 373 of 669Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14- 85-288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non-partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Email from Hunter Beck 2/26/24 8:32pm Erin Modde Paige, My name is Hunter Beck. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. 374 of 669 Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes 375 of 669• Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” 040, which called for a broad community dialogue The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: ‐ In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): 376 of 669 The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country 377 of 669Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include 378 of 669molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. approved ‐ 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. 379 of 669 In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non- partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Hunter Beck Email from Don Modde 2/26/24 8:34pm Dear Paige Ellis, My name is Don Modde. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: 380 of 669 Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113-040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for 381 of 669integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/23 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received 382 of 669on 01/17/24. This document was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to 383 of 669soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were not required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non- partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please 384 of 669publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Don Modde Email from David Pollard 2/26/24 8:39pm Dear Paige Ellis, My name is David Pollard. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for 385 of 669Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113-040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, 386 of 669housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments 387 of 669non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more 388 of 669massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non- partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 389 of 669288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, David Pollard 8009 Cobblestone Austin, TX 78735 Email from Melinda Knight 2/26/24 9:04pm Dear Ms.Ellis, My name is Melinda Knight. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2), to which I am an interested party. I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14- 85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14- 85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the 390 of 669 part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in 040, which called for a response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85- 288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well- documented timeline: ‐ 391 of 669 In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP- 2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. 392 of 669 As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology 393 of 669Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city approved planning documents designed by community ‐ stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. 394 of 669Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non-partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi- family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Thank you. Melinda Knight 330.565.0238 Email from Andy Moore 2/26/24 9:05pm Paige Ellis, My name is Andy Moore. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. 395 of 669Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing has its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: This postponement should be granted specifically because if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code 396 of 669 Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14- 85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113-040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. 397 of 669 When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 398 of 6693.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders:The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 399 of 6693.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were not required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non- partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing has its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Email from Xavier Ayrault 2/26/24 9:16pm Dear Paige Ellis, My name is Xavier Ayrault. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14- 85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: 400 of 669 Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well-documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations, and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity to analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge, or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code ‐ 040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “Do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regard to the following in a well-documented timeline: In the Fall of 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials, and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. 401 of 669Housing Financing and broke down what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective within the 438-unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November of 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This document was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) which should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day before the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." 402 of 669‐ approved planning documents This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and the Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non-partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Xavier Ayrault Email from Bill Sealy 2/26/24 9:17pm Dear Paige Ellis, My name is William Sealy. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). 403 of 669 Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code 404 of 669 Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113-040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 405 of 669Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams 406 of 669sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 407 of 669 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties:Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non- partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, William Sealy Email from Michelle Suydam 2/26/24 9:29pm Dear Paige Ellis, I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as 408 of 669evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see the attached photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23. Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” 040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: ‐ 409 of 669 In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home-Owners Association was not contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November of 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This document was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding 410 of 669the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet. " This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. approved planning documents ‐ 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. 411 of 669 In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non-partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Michelle Suydam Email from Orion Suydam 2/26/24 9:00pm Dear Paige Ellis, I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see the attached photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23. Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 412 of 669• Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” 040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: ‐ In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home-Owners Association was not contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project 413 of 669was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November of 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This document was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet. " 414 of 669 This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. approved planning documents ‐ 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non-partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Orion Suydam Email from Panayiotis Lambropoulo 2/26/24 9:57pm Dear Paige Ellis, My name is Panayiotis Lambropoulos. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. 415 of 669 Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections 416 of 669• Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113-040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. 417 of 669 On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The 418 of 669Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of 419 of 669rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders:The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non- partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Email from Crystal Ebert 2/26/24 10:13pm Dear Paige Ellis, My name is Crystal Ebert. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14- 85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as 420 of 669evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations 040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes ‐ 421 of 669included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with- in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. 422 of 669The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non-partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Crystal Ebert Email from Matt Waldbaum 2/26/24 10:21pm Dear Paige Ellis, approved planning documents ‐ My name is Matt Waldbaum. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you 423 of 669 that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes 424 of 669• Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113-040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14- 425 of 66985-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, 426 of 669The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine- grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 427 of 6693.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non- partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Matt Waldbaum -- Matt Waldbaum Email from Chaoming Zhang 2/26/24 10:21pm Dear Paige Ellis, I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a 428 of 669rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see the attached photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23. Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” 040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: ‐ In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 429 of 6691.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home-Owners Association was not contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November of 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This document was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e- mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin 430 of 669Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet. " This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non-partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Chaoming Zhang Email from Can Liu 2/26/24 10:26pm Dear Paige Ellis, 431 of 669I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see the attached photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23. Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” 432 of 669 040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: ‐ In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home-Owners Association was not contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November of 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This document was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e- mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. 433 of 669 Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet. " This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission 434 of 669hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non-partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Can Liu Email from Peter Joseph 2/26/24 10:31pm Dear Paige Ellis, My name is Peter Joseph. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before 435 of 669 the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113-040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing 436 of 669 projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a 437 of 669deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) 438 of 669The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, 439 of 669the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non- partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Email from Rami Mutyala 2/26/24 10:37pm Dear Paige Ellis, My name is __RAMI MUTYALA______________. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: 440 of 669 Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful ‐ approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of 040, which called for a broad community 441 of 669 Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e- mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update 442 of 669“interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to 443 of 669yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non-partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City 444 of 669Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Thanks & Regards, Rami Mutyala Email from Peter Narvarte 2/26/24 11:52pm My name is Peter Narvarte and I am a resident of Travis Country West. My HOA has brought this Zoning case to my attention so I thought I would research the details. I work on the development side of the business in Austin so I am familiar with the documents and process. In addition to the basic oversights in official notifications from the City Office I offer the 2 points below to be considered before this decision is approved. 1) When I look through the information I see that Manifold is requesting a change to the Restrictive Covenant to allow a rezoning change BEFORE DSD has had a chance to vet the details. When I read through the first round of comments from DSD entities there are some critical items here that should be vetted before Counsel allows a change to the Restrictive Covenant/Zoning. The comments lead me to realize that the reason this is currently under a restrictive covenant for Office is due to the natural restrictions unique to this location and allowing Multifamily would surely make a number of these issues worse. 2) On top of this, there is a "Determination of Planning Commission" submitted by Armbrust & Brown that is signed and submitted verifying that there is no Approved Neighborhood Plan for this property. This seems incorrect as Ordinance 20161013-025 (amending Ordinance 20081211-096) took effect on October 24, 2016 and encompasses these properties. This NP plan under Part 4 amends Chapter 7 to create bike lanes, sidewalks, and to perform a traffic calming study in my neighborhood, on Sunset Ridge, and on Travis Cook Road. IF they were held responsible by this document, they would have had to file a Neighborhood Plan Amendment PRIOR to submitting this change to the Restrictive Covenant. This is obviously an additional step that could delay their progress significantly and feels like the misstep is on purpose. Allowing this Restrictive Covenant Change to move from Office Zoning to Multifamily Zoning without the 2 points above being understood or considered would be irresponsible. At a minimum this Developer should be held accountable to meet with the Neighborhood Planning Committee, address Hill Country Ordinance, and meet with their neighbors to understand what our concerns are. 445 of 669 Thanks for reading this, I hope you will support holding this Team responsible and at least postpone this case until the Developer can perform the important diligence necessary to support their case. Pete 5708 Fort Benton Dr. Email from Michael Tarsha 2/27/24 12:44am Dear Paige Ellis, My name is Michael Tarsha. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. 446 of 669 This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113-040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: 447 of 669 In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. 448 of 669 This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include 449 of 669molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non- partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes 450 of 669and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Email from Devina Do 2/27/24 3:12pm Dear Paige Ellis, My name is Devina Do. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes 451 of 669• Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: 040, which called for a broad community dialogue ‐ In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the 452 of 669city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non- answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." 453 of 669This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14- 85-288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. approved ‐ 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non- partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m.. Sincerely, Devina Do Email from David Arnold 2/27/24 6:21am Dear Jonathan Tomko, My name is David Arnold. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. 454 of 669 Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections 455 of 669• Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Tomko, given that Councilwoman’s husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113-040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. 456 of 669 On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The 457 of 669Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of 458 of 669rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders:The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non- partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Email from Justin Jensen 2/27/24 7:25am Dear Paige Ellis, My name is Justin Jensen. I am a Interested Party regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) and owner of 5415 Travis Cook Rd (PIDs: 103831, 103832, & 103834). These lots total over 11 acres and share an approximately 600 foot border with the subject property, and they are not represented by an HOA. 459 of 669I know you have received messages from many of my neighbors, and I have included an edited version or their comprehensive letter below to express my unity with their points. My edits mainly point out that these are the views of my lots. And I removed the section reminding you of ethical responsibilities, because I give you the benefit of the doubt that that is not necessary. I also wanted to include the following critical point of my own. The communication from the City of Austin to the interested parties of this case has been insufficient. Here is a summary of my communication with Site Plan Manager Chris Sapuppo: 12/24 I emailed Chris Sapuppo requesting Site Plan 12/27 His assistant, Mase Cone, replied that he can set up virtual meeting to share site plan. I said ok. 12/28 Mr. Sapuppo said he prefers not to have meeting and to contact my HOA. 12/28 I informed that I am not part of an HOA and would like to see site plan asap. 12/28 He replied that there are too many interested parties and he will have virtual meeting and will notify me when it takes place. 2/7 I requested Site Plan again 2/7 Mr Sapuppo said they can't share it and that they answered these questions in virtual meeting in late January. They did not invite me to the virtual meeting. 2/7 Mr Sapuppo says sorry for not including me, copying the HOA which I have previously informed him I am not part of. My property shares a larger border with the subject property than any other. It is outrageous that I am not included on all interested party communications regarding this development. This development could have a significant impact on my farm, livelihood, and the local ecology and wildlife that I have worked very hard to protect. I do not take this lightly. Please postpone this restricted covenant agreement hearing. Thank you, Justin Jensen 5415 Travis Cook Rd 713-416-8282 --- I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that my voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support. Although Affordable Housing has its merits, the proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has no place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). My neighbors have requested a postponement that will go to a discussion before the The City Planning Commission this Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great 460 of 669consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113‐040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85- 288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City of Austin and Manifold Investments in a well-documented timeline. In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): I was not contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 461 of 669Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This document was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin 462 of 669Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city‐approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 463 of 6692/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non-partisan policy issues. Affordable Housing has its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Email from Helen Logue 2/27 7:43am • Dear Paige Ellis, My name is __Helen Logue___________. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before 464 of 669 the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113-040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing 465 of 669 projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous 466 of 669communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and 467 of 669marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental 468 of 669Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non- partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Email from Joshua Gindele Dear Paige Ellis, My name is Joshua Gindele I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the City Of Austin Case Managers. following: Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda 469 of 669• • • • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113-040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85- 288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided District 8 down: by the developer or the City of Austin): 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85- The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. 470 of 66912/23/24 01/10/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of 12/20/23. On Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than . These documents were dated When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. 01/17/24 01/12/24. . This documented was dated As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on The new notice no longer included a 01/18/24 01/19/24 . This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. 01/19/24. 02/07/24, 02/07/24, at which time a Tree No Interested Parties received a tree Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on regarding case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: 02/07/24, C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, November, 2023. requested on & again on Document has a preparation date of Resources Inventory has a preparation date of Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological 3.2 Site Geology Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: The accompanying Environmental and screams sinkhole / Karst until 3 days ago on 09/20/23, 02/23/24. 01/19/24 The Tree Survey Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) 471 of 669The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." 02/07/24 This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. documents designed by community stakeholders: deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. The requests to amend the restrictive Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on due process and a voice. , as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve 2/7/24 In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non- partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the 472 of 669Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Email from Caryn Rippstein 2/27/24 8:20am Joshua Gindele Dear Paige Ellis, My name is Caryn Rippstein. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for 473 of 669Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113-040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, 474 of 669housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments 475 of 669non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more 476 of 669massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non- partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 477 of 669288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Caryn Bland Rippstein 5800 Sunset Ridge Email from Jame Do 2/27/24 8:34pm Dear Paige Ellis, My name is James Do. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: 478 of 669• Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state- mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: ‐ In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common 479 of 669themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023- 0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing 480 of 669everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and 481 of 669City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. ‐ 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non-partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi- family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m.. Sincerely, 482 of 669Email from Amanda Ewers 2/27/24 8:43am Do Family Dear Paige Ellis, My name is Amanda Ewers. I am a homeowner and resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- City Of Austin Case Managers. 288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • • • • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85- 483 of 669288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113-040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85- 288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided District 8 down: by the developer or the City of Austin): 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85- The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. 12/23/24 01/10/24 On Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of 12/20/23. . These documents were dated When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. 01/17/24 01/12/24. . This documented was dated As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file The new notice no longer included a 484 of 669regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/19/24 . 01/18/24 This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. 01/19/24. 02/07/24, 02/07/24, at which time a Tree No Interested Parties received a tree Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on regarding case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: 02/07/24, C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, November, 2023. & again on requested on Document has a preparation date of Resources Inventory has a preparation date of Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological 3.2 Site Geology Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: The accompanying Environmental and screams sinkhole / Karst until 3 days ago on 09/20/23, 02/23/24. 01/19/24 The Tree Survey Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." 485 of 66902/07/24 This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. documents designed by community stakeholders: deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. The requests to amend the restrictive Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on due process and a voice. , as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve 2/7/24 In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non- partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. 288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Dylan and Amanda Ewers Email from Chris Newport 2/27/24 9:00am My name is Chris Newport. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is Dear Paige Ellis, regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2). 486 of 669 Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging ‐ 487 of 669communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023- 0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything 488 of 669to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stair step topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 489 of 6692.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non-partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Chris Newport 806.438.0281 Email from Gregg Gill 2/27/24 9:04am Dear Paige Ellis, My name is GREGG A. GILL. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case#: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. 490 of 669 Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case#: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes lo fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case#: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) on 1217123: Our neighborhood is entitled lo one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C 14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 • C 14-85-288 .166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: - Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 - Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes - Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections - Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code 491 of 669Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the fetter of the Jaw. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case#: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question "do the facts meet the code - and that's calling balls and strikes. That's not any sort of political ideology." The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113-040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case# C14- 85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file#: C14- 85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP·2023--0448C.SH that referenced 6413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an "interested party· no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that 492 of 669this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had "site control" in November Of 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12124. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered "interested parties· have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update "interested parties· in the case file regarding#: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01119/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address "Interested Party" questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with "we are doing everything to meet City Code,· which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress/ Egress Codes. Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02107/24, at which lime a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case#: C14-85- 288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case#: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas al Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. i 493 of 669The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formaton, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau or Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C·. a!temating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography: limestone aphanil1c to fine-grained. hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudislids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic. and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; Jower part more massive and about 160 feel thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C. with abundant steinkems or Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet. "ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/. feet." This information shoufd have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress I Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case#. C14-85- 288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezonrng up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.} Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case#: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Conidor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7124. as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non- partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size. and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes 494 of 669and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C 14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all "Interested Parties,· Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Ne ghbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 • C14-85-288.166(RCA2) • Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment • Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Email from Richard Tufton 2/27/24 9:12am Dear Paige Ellis, My name is Richard Tufton. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: 495 of 669 • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113-040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): 496 of 669 The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case 497 of 669#: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: 498 of 669Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non- partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Richard Tufton Email from Sarah Harris 2/27/24 9:14am Dear Ms. Ellis, My name is Sarah Harris. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission today (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it 499 of 669comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see the attached photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23. Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Ms. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” 500 of 669 The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113-040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted 501 of 669to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This document was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin 502 of 669Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City 503 of 669Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non- partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Sarah Harris Email from Gabriel Carrillo 2/27/24 9:20am Dear Paige Ellis, My name is Erik Gabriel Carrillo. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning 504 of 669Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The 505 of 669Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113-040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon 506 of 669and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 4 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin 507 of 669Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City 508 of 669Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non- partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held today, Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Erik Gabriel Carrillo Email from Sheila Anderson 2/27/24 9:23am Dear Paige Ellis, In addition to the concerns listed below in my email from yesterday, I would like to add another to the list. On July 27, 2023 I observed and photographed a Federally Endangered Golden-cheeked Warbler in my backyard. I live within 500 feet of this proposed development in Travis Country West, so as an interested party I am urging a postponement until a Golden-cheeked Warbler study can be completed on the Sunset Ridge property in question. 509 of 669 Sincerely, Sheila Anderson Email from Annie Coleman 2/27/24 9:42am Dear Paige Ellis, My name is Annie Coleman. I am a senior resident of Travis Country West with security and environmental concerns about the subject below. This email is regarding case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 510 of 669• Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113-040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14- 85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that 511 of 669the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 512 of 6693.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 513 of 6693.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non- partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Email from Keena Chung 2/27/24 9:44am Dear Paige Ellis, My name is Keena Ennis Chung, and I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: 514 of 669 Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state- mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” 515 of 669 The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: 040, which called for a broad community dialogue ‐ In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West HomeOwners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This document was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file 516 of 669 regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine- grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/ feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." 517 of 669 This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14- 85-288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were not required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non-partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Keena Ennis Chung • • • Keena E. Chung, MSN, RN, CFNP, CPNP-AC Nurse Practitioner Email from Peter Chung 2/27/24 9:11am Dear Paige Ellis, 518 of 669 My name is Peter Chung, and I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes 519 of 669• Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state- mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: 040, which called for a broad community dialogue ‐ In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West HomeOwners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. 520 of 669 On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This document was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology 521 of 669Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine- grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/ feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14- 85-288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were not required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. 522 of 669 In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non-partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Peter Chung Email from Catalina Wise 2/27/24 10:13am Dear Paige Ellis, My name is Catalina. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before 523 of 669 the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state- mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113-040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case 524 of 669# C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received 525 of 669on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) 526 of 669The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders:The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, 527 of 669the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non- partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Email from Paulina Wise 2/27/24 10:35am Dear Paige Ellis, My name is Paulina Wise. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning 528 of 669Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113-040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, 529 of 669housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14- 85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. 530 of 669 Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 531 of 669 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non- partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Paulina Wise Email from Jeanne Douthitt 2/27/24 11:46am Dear Paige Ellis, My name is __Jeanne Douthitt_. I am a resident of District 8. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. 532 of 669 Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections 533 of 669 • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113-040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. 534 of 669 On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree 535 of 669Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85- 536 of 669288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non- partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Email from Belle Bybel 2/27/24 11:59am Dear Paige Ellis, My name is Belle Bybel. I am a long time resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. 537 of 669Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1- 132 Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The safety of the residents of Travis Country West will be negatively impacted by this development. We are a small neighborhood that does not have the infrastructure (roadways) to support additional traffic. For years we have asked the city for assistance in traffic mitigation and it has fallen on deaf ears. We have a significant issue with "cut through" traffic that would only drastically increase with this development. If your answer is public transit, then you are 538 of 669‐ mistaken. The closest bus station is an almost 30 minute walk on roadways with NO SIDEWALKS!!! I wish we could utilize public transit, but there is NO SAFE way to do so. Assuming public transit is viable options for future residents is misguided and negligent. Bottom line, there is no SAFE public transit option near our neighborhood OR this potential development. PLEASE come see for yourself. Also, we have already experienced MANY close calls, near misses and actual vehicle incidents due to the level of traffic. It is a matter of time before someone is seriously hurt. By supporting this development you would be supporting increased traffic through our neighborhood thus endangering the lives in our community, members of your district. Further, the facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in 040, which called for a broad response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. 539 of 669As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more 540 of 669‐ approved planning dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were not required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non-partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Belle Bybel Email from Rachel Carson 2/27/24 12:15pm Dear Paige Ellis, 541 of 669 My name is Rachel Carson. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes 542 of 669• Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113‐040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. 543 of 669On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology 544 of 669 Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case 545 of 669that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city‐approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non-partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Rachel Carson Email from Jarrod Ekwurzel 2/27/24 12:32pm Dear Paige Ellis, My name is Jarrod Ekwurzel. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. 546 of 669 Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections 547 of 669• Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113-040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. 548 of 669 On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying 549 of 669Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 550 of 669 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non- partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Jarrod Ekwurzel 551 of 669552 of 669553 of 669554 of 66902/27/24 12:59PM Hello Mr. Tomko, I have already sent a message requesting postponement of Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2). I have been left off of interested party communications despite being the direct neighbor and contacting the Site Plan Manager to be added as an interested party. I need time to coordinate with my council. If postponement is denied, I would like to be added as a speaker at tonight's meeting, and I have included my presentation in both PDF and PowerPoint formats. Additionally, can you please help to make sure I am included in future communications regarding this case? Please confirm receipt, and thank you for your help! Sincerely, Justin Jensen 713-416-8282 5415 Travis Cook Road PIDs: 103831, 103832, & 103834 2/27/24 1:00pm Dear Council Member Ellis, This is Levente and Jeff McCrary. We are residents of the Travis Country West neighborhood. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14- 85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a 555 of 669photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113-040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) 556 of 669Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023- 0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological 557 of 669Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine- grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city- approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non-partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the 558 of 669postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Levente and Jeff McCrary 2/27/24 1:18pm Dear Paige Ellis, My name is Javier Cantu. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared 559 of 669boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113-040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before 560 of 669or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14- 85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree 561 of 669Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to 562 of 669Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non- partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Javier Cantu 2/27/24 1:20pm Dear Paige Ellis, My name is Eric Schank. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. 563 of 669 Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, 564 of 669challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113-040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say 565 of 669that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree 566 of 669Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of 567 of 669rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non- partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Eric Schank 2/27/24 1:38pm Dear Paige Ellis, I'm Doug Duke, and I'm a a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. 568 of 669 Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission tonight. Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code 569 of 669 Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” 040, which called for a broad community The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful ‐ approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that 570 of 669referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e- mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 571 of 6693.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 572 of 669 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non-partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held tonight, Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Doug Duke (512) 423-9663 8009 Cobblestone Austin, Texas 78735 2/27/24 2:08pm Dear Council Member Ellis and Commissioner Hempel - My name is Ryma Biederman. I am a resident in Amarra Drive that is directly across the street from the proposed Sunset Ride Apartments (Case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected and extremely environmentally sensitive region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). 573 of 669The case is planned on the agenda of the Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 27th. A postponement has been requested as notification of this meeting was not provided to all residents within 500 feet of the proposed development. However, such postponement has been opposed by the Applicant. Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the City. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well-documented lack of Key reasons to grant a postponement request for communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited and City Of Austin Case Managers. to the following: • • • • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113-040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City of Austin and Manifold Investments in well-documented events. The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 574 of 669Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs Alliance. In conclusion, there needs to be due process and meaningful neighborhood engagement with any such developments affecting the delicate ecosystem of this Edwards Aquifer Contributing Zone that serves as a haven for local wildlife and endangered species. I respectfully request your public support for all the Interested Parties, Neighbors Of Amarra Drive, Travis Country West, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS in the postponement request such that neighbors can be sufficiently engaged and provided an opportunity to analyze such proposed changes. Respectfully - Ryma Biederman 2/27/24 2:55pm Dear Council Member Ellis and Commissioner Hempel - My name is Michael Glenn. I am a resident in Amarra Drive that is directly across the street from the proposed Sunset Ride Apartments (Case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected and extremely environmentally sensitive region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The case is planned on the agenda of the Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 27th. A postponement has been requested as notification of this meeting was not provided to all residents within 500 feet of the proposed development. However, such postponement has been opposed by the Applicant. Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the City. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well-documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: 575 of 669• Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code 040, which called for a broad community The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful ‐ approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City of Austin and Manifold Investments in well-documented events. The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs Alliance. In conclusion, there needs to be due process and meaningful neighborhood engagement with any such developments affecting the delicate ecosystem of this Edwards Aquifer Contributing Zone that serves as a haven for local wildlife and endangered species. I respectfully request your public support for all the Interested Parties, Neighbors Of Amarra Drive, Travis Country West, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS in the postponement request such that neighbors can be sufficiently engaged and provided an opportunity to analyze such proposed changes. Respectfully, 576 of 669Michael A. Glenn 4624 Peralta Lane Austin, TX 78735 2/27/24 2:56pm Dear Council Member Ellis and Commissioner Hempel - My name is Jeffrey Straathof. I am a resident in Amarra that is directly across the street from the proposed Sunset Ride Apartments (Case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected and extremely environmentally sensitive region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The case is planned on the agenda of the Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 27th. A postponement has been requested as notification of this meeting was not provided to all residents within 500 feet of the proposed development. However, such postponement has been opposed by the Applicant. Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the City. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well-documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections 577 of 669 • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113-040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85- 288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City of Austin and Manifold Investments in well- documented events. The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs Alliance. In conclusion, there needs to be due process and meaningful neighborhood engagement with any such developments affecting the delicate ecosystem of this Edwards Aquifer Contributing Zone that serves as a haven for local wildlife and endangered species. I respectfully request your public support for all the Interested Parties, Neighbors Of Amarra Drive, Travis Country West, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS in the postponement request such that neighbors can be sufficiently engaged and provided an opportunity to analyze such proposed changes. Respectfully, Jeffrey Straathof 4517 Amarra Dr Austin, TX 78735 2/27/24 2:56pm Dear Council Member Ellis and Commissioner Hempel - My name is Rosendo Parra. I am a resident in Amarra Drive that is directly across the street from the proposed Sunset Ride Apartments (Case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. 578 of 669Although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected and extremely environmentally sensitive region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The case is planned on the agenda of the Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 27th. A postponement has been requested as notification of this meeting was not provided to all residents within 500 feet of the proposed development. However, such postponement has been opposed by the Applicant. Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the City. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well-documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code ‐ 040, which called for a broad community dialogue The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City of Austin and Manifold Investments in well-documented events. The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 579 of 669 Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs Alliance. In conclusion, there needs to be due process and meaningful neighborhood engagement with any such developments affecting the delicate ecosystem of this Edwards Aquifer Contributing Zone that serves as a haven for local wildlife and endangered species. I respectfully request your public support for all the Interested Parties, Neighbors Of Amarra Drive, Travis Country West, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS in the postponement request such that neighbors can be sufficiently engaged and provided an opportunity to analyze such proposed changes. Respectfully, Rosendo Parra 02/27/24 2:59pm Dear Council Member Ellis and Commissioner Hempel - My name is Ginger Douglas and I am a resident in Amarra that is directly across the street from the proposed Sunset Ride Apartments (Case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected and extremely environmentally sensitive region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The case is planned on the agenda of the Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 27th. A postponement has been requested as notification of this meeting was not provided to all residents within 500 feet of the proposed development. However, such postponement has been opposed by the Applicant. Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the City. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well-documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: 580 of 669• Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113-040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85- 288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City of Austin and Manifold Investments in well-documented events. The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs Alliance. In conclusion, there needs to be due process and meaningful neighborhood engagement with any such developments affecting the delicate ecosystem of this Edwards Aquifer Contributing Zone that serves as a haven for local wildlife and endangered species. I respectfully request your public support for all the Interested Parties, Neighbors Of Amarra Drive, Travis Country West, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS in the postponement request such that neighbors can be sufficiently engaged and provided an opportunity to analyze such proposed changes. Respectfully, Ginger Douglas 2/27/24 3:03pm Dear Council Member Ellis and Commissioner Hempel - 581 of 669 My name is Chuck Harris. I am a resident in Amarra Drive that is directly across the street from the proposed Sunset Ride Apartments (Case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected and extremely environmentally sensitive region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The case is planned on the agenda of the Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 27th. A postponement has been requested as notification of this meeting was not provided to all residents within 500 feet of the proposed development. However, such postponement has been opposed by the Applicant. Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the City. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well-documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • • • • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 040, which called for a broad community ‐ 582 of 669dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City of Austin and Manifold Investments in well-documented events. The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs Alliance. In conclusion, there needs to be due process and meaningful neighborhood engagement with any such developments affecting the delicate ecosystem of this Edwards Aquifer Contributing Zone that serves as a haven for local wildlife and endangered species. I respectfully request your public support for all the Interested Parties, Neighbors Of Amarra Drive, Travis Country West, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS in the postponement request such that neighbors can be sufficiently engaged and provided an opportunity to analyze such proposed changes. Respectfully, Chuck Harris 2/27/24 3:04pm Dear Council Member Ellis and Commissioner Hempel - My name is Chuck Harris. I am a resident in Amarra Drive that is directly across the street from the proposed Sunset Ride Apartments (Case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected and extremely environmentally sensitive region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). 583 of 669The case is planned on the agenda of the Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 27th. A postponement has been requested as notification of this meeting was not provided to all residents within 500 feet of the proposed development. However, such postponement has been opposed by the Applicant. Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the City. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well-documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • • • • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections 040, which called for a broad community Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful ‐ approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City of Austin and Manifold Investments in well-documented events. The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 584 of 669 Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs Alliance. In conclusion, there needs to be due process and meaningful neighborhood engagement with any such developments affecting the delicate ecosystem of this Edwards Aquifer Contributing Zone that serves as a haven for local wildlife and endangered species. I respectfully request your public support for all the Interested Parties, Neighbors Of Amarra Drive, Travis Country West, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS in the postponement request such that neighbors can be sufficiently engaged and provided an opportunity to analyze such proposed changes. Respectfully, Chuck Harris 2/27/24 3:08pm Dear Council Member Ellis and Commissioner Hempel - My name is Paul Tucker. I am a resident in Amarra Drive that is directly across the street from the proposed Sunset Ride Apartments (Case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected and extremely environmentally sensitive region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The case is planned on the agenda of the Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 27th. A postponement has been requested as notification of this meeting was not provided to all residents within 500 feet of the proposed development. However, such postponement has been opposed by the Applicant. Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the City. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well-documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request 585 of 669for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • • • • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections 040, which called for a broad community Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful ‐ approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City of Austin and Manifold Investments in well-documented events. The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs Alliance. In conclusion, there needs to be due process and meaningful neighborhood engagement with any such developments affecting the delicate ecosystem of this Edwards Aquifer Contributing Zone that serves as a haven for local wildlife and endangered species. 586 of 669 I respectfully request your public support for all the Interested Parties, Neighbors Of Amarra Drive, Travis Country West, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS in the postponement request such that neighbors can be sufficiently engaged and provided an opportunity to analyze such proposed changes. Respectfully, Paul Tucker M.D. Texas Heart & Vascular 2/27/24 3:08pm Office voicemail :512-623-5398 Dear Council Member Ellis and Commissioner Hempel - My name is Michael Puzio, I am a resident in Amarra Drive that is directly across the street from the proposed Sunset Ride Apartments (Case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected and extremely environmentally sensitive region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The case is planned on the agenda of the Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 27th. A postponement has been requested as notification of this meeting was not provided to all residents within 500 feet of the proposed development. However, such postponement has been opposed by the Applicant. Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the City. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well-documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes 587 of 669• Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code ‐ 040, which called for a broad community dialogue that The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85- 288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City of Austin and Manifold Investments in well- documented events. The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs Alliance. In conclusion, there needs to be due process and meaningful neighborhood engagement with any such developments affecting the delicate ecosystem of this Edwards Aquifer Contributing Zone that serves as a haven for local wildlife and endangered species. I respectfully request your public support for all the Interested Parties, Neighbors Of Amarra Drive, Travis Country West, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS in the postponement request such that neighbors can be sufficiently engaged and provided an opportunity to analyze such proposed changes. Respectfully, Michael Puzio 4601 Peralta 2/27/24 3:14pm Dear Council Member Ellis and Commissioner Hempel - My name is johanne ferland. I am a resident in Amarra Drive that is directly across the street from the proposed Sunset Ride Apartments (Case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. 588 of 669Although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected and extremely environmentally sensitive region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The case is planned on the agenda of the Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 27th. A postponement has been requested as notification of this meeting was not provided to all residents within 500 feet of the proposed development. However, such postponement has been opposed by the Applicant. Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the City. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well-documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • • • • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful ‐ approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City of Austin and Manifold Investments in well-documented events. 040, which called for a broad community 589 of 669 The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs Alliance. In conclusion, there needs to be due process and meaningful neighborhood engagement with any such developments affecting the delicate ecosystem of this Edwards Aquifer Contributing Zone that serves as a haven for local wildlife and endangered species. I respectfully request your public support for all the Interested Parties, Neighbors Of Amarra Drive, Travis Country West, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS in the postponement request such that neighbors can be sufficiently engaged and provided an opportunity to analyze such proposed changes. Respectfully, GREG KOZICZ Chairman of the Board | Alberici Corporation 2/27/24 3:20pm Dear Council Member Ellis and Commissioner Hempel - My name is Chris Warren. I am a resident in Amarra that is directly across the street from the proposed Sunset Ride Apartments (Case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected and extremely environmentally sensitive region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The case is planned on the agenda of the Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 27th. A postponement has been requested as notification of this meeting was not provided to all residents within 500 feet of the proposed development. However, such postponement has been opposed by the Applicant. Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the City. 590 of 669This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well-documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • • • • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections 040, which called for a broad community Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful ‐ approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City of Austin and Manifold Investments in well-documented events. The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs Alliance. 591 of 669In conclusion, there needs to be due process and meaningful neighborhood engagement with any such developments affecting the delicate ecosystem of this Edwards Aquifer Contributing Zone that serves as a haven for local wildlife and endangered species. I respectfully request your public support for all the Interested Parties, Neighbors Of Amarra Drive, Travis Country West, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS in the postponement request such that neighbors can be sufficiently engaged and provided an opportunity to analyze such proposed changes. Respectfully, Chris Warren 2/27/24 3:36pm Dear Council Member Ellis and Commissioner Hempel - Our names are Doug and Susan Hinzie. We are residents of the Amarra Drive neighborhood that is directly across the street from the proposed Sunset Ride Apartments (Case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected and extremely environmentally sensitive region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The case is planned on the agenda of the Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 27th. A postponement has been requested as notification of this meeting was not provided to all residents within 500 feet of the proposed development. However, such postponement has been opposed by the Applicant. Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the City. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well-documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood 592 of 669• • • organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections 040, which called for a broad community Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful ‐ approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City of Austin and Manifold Investments in well-documented events. The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs Alliance. In conclusion, there needs to be due process and meaningful neighborhood engagement with any such developments affecting the delicate ecosystem of this Edwards Aquifer Contributing Zone that serves as a haven for local wildlife and endangered species. We respectfully request your public support for all the Interested Parties, Neighbors Of Amarra Drive, Travis Country West, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS in the postponement request such that neighbors can be sufficiently engaged and provided an opportunity to analyze such proposed changes. Respectfully, 593 of 669 Doug and Susan Hinzie 8416 Valerio Dr Austin, TX 78735 2/27/24 3:46pm Dear Council Member Ellis and Commissioner Hempel - My name is Kristen Alexandrov and I own the property at 8700 Southwest Parkway, near the proposed Sunset Ridge development (Case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected and extremely environmentally sensitive region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The case is planned on the agenda of the Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 27th. A postponement has been requested as notification of this meeting was not provided to all residents within 500 feet of the proposed development. However, such postponement has been opposed by the Applicant. Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the City. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well-documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • • • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, 594 of 669challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • 040, which called for a broad community Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful ‐ approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City of Austin and Manifold Investments in well-documented events. The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs Alliance. In conclusion, there needs to be due process and meaningful neighborhood engagement with any such developments affecting the delicate ecosystem of this Edwards Aquifer Contributing Zone that serves as a haven for local wildlife and endangered species. I respectfully request your public support for all the Interested Parties, Neighbors Of Amarra Drive, Travis Country West, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS in the postponement request such that neighbors can be sufficiently engaged and provided an opportunity to analyze such proposed changes. Respectfully, Kristen Alexandrov 2/27/24 3:54pm Dear Council Member Ellis and Commissioner Hempel - My name is Molly Adams. I am a resident in Amarra Drive that is directly across the street from the proposed Sunset Ride Apartments (Case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. 595 of 669Although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected and extremely environmentally sensitive region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The case is planned on the agenda of the Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 27th. A postponement has been requested as notification of this meeting was not provided to all residents within 500 feet of the proposed development. However, such postponement has been opposed by the Applicant. Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the City. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well-documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • • • • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City of Austin and Manifold Investments in well-documented events. 040, which called for a broad community dialogue ‐ 596 of 669The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs Alliance. In conclusion, there needs to be due process and meaningful neighborhood engagement with any such developments affecting the delicate ecosystem of this Edwards Aquifer Contributing Zone that serves as a haven for local wildlife and endangered species. I respectfully request your public support for all the Interested Parties, Neighbors Of Amarra Drive, Travis Country West, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS in the postponement request such that neighbors can be sufficiently engaged and provided an opportunity to analyze such proposed changes. Respectfully, Molly Adams 2/27/24 3:55pm Dear Paige Ellis, My name is Sofia Wise. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from 597 of 669the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state- mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the 598 of 669 letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113-040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. 599 of 669 When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 600 of 6693.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the 601 of 669restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non- partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Sofia Wise 2/27/24 3:57 Dear Council Member My name is Gary Urano. I am a resident in Amarra Drive that is directly across the street from the proposed Sunset Ride Apartments (Case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected and 602 of 669extremely environmentally sensitive region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The case is planned on the agenda of the Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 27th. A postponement has been requested as notification of this meeting was not provided to all residents within 500 feet of the proposed development. However, such postponement has been opposed by the Applicant. Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the City. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well-documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • • • • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code 040, which called for a broad community The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful ‐ approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City of Austin and Manifold Investments in well-documented events. 603 of 669The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs Alliance. In conclusion, there needs to be due process and meaningful neighborhood engagement with any such developments affecting the delicate ecosystem of this Edwards Aquifer Contributing Zone that serves as a haven for local wildlife and endangered species. I respectfully request your public support for all the Interested Parties, Neighbors Of Amarra Drive, Travis Country West, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS in the postponement request such that neighbors can be sufficiently engaged and provided an opportunity to analyze such proposed changes. Respectfully, Gary Urano 8616 Acuarela Ct Austin, TX 78735 2/27/24 3:58pm Dear Paige Ellis, My name is Julie Yarbrough. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: 604 of 669 Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful ‐ approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: 040, which called for a broad community 605 of 669 In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill 606 of 669Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress 607 of 669‐ approved Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non-partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Julie Yarbrough 5809 Medicine Creek Dr Austin, TX 78735 2/27/24 4:07pm Council Member Ellis and Commissioner Hempel - My name is Lauren Zima. I am a resident in Amarra Drive that is directly across the street from the proposed Sunset Ride Apartments (Case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing to notify you that our voices and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. 608 of 669No development of this proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected and extremely environmentally sensitive region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The case is planned on the agenda of the Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 27th. A postponement has been requested as notification of this meeting was not provided to all residents within 500 feet of the proposed development. However, such postponement has been opposed by the Applicant. Our case deserves fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. This postponement should be granted because of a well-documented lack of communication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • • • • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity to analyze the proposed and restrictive covenant changes Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code 040, which called for a broad community The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods, has been completely ‐ disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support has been repeatedly disregarded by The City of Austin and Manifold Investments in well- documented events. The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 609 of 669 Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs Alliance. I respectfully request your support for all the Interested Parties, Neighbors Of Amarra Drive, Travis Country West, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS in the postponement request such that neighbors can be sufficiently engaged and provided an opportunity to analyze such proposed changes. Thank you, Lauren Zima 2/27/24 4:13pm Dear Council Member Ellis and Commissioner Hempel - My name is Tamra Harris. I am a resident in Amarra Drive that is directly across the street from the proposed Sunset Ride Apartments (Case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected and extremely environmentally sensitive region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The case is planned on the agenda of the Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 27th. A postponement has been requested as notification of this meeting was not provided to all residents within 500 feet of the proposed development. However, such postponement has been opposed by the Applicant. Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the City. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well-documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account 610 of 669• • • address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections 040, which called for a broad community Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful ‐ approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City of Austin and Manifold Investments in well-documented events. The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs Alliance. In conclusion, there needs to be due process and meaningful neighborhood engagement with any such developments affecting the delicate ecosystem of this Edwards Aquifer Contributing Zone that serves as a haven for local wildlife and endangered species. I respectfully request your public support for all the Interested Parties, Neighbors Of Amarra Drive, Travis Country West, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS in the postponement request such that neighbors can be sufficiently engaged and provided an opportunity to analyze such proposed changes. 611 of 669Respectfully, Tamra Harris 2/27/24 4:14pm Dear Mr. Tomko, My name is Laura Perlman. I am a resident in Amarra Drive that is directly across the street from the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments (Case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected and extremely environmentally sensitive region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The case is planned on the agenda of the Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 27th. A postponement has been requested as notification of this meeting was not provided to all residents within 500 feet of the proposed development. However, such postponement has been opposed by the Applicant. Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the City. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well-documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • • • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections 612 of 669• Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code 040, which called for a broad community The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful ‐ approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City of Austin and Manifold Investments in well-documented events. The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs Alliance. In conclusion, there needs to be due process and meaningful neighborhood engagement with any such developments affecting the delicate ecosystem of this Edwards Aquifer Contributing Zone that serves as a haven for local wildlife and endangered species. I respectfully request your public support for all the Interested Parties, Neighbors Of Amarra Drive, Travis Country West, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS in the postponement request such that neighbors can be sufficiently engaged and provided an opportunity to analyze such proposed changes. Respectfully, Laura Perlman 2/27/24 4:16pm Dear Council Member Ellis and Commissioner Hempel - My name is Jeff Turk. I live on Peralta Lane in the Amarra neighborhood, directly across the street from the proposed Sunset Ride Apartments (Case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support. The case is planned on the agenda of the Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 27th. A postponement has been requested as notification of this meeting was not provided to all 613 of 669‐ 040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes residents within 500 feet of the proposed development as required by City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 and state notification laws. Despite the fact the city’s code has not been followed, postponement has been opposed by the Applicant. Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the City. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well-documented lack of communication and miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code. The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85- 288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City of Austin and Manifold Investments in well-documented events. The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs Alliance. In conclusion, there needs to be due process and meaningful neighborhood engagement with any such developments affecting the delicate ecosystem of this Edwards Aquifer Contributing Zone that serves as a haven for local wildlife and endangered species. I respectfully request your public support for all the Interested Parties, Neighbors Of Amarra Drive, Travis Country West, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS in the postponement request such that neighbors can be sufficiently engaged and provided an opportunity to analyze such proposed changes. --Jeff Turk Jeff Turk Chairman 2/27/24 4:17pm Dear Council Member Ellis and Commissioner Hempel - My name is _Steve Kelly__. I am a resident in Amarra Drive that is directly across the street from the proposed Sunset Ride Apartments (Case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I 614 of 669am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected and extremely environmentally sensitive region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The case is planned on the agenda of the Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 27th. A postponement has been requested as notification of this meeting was not provided to all residents within 500 feet of the proposed development. However, such postponement has been opposed by the Applicant. Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the City. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well-documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • • • • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful ‐ approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research 040, which called for a broad community 615 of 669and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City of Austin and Manifold Investments in well-documented events. The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs Alliance. In conclusion, there needs to be due process and meaningful neighborhood engagement with any such developments affecting the delicate ecosystem of this Edwards Aquifer Contributing Zone that serves as a haven for local wildlife and endangered species. I respectfully request your public support for all the Interested Parties, Neighbors Of Amarra Drive, Travis Country West, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS in the postponement request such that neighbors can be sufficiently engaged and provided an opportunity to analyze such proposed changes. Respectfully, _Steve Kelly__ 2/27/24 4:17pm Dear Council Members, My name is Charlene Key. I am a resident in Amarra Drive that is directly across the street from the proposed Sunset Ride Apartments (Case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected and extremely environmentally sensitive region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The case is planned on the agenda of the Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 27th. A postponement has been requested as notification of this meeting was not provided to all residents within 500 feet of the proposed development. However, such postponement has been opposed by the Applicant. Our case is unique and must have 616 of 669great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the City. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well-documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code 040, which called for a broad community The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful ‐ approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City of Austin and Manifold Investments in well-documented events. The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs Alliance. 617 of 669In conclusion, there needs to be due process and meaningful neighborhood engagement with any such developments affecting the delicate ecosystem of this Edwards Aquifer Contributing Zone that serves as a haven for local wildlife and endangered species. I respectfully request your public support for all the Interested Parties, Neighbors Of Amarra Drive, Travis Country West, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS in the postponement request such that neighbors can be sufficiently engaged and provided an opportunity to analyze such proposed changes. Respectfully, Charlene Key Charlene M. Key, Ph.D. 2/27/24 4:18pm Dear Council Member Ellis and Commissioner Hempel - My name is __Beverly Kelly__. I am a resident in Amarra Drive that is directly across the street from the proposed Sunset Ride Apartments (Case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected and extremely environmentally sensitive region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The case is planned on the agenda of the Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 27th. A postponement has been requested as notification of this meeting was not provided to all residents within 500 feet of the proposed development. However, such postponement has been opposed by the Applicant. Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the City. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well-documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account 618 of 669• • • address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections 040, which called for a broad community Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful ‐ approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City of Austin and Manifold Investments in well-documented events. The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs Alliance. In conclusion, there needs to be due process and meaningful neighborhood engagement with any such developments affecting the delicate ecosystem of this Edwards Aquifer Contributing Zone that serves as a haven for local wildlife and endangered species. I respectfully request your public support for all the Interested Parties, Neighbors Of Amarra Drive, Travis Country West, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS in the postponement request such that neighbors can be sufficiently engaged and provided an opportunity to analyze such proposed changes. 619 of 669Respectfully, _Beverly Kelly__ 2/27/24 4:18pm Dear Council Member Ellis and Commissioner Hempel, My name is Sean Toney. I am a resident in Amarra Drive that is directly across the street from the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments (Case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected and extremely environmentally sensitive region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The case is planned on the agenda of the Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 27th. A postponement has been requested as notification of this meeting was not provided to all residents within 500 feet of the proposed development. However, such postponement has been opposed by the Applicant. Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the City. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well-documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • • • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections 620 of 669• Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code 040, which called for a broad community The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful ‐ approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City of Austin and Manifold Investments in well-documented events. The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs Alliance. In conclusion, there needs to be due process and meaningful neighborhood engagement with any such developments affecting the delicate ecosystem of this Edwards Aquifer Contributing Zone that serves as a haven for local wildlife and endangered species. I respectfully request your public support for all the Interested Parties, Neighbors Of Amarra Drive, Travis Country West, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS in the postponement request such that neighbors can be sufficiently engaged and provided an opportunity to analyze such proposed changes. Respectfully, Sean Toney 2/27/24 4:24pm Dear Council Member Ellis and Commissioner Hempel - My name is Maureen Martin. I am a resident in Amarra Drive that is directly across the street from the proposed Sunset Ride Apartments (Case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. 621 of 669Although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected and extremely environmentally sensitive region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The case is planned on the agenda of the Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 27th. A postponement has been requested as notification of this meeting was not provided to all residents within 500 feet of the proposed development. However, such postponement has been opposed by the Applicant. Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the City. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well-documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code 040, which called for a broad community The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful ‐ approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City of Austin and Manifold Investments in well-documented events. The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City 622 of 669Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs Alliance. In conclusion, there needs to be due process and meaningful neighborhood engagement with any such developments affecting the delicate ecosystem of this Edwards Aquifer Contributing Zone that serves as a haven for local wildlife and endangered species. I respectfully request your public support for all the Interested Parties, Neighbors Of Amarra Drive, Travis Country West, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS in the postponement request such that neighbors can be sufficiently engaged and provided an opportunity to analyze such proposed changes. Respectfully, William and Maureen Martin 8600 Carranzo Dr Austin 78735 2/27/24 4:27pm Dear Council Member Ellis and Commissioner Hempel - My name is Diana Puzio. I am a resident in Amarra Drive that is directly across the street from the proposed Sunset Ride Apartments (Case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected and extremely environmentally sensitive region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The case is planned on the agenda of the Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 27th. A postponement has been requested as notification of this meeting was not provided to all residents within 500 feet of the proposed development. However, such postponement has been opposed by the Applicant. Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the City. 623 of 669This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well-documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • • • • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections 040, which called for a broad community Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful ‐ approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City of Austin and Manifold Investments in well-documented events. The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs Alliance. 624 of 669In conclusion, there needs to be due process and meaningful neighborhood engagement with any such developments affecting the delicate ecosystem of this Edwards Aquifer Contributing Zone that serves as a haven for local wildlife and endangered species. I respectfully request your public support for all the Interested Parties, Neighbors Of Amarra Drive, Travis Country West, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS in the postponement request such that neighbors can be sufficiently engaged and provided an opportunity to analyze such proposed changes. Respectfully, Diana Puzio 915-383-0154 2/27/24 4:29pm Dear Council Member Ellis and Commissioner Hempel - My name is Stephen Potts. I am a resident in Amarra Drive that is directly across the street from the proposed Sunset Ride Apartments (Case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected and extremely environmentally sensitive region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The case is planned on the agenda of the Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 27th. A postponement has been requested as notification of this meeting was not provided to all residents within 500 feet of the proposed development. However, such postponement has been opposed by the Applicant. Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the City. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well-documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood 625 of 669• • • organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code 040, which called for a broad community The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful ‐ approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City of Austin and Manifold Investments in well-documented events. The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs Alliance. In conclusion, there needs to be due process and meaningful neighborhood engagement with any such developments affecting the delicate ecosystem of this Edwards Aquifer Contributing Zone that serves as a haven for local wildlife and endangered species. I respectfully request your public support for all the Interested Parties, Neighbors Of Amarra Drive, Travis Country West, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS in the postponement request such that neighbors can be sufficiently engaged and provided an opportunity to analyze such proposed changes. Respectfully, 626 of 669 Stephen R. Potts 4716 Amarra Drive 2/27/24 4:33pm Dear Council Member Ellis and Commissioner Hempel - My name is Michael Beaumont. I am a resident in Amarra Drive that is directly across the street from the proposed Sunset Ride Apartments (Case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected and extremely environmentally sensitive region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The case is planned on the agenda of the Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 27th. A postponement has been requested as notification of this meeting was not provided to all residents within 500 feet of the proposed development. However, such postponement has been opposed by the Applicant. Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the City. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well-documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 040, which called for a broad community dialogue ‐ 627 of 669that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City of Austin and Manifold Investments in well-documented events. The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs Alliance. In conclusion, there needs to be due process and meaningful neighborhood engagement with any such developments affecting the delicate ecosystem of this Edwards Aquifer Contributing Zone that serves as a haven for local wildlife and endangered species. I respectfully request your public support for all the Interested Parties, Neighbors Of Amarra Drive, Travis Country West, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS in the postponement request such that neighbors can be sufficiently engaged and provided an opportunity to analyze such proposed changes. Respectfully, Michael Beaumont 2/27/24 4:40pm Dear Council Member Ellis and Commissioner Hempel - We are Margie & Pedro Diaz --residents in Amarra Drive that is directly across the street from the proposed Sunset Ride Apartments (Case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). We are writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected and extremely environmentally sensitive region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The case is planned on the agenda of the Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 27th. A postponement has been requested as notification of this meeting was not provided to all residents within 500 feet of the proposed development. However, such 628 of 669postponement has been opposed by the Applicant. Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the City. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well-documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • • • • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections 040, which called for a broad community Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful ‐ approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City of Austin and Manifold Investments in well-documented events. The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA 629 of 669are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs Alliance. In conclusion, there needs to be due process and meaningful neighborhood engagement with any such developments affecting the delicate ecosystem of this Edwards Aquifer Contributing Zone that serves as a haven for local wildlife and endangered species. We respectfully request your public support for all the Interested Parties, Neighbors Of Amarra Drive, Travis Country West, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS in the postponement request such that neighbors can be sufficiently engaged and provided an opportunity to analyze such proposed changes. 2/27/24 4:40pm Dear Paige Ellis, My name is Kim Pryor. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. No proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: 630 of 669 This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should also be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, 631 of 669challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to the Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113-040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say 632 of 669that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree 633 of 669Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of 634 of 669rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non- partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, Kim Pryor 2/27/24 4:52pm Dear Council Member Ellis and Commissioner Hempel - My name is Patricia Mancl. I am a resident in Amarra Drive that is directly across the street from the proposed Sunset Ride Apartments (Case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected and 635 of 669extremely environmentally sensitive region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The case is planned on the agenda of the Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 27th. A postponement has been requested as notification of this meeting was not provided to all residents within 500 feet of the proposed development. However, such postponement has been opposed by the Applicant. Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the City. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well-documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • • • • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful ‐ approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City of Austin and Manifold Investments in well-documented events. 040, which called for a broad community 636 of 669The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs Alliance. In conclusion, there needs to be due process and meaningful neighborhood engagement with any such developments affecting the delicate ecosystem of this Edwards Aquifer Contributing Zone that serves as a haven for local wildlife and endangered species. I respectfully request your public support for all the Interested Parties, Neighbors Of Amarra Drive, Travis Country West, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS in the postponement request such that neighbors can be sufficiently engaged and provided an opportunity to analyze such proposed changes. Respectfully, Patricia Mancl 2/27/24 4:52pm My name is Krista Thomas. I am a resident in Amarra Drive that is directly across the street from the proposed Sunset Ride Apartments (Case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected and extremely environmentally sensitive region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The case is planned on the agenda of the Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 27th. A postponement has been requested as notification of this meeting was not provided to all residents within 500 feet of the proposed development. However, such postponement has been opposed by the Applicant. Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the City. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well-documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request 637 of 669for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • • • • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections 040, which called for a broad community Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful ‐ approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City of Austin and Manifold Investments in well-documented events. The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs Alliance. In conclusion, there needs to be due process and meaningful neighborhood engagement with any such developments affecting the delicate ecosystem of this Edwards Aquifer Contributing Zone that serves as a haven for local wildlife and endangered species. 638 of 669 I respectfully request your public support for all the Interested Parties, Neighbors Of Amarra Drive, Travis Country West, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS in the postponement request such that neighbors can be sufficiently engaged and provided an opportunity to analyze such proposed changes. Respectfully, Krista Thomas 2/27/24 4:54pm Dear Council Member Ellis and Commissioner Hempel - My name is _Ava Blair______. I am a resident in Amarra Drive that is directly across the street from the proposed Sunset Ride Apartments (Case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected and extremely environmentally sensitive region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The case is planned on the agenda of the Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 27th. A postponement has been requested as notification of this meeting was not provided to all residents within 500 feet of the proposed development. However, such postponement has been opposed by the Applicant. Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the City. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well-documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 639 of 669• • • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections 040, which called for a broad community Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful ‐ approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City of Austin and Manifold Investments in well-documented events. The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs Alliance. In conclusion, there needs to be due process and meaningful neighborhood engagement with any such developments affecting the delicate ecosystem of this Edwards Aquifer Contributing Zone that serves as a haven for local wildlife and endangered species. I respectfully request your public support for all the Interested Parties, Neighbors Of Amarra Drive, Travis Country West, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS in the postponement request such that neighbors can be sufficiently engaged and provided an opportunity to analyze such proposed changes. Respectfully, ___Ava Blair_____________ 640 of 6692/27/24 4:55pm Dear Council Member Ellis and Commissioner Hempel - My name is ___Tyson Blair_____________. I am a resident in Amarra Drive that is directly across the street from the proposed Sunset Ride Apartments (Case # C14-85- 288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected and extremely environmentally sensitive region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The case is planned on the agenda of the Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 27th. A postponement has been requested as notification of this meeting was not provided to all residents within 500 feet of the proposed development. However, such postponement has been opposed by the Applicant. Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the City. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well-documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • • • • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code 641 of 669040, which called for a broad community The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful ‐ approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City of Austin and Manifold Investments in well-documented events. The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs Alliance. In conclusion, there needs to be due process and meaningful neighborhood engagement with any such developments affecting the delicate ecosystem of this Edwards Aquifer Contributing Zone that serves as a haven for local wildlife and endangered species. I respectfully request your public support for all the Interested Parties, Neighbors Of Amarra Drive, Travis Country West, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS in the postponement request such that neighbors can be sufficiently engaged and provided an opportunity to analyze such proposed changes. Respectfully, ____Tyson Blair____________ 2/27/24 4:57pm Dear Council Member Ellis and Commissioner Hempel - My name is Heather Kasten. I am a resident in Amarra Drive that is directly across the street from the proposed Sunset Ride Apartments (Case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected and extremely environmentally sensitive region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). 642 of 669 The case is planned on the agenda of the Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 27th. A postponement has been requested as notification of this meeting was not provided to all residents within 500 feet of the proposed development. However, such postponement has been opposed by the Applicant. Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the City. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well-documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code 040, which called for a broad community The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful ‐ approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City of Austin and Manifold Investments in well-documented events. The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association 643 of 669of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs Alliance. In conclusion, there needs to be due process and meaningful neighborhood engagement with any such developments affecting the delicate ecosystem of this Edwards Aquifer Contributing Zone that serves as a haven for local wildlife and endangered species. I respectfully request your public support for all the Interested Parties, Neighbors Of Amarra Drive, Travis Country West, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS in the postponement request such that neighbors can be sufficiently engaged and provided an opportunity to analyze such proposed changes. Respectfully, Heather Kasten 2/27/24 4:58pm Dear Council Member Ellis and Commissioner Hempel - My name is Dave Mancl. I am a resident in Amarra Drive that is directly across the street from the proposed Sunset Ride Apartments (Case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected and extremely environmentally sensitive region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The case is planned on the agenda of the Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 27th. A postponement has been requested as notification of this meeting was not provided to all residents within 500 feet of the proposed development. However, such postponement has been opposed by the Applicant. Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the City. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well-documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: 644 of 669• • • • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections 040, which called for a broad community Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful ‐ approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City of Austin and Manifold Investments in well-documented events. The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs Alliance. In conclusion, there needs to be due process and meaningful neighborhood engagement with any such developments affecting the delicate ecosystem of this Edwards Aquifer Contributing Zone that serves as a haven for local wildlife and endangered species. I respectfully request your public support for all the Interested Parties, Neighbors Of Amarra Drive, Travis Country West, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS in the postponement 645 of 669request such that neighbors can be sufficiently engaged and provided an opportunity to analyze such proposed changes. Respectfully, Dave Mancl 2/27/24 5:03pm Dear Council Member Ellis and Commissioner Hempel - My name is Frederic GUERARD. I am a resident in Amarra Drive that is directly across the street from the proposed Sunset Ride Apartments (Case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected and extremely environmentally sensitive region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The case is planned on the agenda of the Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 27th. A postponement has been requested as notification of this meeting was not provided to all residents within 500 feet of the proposed development. However, such postponement has been opposed by the Applicant. Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the City. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well-documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • • • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, 646 of 669challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • ‐ 040, which called for a broad community dialogue Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City of Austin and Manifold Investments in well-documented events. The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs Alliance. In conclusion, there needs to be due process and meaningful neighborhood engagement with any such developments affecting the delicate ecosystem of this Edwards Aquifer Contributing Zone that serves as a haven for local wildlife and endangered species. I respectfully request your public support for all the Interested Parties, Neighbors Of Amarra Drive, Travis Country West, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS in the postponement request such that neighbors can be sufficiently engaged and provided an opportunity to analyze such proposed changes. Respectfully, Frederic GUERARD 2/27/24 5:05pm Dear Council Member Ellis and Commissioner Hempel - My name is Melinda Grace. I am a resident in Amarra Drive that is directly across the street from the proposed Sunset Ride Apartments (Case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. 647 of 669Although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected and extremely environmentally sensitive region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The case is planned on the agenda of the Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 27th. A postponement has been requested as notification of this meeting was not provided to all residents within 500 feet of the proposed development. However, such postponement has been opposed by the Applicant. Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the City. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well-documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • • • • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful ‐ approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City of Austin and Manifold Investments in well-documented events. 040, which called for a broad community 648 of 669 The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs Alliance. In conclusion, there needs to be due process and meaningful neighborhood engagement with any such developments affecting the delicate ecosystem of this Edwards Aquifer Contributing Zone that serves as a haven for local wildlife and endangered species. I respectfully request your public support for all the Interested Parties, Neighbors Of Amarra Drive, Travis Country West, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS in the postponement request such that neighbors can be sufficiently engaged and provided an opportunity to analyze such proposed changes. Respectfully, Guy and Melinda Grace 4517 Peralta Ln. Austin, Texas 78735 Melinda Grace 2/27/24 5:25pm Dear Council Member Ellis and Commissioner Hempel - My name is Francois Du Pasquier I am a resident in Amarra Drive that is directly across the street from the proposed Sunset Ride Apartments (Case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected and extremely environmentally sensitive region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The case is planned on the agenda of the Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 27th. A postponement has been requested as notification of this meeting was not 649 of 669provided to all residents within 500 feet of the proposed development. However, such postponement has been opposed by the Applicant. Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the City. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well-documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • • • • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code 040, which called for a broad community The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful ‐ approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City of Austin and Manifold Investments in well-documented events. The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 650 of 669Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs Alliance. In conclusion, there needs to be due process and meaningful neighborhood engagement with any such developments affecting the delicate ecosystem of this Edwards Aquifer Contributing Zone that serves as a haven for local wildlife and endangered species. I respectfully request your public support for all the Interested Parties, Neighbors Of Amarra Drive, Travis Country West, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS in the postponement request such that neighbors can be sufficiently engaged and provided an opportunity to analyze such proposed changes. Respectfully, Francois Du Pasquier 2/27/24 5:26pm Dear Council Member Ellis and Commissioner Hempel - My name is __Cecil Christensen______________. I am a resident in Amarra Drive that is directly across the street from the proposed Sunset Ride Apartments (Case # C14- 85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected and extremely environmentally sensitive region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The case is planned on the agenda of the Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 27th. A postponement has been requested as notification of this meeting was not provided to all residents within 500 feet of the proposed development. However, such postponement has been opposed by the Applicant. Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the City. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well-documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: 651 of 669 • • • • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections 040, which called for a broad community Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful ‐ approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City of Austin and Manifold Investments in well-documented events. The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs Alliance. In conclusion, there needs to be due process and meaningful neighborhood engagement with any such developments affecting the delicate ecosystem of this Edwards Aquifer Contributing Zone that serves as a haven for local wildlife and endangered species. 652 of 669I respectfully request your public support for all the Interested Parties, Neighbors Of Amarra Drive, Travis Country West, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS in the postponement request such that neighbors can be sufficiently engaged and provided an opportunity to analyze such proposed changes. Respectfully, Cecil Christensen 2/27/24 5:52pm Dear Paige Ellis, My name is Joan Dumais. I am a resident of Travis Country West on Cobblestone. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. 653 of 669 This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113-040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: 654 of 669 In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023-0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis Country West HOA was never notified regarding 655 of 669any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e- mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) 656 of 669The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city-approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City 657 of 669Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non-partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Thank you! Joan Dumais 8205 Cobblestone Austin, TX 78735 2/28/24 8:00am Dear Council Member Ellis and Commissioner Hempel - My name is Erika Blankenship. I am a resident in Amarra Drive that is directly across the street from the proposed Sunset Ride Apartments (Case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected and extremely environmentally sensitive region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The case is planned on the agenda of the Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 27th. A postponement has been requested as notification of this meeting was not provided to all residents within 500 feet of the proposed development. However, such postponement has been opposed by the Applicant. Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that 658 of 669is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the City. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well-documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • • • • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections 040, which called for a broad community Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful ‐ approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City of Austin and Manifold Investments in well-documented events. The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association 659 of 669of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs Alliance. In conclusion, there needs to be due process and meaningful neighborhood engagement with any such developments affecting the delicate ecosystem of this Edwards Aquifer Contributing Zone that serves as a haven for local wildlife and endangered species. I respectfully request your public support for all the Interested Parties, Neighbors Of Amarra Drive, Travis Country West, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS in the postponement request such that neighbors can be sufficiently engaged and provided an opportunity to analyze such proposed changes. Respectfully, Erika Blankenship 2/28/24 12:31pm Dear Paige Ellis, My name is Alan Do. I am a resident of Travis Country West. This email is regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Our official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2). Our neighborhood is entitled to one postponement. That postponement has been requested and will go to a postponement discussion before the The City Planning Commission This Tuesday (2/27/24). Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the city. Please see a photograph of the sign posted on the East parcel of case #: C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) on 12/7/23: This postponement should be granted specifically because, if the Restrictive Covenant Amendment were to pass with the Planning Commission, then case 660 of 669#: C14-85-288.166(RCA2) would receive one reading before the City Council with no ability to create a valid petition for The Neighbors Of Travis Country West. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: o Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 o Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes o Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state- mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections o Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code Mrs. Ellis, given that your husband Edward Espinosa was appointed to The Ethics Commission by Mayor Kirk Watson, please ensure that our voice is measured within the letter of the law. Please support all City Code and City Ordinances that govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). Edward Espinosa was quoted as saying that The Ethics Commission is about answering the question “do the facts meet the code - and that’s calling balls and strikes. That’s not any sort of political ideology.” The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 040, which called for a broad community dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). ‐ 661 of 669The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments with regards to the following in a well-documented timeline: In Fall 2011, the City conducted meetings to engage community participants in discussions on expectations related to a community engagement plan and process among proposed affordable housing developers, City officials and area stakeholders. Participants in the discussions included neighborhood leaders, tenants of permanent supportive housing, housing developers, service providers, and members of business and faith communities. Common themes for desired outcomes in the above conversations included the following areas where Manifold Investments and the City Of Austin have let our community and many other constituents of District 8 down: 1.) Transparency of information about a proposed development (whether provided by the developer or the City of Austin): The Travis Country West Home Owners Association was not contacted nor contacted before or after 12/08/23 when Zoning Change signage of a Public Hearing referenced file #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) regarding 8401 & 8401 ½ Southwest Parkway. When Nancy Estrada was contacted, she had very little information regarding the application. She could only say that the applicant had applied for S.M.A.R.T. Housing Financing and breakdown what that would look like from an affordable housing perspective with-in the 438 Unit framework. On 12/23/24 some residents of Travis Country West began receiving a Notice Of Filing Of Administrative Approval Of Site Plan under Case #: SP-2023- 0448C.SH that referenced 8413 Southwest Parkway. This document had a deadline to register as an “interested party” no later than 01/10/24. These documents were dated 12/20/23. When Site Plan Manager, Chris Sapuppo and Assistant Site Plan Manager, Mase Cone were contacted, they were pushing a narrative that nothing would happen anytime soon and that this project was years away. The application that Manifold Investments submitted to the city indicated they had “site control” in November 0f 2023, and that they intend to break ground for this project in September of 2024. As the Travis Country West Community attempted to organize, a new Notice Of Filing Of Application for Commission Approval Of A Site Plan Hill Country Roadway was received on 01/17/24. This documented was dated 01/12/24. The new notice no longer included a deadline. The Travis 662 of 669Country West HOA was never notified regarding any erroneous communications from the city. To further complicate matters, throughout this entire process, numerous registered “interested parties” have been left off of e-mails and/or not received official communications. Chris Sapuppo did not update “interested parties” in the case file regarding #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) that should have been available under The Freedom Of Information Act until requested to do so on 01/18/24. This was one day prior to the scheduled meeting on 01/19/24 where Manifold Investments was scheduled to address “Interested Party” questions. Manifold Investments non-answered nearly every question with “we are doing everything to meet City Code,” which has been found to be false on issues including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Moreover, a Tree Survey was requested on 01/19/24. No Interested Parties received a tree study before the Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24, at which time a Tree Survey was again requested. Further, no Interested Parties were notified about The Environmental Commission Meeting discussion on 02/07/24, regarding case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA), to amend the Restrictive Deed Covenant associated with the East parcel. Although, the public was notified of a Zoning Change regarding the property in question, The Environmental Commissioners indicated that no notification was required because case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is not a Zoning Case. No Interested Parties received the Tree Survey, requested on 01/19/24 & again on 02/07/24, until 3 days ago on 02/23/24. The Tree Survey Document has a preparation date of November, 2023. The accompanying Environmental Resources Inventory has a preparation date of 09/20/23, and screams sinkhole / Karst Formations when considering this is the site of Canyon Springs noted on the U.S. Geological Survey and the following information is known regarding the terrain: 3.2 Site Geology Geological information pertaining to the area was obtained from the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, published by University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) (Figure 4), 1997. The subject property is situated on the Glen Rose Formation, upper (Kgr(u)) The Bureau of Economic Geology defines Glen Rose Formation (Kgr(u)), as "Limestone, dolomite, and marl subdivided into two units by Cobula bed C; alternating resistant and recessive beds forming stairstep topography; limestone aphanitic to fine-grained, hard to soft and marly, light gray to 663 of 669yellowish gray; dolomite; fine-grained, porous, yellowish brown; marine megafossils include molluscan steinkerns, rudistids, oysters, and echinoids; upper part relatively thinner bedded, more dolomitic, and less fossiliferous than the lower part, thickness about 220 feet; lower part more massive and about 160 feet thick, includes at top Corbula bed, C, with abundant steinkerns of Corbula harveyi (hill) in an interval up to 5 feet thick; thickness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet."ckness of Glen Rose Formation 380+/- feet." This information should have been given as requested prior to The Environmental Commission Meeting on 02/07/24 and is grounds for a postponement, in addition to, the disregard of numerous other City Codes and City Ordinances including, but not limited to Hill Country Roadway Ordinances, Impervious Coverage Codes, Ingress / Egress Codes, Traffic Impact Analysis, and S.M.A.R.T. Housing Application Requirements. Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) is a rezoning case that does not have to follow the rules and regulations of rezoning up to this point and any opposition to this development is not being given a voice. 2.) Consistency with existing neighborhood plans and other city approved planning documents designed by community stakeholders: The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant in Case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA) are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. ‐ 3.) Effective and predictable methods of communication between parties: Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs alliance. Because this is now not being considered a rezoning case, The City Of Austin and Manifold Investments were have not been required to notify residents of the Environmental Commission hearing that took place on 2/7/24, as well as, many other aspects of due process that have been averted. We deserve due process and a voice. In conclusion, my concerns pertaining to the proposed Sunset Ridge Apartments are non-partisan policy issues. My official position on this matter is that although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi- family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that 664 of 669govern the properties in case #: C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am humbly requesting that you show public support for all “Interested Parties,” Neighbors Of Travis Country West, Neighbors Of Barton Creek Southwest, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS. Please publicly support the postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Restrictive Deed Covenant Amendment - Sunset Ridge at The Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesday, February 27th at 6:00 p.m.. Sincerely, Alan Do 2/28/24 3:43pm Dear Council Member Ellis and Commissioner Hempel - My name is Paula Collins, my husband Michael Collins and I, are resident in Amarra Drive (4624 Amarra) that is directly across the street from the proposed Sunset Ride Apartments (Case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). I am writing with the greatest sense of urgency to notify you that our voice and those of surrounding neighborhoods are not being heard. We need your support at the city level. Although Affordable Housing may have its merits, no proposed multi-family development of the proposed density, size, and scope has a place in this protected and extremely environmentally sensitive region as evidenced by the City Codes and Ordinances that govern the properties in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The case is planned on the agenda of the Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 27th. A postponement has been requested as notification of this meeting was not provided to all residents within 500 feet of the proposed development. However, such postponement has been opposed by the Applicant. Our case is unique and must have great consideration when it comes to fair and due process as it is a rezoning case that is being presented as a Restrictive Covenant Amendment. Evidence that this is a rezoning case comes directly from the City. This postponement should be granted specifically because of a well-documented lack of communication and general miscommunication on the part of both Manifold Investments and City Of Austin Case Managers. Key reasons to grant a postponement request for Agenda Item #21 - C14-85-288.166(RCA2) - Sunset Ridge include, but are not limited to the following: • Failure to provide notice not later than the 11th day before the date of the hearing to all property owners within 500 feet, residents who have a City utility account address within 500 feet, and registered environmental or neighborhood 665 of 669organizations whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet as per City of Austin Land Development Code § 25-1-132 • Affected residents, neighborhood organizations and environmental organizations have not had sufficient opportunity analyze such proposed restrictive covenant changes • Proceeding on this agenda item with such a defect in state-mandated written notice statutes prevents the opportunity for interested parties to support, protest, challenge or recommend changes to such restrictive covenant amendments without affording these protections • Failure to follow the mandatory notice requirements would render any actions void under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code 040, which called for a broad community The facts of this case will show that The Good Neighbor Policy, offered in response to Austin City Council resolution 20110113 dialogue that includes stakeholders from neighborhoods to establish successful ‐ approaches for integrating affordable housing throughout the city, has been completely disregarded in case # C14-85-288.166(RCA2). The resolution that called for research and reporting on best practices in engaging communities and building support for permanent supportive housing projects has been repeatedly disregarded by The City of Austin and Manifold Investments in well-documented events. The requests to amend the restrictive deed covenant are not in line with the Oak Hill Neighborhood Plan, nor are they in line with The Imagine Austin Comprehensive City Plan. Southwest Parkway is a Hill Country Roadway that is not an Imagine Austin Corridor. Due to the methodology employed by Manifold Investments, this case will not go before the City Council. The Travis Country West HOA, and The Barton Creek Southwest HOA are opposed to this development. They have the full support of the Oak Hill Association of Neighbors, the Oak Hill Neighborhood Planning Contact Team, and Save Our Springs Alliance. In conclusion, there needs to be due process and meaningful neighborhood engagement with any such developments affecting the delicate ecosystem of this Edwards Aquifer Contributing Zone that serves as a haven for local wildlife and endangered species. I respectfully request your public support for all the Interested Parties, Neighbors Of Amarra Drive, Travis Country West, OHAN, OHNPCT, and SOS in the postponement request such that neighbors can be sufficiently engaged and provided an opportunity to analyze such proposed changes. Respectfully, Paula & Michael Collins 666 of 6692/28/24 4:12pm PC Item 21, Leigh Ziegler Chair, OHNPCT February 27, 2024 Postponement is requested since so much remains in the dark relative to the RC Revision. This is a poor premise to claim equity and a particularly inappropriate derailment of the process to get Residential Use in an OFFICE designated Neighborhood Plan- otherwise, not allowed. One can only hope any change to a restrictive covenant would serve to balance goals from the Future Land Use Map with a well designed project. This revision truly addresses not 1 but 2 tracts both with non- conforming land use which should be reviewed jointly to proceed effectively in revision. Clearly, the project fails to meet criterion necessary to enable a Compact Connected lifestyle required for any application that meets affordability unlocked and achieves Smart Housing. There is no available transit planned for this project, no access to groceries or events without having full use of a car. Affordability unlocked does not apply. It seems irresponsible that this location is not being seen for its geologic features and constraints- like blind roadway access and surrounding location. Current evaluation is under the guise of affordability- a showcase to get 438 residential units quickly and inappropriately applied to the current Office designation. The area is marked by significant MF housing. This would decrease safety on a limited capacity road bounded by limestone ridges, rimrock and drop-offs- without area for expansion. This is undeniably delinquent to the safety of existing and new residents. A back door approach without appropriate review and detail includes failure to allow interested parties review of the current file application in person in advance despite formal review status. 667 of 669For this reason alone a postponement is in order. 2/29/24 6:20pm Chris Sapuppo and Jonathan Tomko: I have many questions that the case file may address. It is inappropriate to do a PIR as an interested party especially since the case will be advanced before that is fulfilled and most importantly, the notice includes case review by appointment with the Case Assistant ,Mase Cone. I did request it of both of you so that you would be informed and have the opportunity to direct staff. I am unclear about any deviation from this practice. In any case I would also like to learn the details of changes made regarding the IP lzoning status under the OFFICE land use of tract 1 being reviewed by Planning Commission and the basis for those changes. I have seen the drainage notes but there is no topo map or identification of change in drainage from the Barton Watershed to the Williamson Creek Watershed if that is in fact the case. I just want to get some facts correct before advancement of this project. Perhaps you can address the above concerns while I attempt to sort out the disclosure process out from my end. Thank you, Leigh 3/1/24 12:57pm From Jonathan Tomko To: Leigh Ziegler Hi Leigh, I apologize it has taken me so long to get back to you, I have a heavy caseload and I wanted to do some more research before getting back to you so I could be comprehensive. I'm not sure who Chandler is, he is not a reviewer on either the rezoning case or the associated site plan review. Both the zoning case and the site plan review are completely different processes and, in this case, as is sometimes the case, concurrent processes. This is the history on this piece of property as I understand it: September 17, 1987 - by Ordinance No. 870917-D the base zoning was changed from Interim RR (Rural Residence District) to IP (Industrial Park). June 10, 2010 - Council unanimously approved an amendment to a portion of the restrictive covenant through C14-85-288.166(RCA) as it relates to certain uses and development standards, Zoning was changed from IP-NP to GO-NP, but then Council ended up approving GO-CO-NP. This was through rezoning case C14-2010- 0042 and Ordinance No. 20100610-059. The conditional overlay stipulated 3 things: A. A site plan or building permit for the Property may not be approved, released, or issued, if the completed development or uses of the Property, considered 668 of 669cumulatively with all existing or previously authorized development and uses, generate traffic that exceeds 2,200 trips per day. B. Section 25-2-1025(A) (Natural Area) of the Code is modified: (1) to allow water quality and detention pond facilities for an office use to count toward fulfillment of the 40 percent natural area requirement; and (2) to reduce the natural area requirement to 30 percent for a religious assembly use and allow water quality and detention pond facilities to count toward fulfillment of this requirement. February 27, 2024, now postponed to March 26, 2024 - through a restrictive covenant amendment, (which is a recorded agreement between the City and the applicant) C14-85- 288.166(RCA2) - Planning Commission will be reviewing the request to amend the RCA as outlined in redlined RCA attached to the staff report. Concurrently a site plan review is being undertaken: SPC-2023-0448C.SH That's a comprehensive overview. Let me know if you have any other questions. Jonathan 669 of 669