02 C14-2025-0064 - Circle C Tract 110; District 8 - Public Comment — original pdf

Backup

02 C14-2025-0064 - Circle C Tract 110; District 81 of 2802 C14-2025-0064 - Circle C Tract 110; District 82 of 2802 C14-2025-0064 - Circle C Tract 110; District 83 of 2802 C14-2025-0064 - Circle C Tract 110; District 84 of 28-----Original Message----- From: Lisa Peters Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 11:30 AM To: LandUseLiaison <LandUseLiaison@austintexas.gov> Subject: August 18 Mtg - Circle C Stratus Development [You don't often get email from https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Learn why this is important at External Email - Exercise Caution Re Case C14-2025-0064 Hello, I am unable to attend the meeting on Tuesday, but I want to request your voting to reject the large size of this development. Adding this amount of traffic to the intersection located right at the elementary school for my home will drastically increase the safety challenges in this area for our smallest children. These roads would need to drastically change to handle that traffic and would still increase safety concerns due to their location at the very center of pedestrian traffic for the school. I am begging you to require a smaller quantity of apartment homes for this area or to require outlets directly to Mopac rather than snaking through our neighborhood streets. Please don’t put our kids in danger. Please. Thank you for your time, Lisa Peters, Circle C 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. For any additional questions or concerns, contact CSIRT at "cybersecurity@austintexas.gov". 02 C14-2025-0064 - Circle C Tract 110; District 85 of 2802 C14-2025-0064 - Circle C Tract 110; District 86 of 2802 C14-2025-0064 - Circle C Tract 110; District 87 of 2802 C14-2025-0064 - Circle C Tract 110; District 88 of 2802 C14-2025-0064 - Circle C Tract 110; District 89 of 2802 C14-2025-0064 - Circle C Tract 110; District 810 of 2802 C14-2025-0064 - Circle C Tract 110; District 811 of 2802 C14-2025-0064 - Circle C Tract 110; District 812 of 2802 C14-2025-0064 - Circle C Tract 110; District 813 of 2802 C14-2025-0064 - Circle C Tract 110; District 814 of 2802 C14-2025-0064 - Circle C Tract 110; District 815 of 28solution when a highway is right there?” Stratus made poor planning decisions. Require them to pay for an overpass that has been planned and will be needed for safety, access and connectivity (all of which are part of the Imagine Austin Plan) Or will the Taxpayers pay the price? Environment This property is in the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone, the Barton Springs Watershed and the Water Quality Protection zone. In fact, the Edwards Aquifer as a whole remains one of the region's most important drinking water resources for about 2 million people in the San Antonio and Hill Country areas. I recognize that the applicant has stated the project would still comply with the Save Our Springs Ordinance. However, compliance with SOS is not the question before the Commission. The question is whether the City should remove additional, site-specific protections that the city, and by proxy you, deliberately negotiated. Compliance with SOS establishes a regulatory minimum; it does not render the Conditional Overlay unnecessary. The existing restrictions on multifamily residential and certain retail uses were intended to limit development intensity and reduce impacts associated with increased traffic, wastewater generation, storm water runoff, noise, and pollutants such as oil, grease, fertilizers, and pet waste. A multifamily development increases intensity and that is exactly the problem. Because the Conditional Overlay and Development Agreement were adopted to address the unique characteristics of this property, the burden should be on the applicant to demonstrate that the factual circumstances justifying those protections have materially changed. In this case, the applicant has not shown that they have. The Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone has not moved. The watershed has not changed. The environmental sensitivity of this site remains exactly as it was when these protections were negotiated. If anything, the need for these protections has become even greater. The Texas Water Development Board's State Water Plan identifies increasing pressure on Texas water resources resulting from continued population growth and prolonged drought. Likewise, the City of Austin's Water Forward Plan recognizes the importance of conservation, water quality protection, and sustainable long-term planning. In 2024, the Austin City Council, including Mayor Kirk Watson and Council Member Paige Ellis, unanimously reaffirmed those commitments by adopting the updated Water Forward Plan. Nancy Estrada and Amanda Swor may point to Imagine Austin and the City's goal of encouraging increased density along major transportation corridors. I recognize that Austin must plan for growth. However, Imagine Austin is a policy framework—not a mandate to increase intensity on every property near a major roadway regardless of the property's unique characteristics. 02 C14-2025-0064 - Circle C Tract 110; District 816 of 2802 C14-2025-0064 - Circle C Tract 110; District 817 of 2802 C14-2025-0064 - Circle C Tract 110; District 818 of 28Unfulfilled obligations. Stratus has unfulfilled obligations under the 2002 Development Agreement. Density under the Development Agreement. Stratus has acknowledged there are insufficient residential living unit allocations remaining under the Development Agreement to build the proposed 1,000 apartments. Traffic and public safety. Tract 110's infrastructure is not equipped for high-density residential use, and there is no southern access relief. The proposed 1,000 apartments would generate roughly 1,500–2,000 vehicle trips during peak hours — more than double what office development would produce — overwhelming the single deceleration lane on Loop 1 and the two-lane inner-neighborhood streets of Dahlgreen, La Crosse, and Gorham Glen. SB 840. I urge the Council to recognize that legal settlement agreements and restrictive covenants that travel with land title are exempt from SB 840. This zoning conversion is governed by a legal Development Agreement, and Stratus is therefore not entitled to the allowances afforded under SB 840. Affordable housing. I was encouraged to see Stratus reinstate a 10% affordable housing component through a partnership with HomeBase at the June 18th town hall, in what are otherwise luxury apartments, and I thank the Council for any role it played in that reinstatement. I would note that 10% is unlikely to meaningfully address Austin's affordability crisis. Missing middle housing. Tract 110 is better suited to a less dense missing-middle development that complements the existing Circle C infrastructure and neighborhood character than to 1,000 apartments in an already saturated apartment market. That would also help fill a real gap in Austin's housing stock. Stratus liquidation. Stratus has announced it is liquidating its public company. An upzoning granted on the eve of liquidation looks like a value-inflating measure rather than long-term planning — contrary to the intent of the original Development Agreement, and at the expense of the safety and welfare of the surrounding community. Environment. Tract 110 sits directly above the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone and a fragile, intricate karst system — the same geology that caused repeated and costly construction delays during the MoPac extension between Slaughter Lane and Highway 45. Undeveloped property. Because state law has reversed the City's ability to mandate parkland dedication, the undeveloped portions of Tract 110 are vulnerable. Can the City place restrictions on the future undeveloped portion of Tract 110 to ensure it remains green space? I am not here to block development. I am here to make sure it is done safely, responsibly, and consistent with the commitments made to this community and to the environment. I recognize that Austin faces serious housing challenges and that increasing supply is a legitimate public policy objective. In this specific area, however, there is already ample multifamily supply, with a vacancy rate above 10% within a five-mile radius. Thank you for your time, your service to the City of Austin, and your careful consideration of these comments. 02 C14-2025-0064 - Circle C Tract 110; District 819 of 2802 C14-2025-0064 - Circle C Tract 110; District 820 of 28Subject: Traffic and commute issues due to - Tract 110 Zoning Conversion Case No. C14- 2025-0064 Dear Nancy Estrada and Council Members, I am a resident who lives in the neighborhood, and I use the Dahlgreen Ave / La Crosse Ave intersection as part of my morning commute. During the school year, the traffic at that intersection causes tremendous traffic congestion. Adding 1,000 apartments and thus a higher magnitude of commuters to the area will wreak havic to an already over congested area. I suggest you come to the area during the time when the school is getting in session to personally observe the traffic situation. This would give personal experience of how unfeasible adding such a large infusion of additional commuters is to the existing infrastructure. To be clear: I am not opposed to development at Tract 110. I oppose the zoning conversion as currently drafted due to its proposed density, unresolved safety and traffic issues, and the relief it provides Stratus from obligations under the 2002 Development Agreement. I respectfully ask you all to keep this issue Off the Consent Agenda so it can receive full public deliberation. I am writing to you in opposition of Stratus' upzoning request in Case No. C14-2025-0064 as it is currently drafted. Please require a full Traffic Impact Analysis or the equivalent operational traffic study be conducted before the case is voted on in September and that the results be shared with the public so we can comment on them. It is clear that the existing traffic infrastructure in the surrounding inner neighborhood streets and along the school zone cannot address the traffic identified in the ZTA. By delaying the TIA until the site plan, the city loses precious time to come up with solutions to already obvious problems. The developers need to be held accountable to fund the traffic solution per the existing 2002 Development Agreement with the City instead of having the City and the State absorb the costs. 02 C14-2025-0064 - Circle C Tract 110; District 821 of 28 I also respectfully request that the City Council deny the proposed amendment to the Conditional Overlay and preserve the existing restrictions. The Conditional Overlay was not imposed accidentally. It was adopted by ordinance as part of the zoning for this property because the City determined that the underlying CS-MU zoning alone was insufficient to address the unique characteristics of this Tract 110. Before eliminating these long-standing conditions, the City of Austin should require a clear demonstration that the planning, environmental, transportation, and compatibility concerns that justified those restrictions have materially changed. Please consider these specific points: Unfulfilled Obligations Stratus has unfulfilled obligations under the 2002 Development Agreement. Density Under the Development Agreement Stratus admitted there are insufficient residential living unit allocations remaining under the Development Agreement to build the proposed 1,000 apartments. Traffic & Public Safety Tract 110’s infrastructure is not equipped for high-density residential use. There is no southern access relief. The proposed 1,000 apartments would generate roughly 1,500– 2,000 vehicles during peak hours — more than double what office development would produce — overwhelming the single deceleration lane on Loop 1 and the two-lane inner- neighborhood streets (Dahlgreen, LaCrosse, and Gorham Glen). Legal Opinion on SB 840 I urge that legal settlement agreements and restrictive covenants that travel with land title are exempt from SB 840. This zoning conversion is governed by a legal Development Agreement and as such, Stratus is not entitled to the allowances afforded under SB 840. Affordable Housing 02 C14-2025-0064 - Circle C Tract 110; District 822 of 28 I was encouraged to see Stratus reinstate a 10% affordable housing component through a partnership with HomeBase at their June 18th Town Hall, in what otherwise are luxury apartments. I thank the Council for any role it played in this reinstatement. I would urge that 10% is not likely to address the affordable housing crisis in Austin. Missing Middle Housing I suggest that Tract 110 is better suited to a less dense missing middle housing development that complements the Circle C infrastructure and neighborhood character, rather than 1,000 apartments in an already saturated apartment market. This serves to help fill this gap for such housing in the City of Austin. Stratus Liquidation Stratus has announced it is liquidating its public company. I believe this upzoning request — a value-inflating measure rather than long-term planning — could be viewed as an abuse of City resources, contrary to the intent of the original Development Agreement, and a threat to the safety and welfare of the Circle C community. Environment Tract 110 sits directly above the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone and a fragile, intricate karst system — the same geology that caused repeated, costly construction delays during the MoPac extension between Slaughter Lane and Highway 45. Undeveloped Property Finally, because state law has reversed the City’s ability to mandate parkland dedication, undeveloped portions of Tract 110 are vulnerable. Can the city put restrictions on the future undeveloped portion of tract 110 to ensure it remains valuable green space? I am not here to block development — I am here to ensure it is done safely, responsibly and in keeping with the commitments made to our community, our residents and our environment. 02 C14-2025-0064 - Circle C Tract 110; District 823 of 28 I recognize that Austin faces important housing challenges and that increasing the housing supply is a legitimate public policy objective. However, in this specific area there is sufficient supply of multifamily housing with a vacancy rate above 10% within a 5 mile radius. Thank you for your time, your service to the City of Austin, and your careful consideration of these comments. Respectfully, Greg Katanick 5714 Van Winkle Ln Austin, TX 78739 02 C14-2025-0064 - Circle C Tract 110; District 824 of 28 02 C14-2025-0064 - Circle C Tract 110; District 825 of 2802 C14-2025-0064 - Circle C Tract 110; District 826 of 2802 C14-2025-0064 - Circle C Tract 110; District 827 of 28 02 C14-2025-0064 - Circle C Tract 110; District 828 of 28