Ase, we have asting
single property so we
are making calculations from
the larger, excuse me, area.

 so he
can be rezoned
four-vote majority?

>> Yes.

>> Mayor leffingwell:
That's what I was trying to
find out.

Normally that would not be
the case.

Within normal zoning case,
that would --

>> I will just say, mayor,
typically our areas are much
smaller.

We are looking at single
properties, so if you are
describing by the normal
case, you are absolutely
right.

>> Mayor leffingwell:
 this
is because it's part of the
entire regulating plan,
which is a way of basically
getting around the
requirement to have a super
majority.

One way of getting around
it.

Just do it in a large
parcel.

>> Well, it's still
complying with state law.

I just want to emphasize.

 well,
yeah.

I understand that.

>> Okay.

>> Mayor leffingwell:
Council member riley.

>> Riley: 120 Feet seems
pretty tall for pleasant
valley.

I see some nodding heads out
there.

But I understand that there
would be some advantage to
being able to use density
bonus system to achieve some
community benefits, and I --
it occurs to me that there
might be some lower maximum
height that would allow us
to do that, theoretically,
but when you look at the
options that are there, it
seems like there is really
nothing between 60 and 120.

Have you -- has anyone
considered any -- any kind
of -- any mid range height,
say, getting up to 90 feet

[00:02:00]

density bonus system that
would allow you to get up to
75 or 90 feet so that we
could get some of those --
some of the benefits of that
system without allowing the
height that would be kind of
jarring for the area?

>> We didn't parse it back
finally, just because it
would probably add more
complexity to the program,
but that's not saying it
couldn't be done.

>> Riley: It doesn't seem
like it would be that much
more complex to have some
range that allows for
heights up to 90 feet as
opposed to 120.

>> I think the issue would
be, then, which parcels
would get which height.

We actually went through a
fairly intense community
input process to determine
the maximum height per hub,
and it was determined that,
you know, it was more
reasonable to have the
higher height near pleasant
valley and the highway
because there is really not
much single family near
those areas.

Whereas near montopolis,
there is, and so just to
throw an additional height
in there would just -- it
would just complicate.

>> Riley: Now, this tract is
not right at the hub.

It's --

>> well, it is within the
hub.

>> Riley: Well, it's not
right at the intersection.

>> Correct.

So generally we -- the
properties that are eligible
for the highest height are
closest to riverside and
other major intersections.

>> Riley: Are there other
properties along pleasant
valley that could go up to
120 feet?

>> On the -- I guess it
would be the northeast
corner of pleasant valley
and riverside, there are --
there are both the
properties actually facing

[00:04:03]

riverside and -- sorry, you
asked about 120 feet?

>> Riley: Right.

>> So, yes.

In terms of 120 feet, the
h-e-b property could have
gone to 120 feet with the
density bonus.

>> Riley: Of course that's
right at the intersection of
pleasant valley and
rivers

>> right.

>> Riley: Are there any
properties off of riverside
that could go up to
120 feet?

>> There are a few near
highway 71.

>> Riley: On pleasant
valley?

>> On pleasant valley, there
is a small parcel to the
east of pleasant valley on
the north side.

>> Riley: I have not --
frankly, I have not parsed
through the density bonus
program enough to get a
sense of how difficult it
would be to get up to height
like that.

Is the program set up in
such a way that we wouldn't
really -- that it would be
so difficult to get there,
that we would expect someone
to -- a good project to get
up somewhere between60 and
120?

Is that the idea?

>> In the near future, we
actually don't expect that
there will be much deplanned
for buildings over
approximately 6 -- much
demand for buildings over
65 feet, largely because the
cost of building the taller
building is more than could
be recouped with the rent
that could be charged right
now.

>> Riley: And so if you look
10 or 20 years down the
road, can you give us some
idea of what sort of
benefits would have to be
provided in order to get to
that kind of height?

Or -- and I don't want to
get into a whole lot of
detail because the hour is
late but can you just give
us a general sense.

Is the expectation of a
range of community benefits
and then you move in
increments up to 60 but
probably wouldn't get to the
upper ranges, is that what

[00:06:00]

you are thinking?

>> Yes, we provide the
community benefits with the
proportion amount of the
entitlements requested, so
50% of the community
benefits would have to be
earned through the provision
of affordable housing or an
in lieu fee and 25% would
have to come through the
provision of on site
publically accessible open
space and the other 25%
could come from a few other
potential community
benefits.

So you -- you have to
continue that proportion
regardless of how much
density desired.

>> Riley: Does the density
bonus program have anything
that would encourage
homeownership as opposed to
rentals?

>> That's something that --
that we -- that we don't
have a good mechanism for
the legality of control of
ownership versus rental and
I don't know if you want
greg guernsey.

>> Riley: I think we need to
hear from folks in the
public but eventually the
staff but in the
neighborhood planning
process we had a tool for
residents to look at
homeownership versus the
rental and some time I would
like to know more about that
tool and if it could
potentially have any
application in this context.

>> Okay.

>> Mayor leffingwell:
Council member tovo.

>> Tovo: leek, I don't
want to belabor this because
I know we have a lot of
speakers to go but I think i
heard you say that there was
significant community input
about the heights and so i
want to verify that's what
you said.

>> Yes.

>> And we have a careful
balance and set of
compromises between what
some particular set of
property owners might have
want and what the community
members who were part of

[00:08:00]

that were able to agree on?

>> I think so.

>> Tovo: Is -- do you know
at what point this can
entered the process?

Is this something the
community stakeholders would
have had an opportunity to
weigh in on?

>> This particular property?

>> Tovo: Yes.

>> Well the request just
came in before planning
commission, so --

>> Tovo: Okay.

>> So I suppose there was an
opportunity at the planning
commission for public input,
but otherwise, no.

>> Tovo: Okay.

Thanks.

And just to clarify, the
planning commission, I think
it was said, didn't take
action but it did come up
for a vote and four members
voted against it, four
members voted for it.

I mean, they did have a vote
and it didn't get
substantial -- it didn't get
a majority of votes so they
didn't -- that's why they
aren't recommending it to
us.

The motion failed in
essence.

>> Right.

>> Tovo: Okay.

Thanks.

 tony
house.

And kyle brown in the
chamber?

Kim flores?

Kim flores?

No.

Henry flores.

You have up to 9 minutes.

>> Thank you, again, for
allowing me to speak
tonight.

I appreciate it my name is
tony house, member of the
erock contact team and like
jan long, I have been an
active participant
throughout the various
planning processes, arrived
and pleasant valley mpas
have been subjected to since
2003.

Throughout the past nine
years, erock stakeholders
have significantly stressed
the importance of preserving
the family neighborhood and
our need for homeownership
opportunities and our desire
to offer a choice of housing
options even though erock
was already one of most
densely populated planning
areas in the city, as part
of the neighborhood plan,
well over 300 properties
including single family

[00:10:01]

properties were zoned in
order to allow for
additional density, now, in
order to implement the
corridor master plan, many
of these same properties
are, again, being up zoned
to encourage even greater
density and don't forget the
extension of arrived's
designation as a core
transit corridor to include
that portion of arrived
between pleasant valley road
and highway 71, and that is
part of the neighborhood
plan adoption, city staff
designated not only pleasant
valley road but also oltorf
east of i-35 as future core
transit corridors.

I ask that you adopt the
recommendations approved by
the planning commission on
the 23rd and that you
approve the hub boundaries
as reflected in the
september 14th regulating
plan draft, to expand hub
boundaries beyond the
corridor boundary is to
ignore not only the public
input but that of the
consultants and staff.

All single family properties
outside the corridor
boundary should remain
triggering properties,
losing the 240 seat of
height limit setback was
tough enough compromise to
make, but to lose all
safeguards would be
devastating.

Please do not further reduce
the protections afforded our
few remaining single family
neighborhoods and commit to
supporting our future land
use map in the future and
please don't be swayed by
complaints that the density
within the corridor is too
low to support public
transit.

Much of eroc's density lies
outside the corridor
densities, the arrived mpa
is approximately 8 0% single
family with fourplexes,
triplexes, outnumbering
single family homes and
pleasant valley mpa is over
80% multi-family.

Cap metro readership figure
also confirm that eroc

[00:12:01]

residents have relied on
public transit for years,
even though many of them
live outside of the corridor
plans proposed public
transit hub.

I ask that you take
advantage of the large
tracts of aging,
multi-family properties
reflected on the eroc flum
outside of the corridor
boundaries which currently
have no designated land use.

This presents an opportunity
that could be used to
address retaining affordable
housing in our area and
can't the city utilize the
state public nuisance law to
address falling down
apartments on riverside?

I mean, I know it has been
used for crack houses, but i
recall -- recollect that
sometime -- I think it was
in houston, they actually
used it to address
substandard housing, so i
think we not only concerned
went the density on the
corridor, but also look
outside and see what is on
the ground, too.

Due to existing density,
high level of transit use
and proximity to downtown,
eroc is not like other
planning areas and we should
not be fit in the same mold
that works for downtown and
tods.

Developers are going to
build in eroc because of our
location and I really, truly
believe that developers who
stand to gain the most need
to start paying more for
growth.

They need to support this
growth.

Please adopt the planning
commission recommendations,
adopt the hub boundaries as
reflected in the
september 14th regulating
plan draft, require
neighborhood contact team
notification of any
alternative eequivalent
compliance applications and
allow sufficient time for

[00:14:01]

contact team written input,
increased development impact
fees so developers pay for
growth and require a review
of the corridor and master
regulating plans if urban
rail is not funded.

I would also like to thank
erica leek and staff so much
for their commitment to
these efforts and for the
time they have spent working
with us.

Thank you.

>> Mayor leffingwell:
Council member morrison.

>> Morrison: A couple of
things.

One, I wanted to -- I don't
think -- I don't recall the
specifics of the change in
compatibility from what's
standard in the code to what
you all have agreed to.

Could you just briefly give
it --

>> it's the height limit
setback, that if you are on
the boundary -- if you have
single family homes budding
the corridor boundary, then
you have -- we don't have a
full 500 feet of setback.

We have -- they are able to
start after 200 -- after
300 feet, they are able to
start raising the heights to
higher limits in a graduated
basis.

>> Morrison: I see.

Okay.

It's the -- the
compatibility is still
there, but it accelerates or
decelerates, I guess we
should say.

>> Yes, it is.

>> Morrison: Halfway through
as opposed to what is
standard.

Okay.

I wanted to mention a couple
of things.

I was interested in your
comment about the need to
address the substandard
housing that does exist in
your neighborhood and I want
to just mention that I think
that that's on everybody's
mind, especially with some
of the situations we have
had recently in our code
compliance director,
 smart, is working on a
program to go after that, so
we ought to get you guys
connected because that's one
of the most important things
we can do, in terms of

[00:16:00]

preserving affordable
housing.

Right.

So I appreciate you bringing
that up.

>> Andrew clements.

Not here.

Becky russell.

>> Mayor, council, my name
is becky russell.

My brother spoke earlier.

My family and I operate
several mcdonald's
restaurants here in the
austin area.

We -- we run about 70% of
our business at the
drive-through, the inability
to operate a drive-through
at location of riverside,
24, 24, east riverside would
be detrimental to our
organization.

We are active in the
community, sponsor several
activities in the
neighborhood, enjoy doing
that and look forward to
that in the future.

I would like to share a few
numbers with you, as far as
community impact, economic
impact.

In the 3 restaurants that
have been represented
tonight, sonic, taco bell
and mcdonald's', the
economic impact numbers from
property tax, sales tax,
austin energy, waste and
wastewater, charitable
donations, travis county
taxes and central health
district taxes for 2011
total approximate dollar
amount of $26 million.

That's a significant number
to the city of austin.

We enjoy doing business here
and would look to continue
to be able to continue to
sustain that.

Another note, the make-up of
our employees is highly
skewed towards minority, and
I believe we all enjoy
developing people and

[00:18:02]

educating folks in how to
manage businesses.

I am requesting two things.

I am asking for your support
on item 12 of the amendment
of the erc.

This would allow us to
continue to operate the
drive-through and keep our
building up to date and
relevant to our customers.

We would also be in support
of the deletion of the
drive-through ban in
addition to the amendment.

Thank you for consideration.

If you have any questions, i
will be glad to answer them.

 you
forget acc.

Pay taxes to them, too.

I want to add that in.

>> You are correct.

Don't want to forget that.

Very important for
education.

 thank
you.

Gayle goth.

[One moment, please, for
change in captioners]
1.

>> As presented with the
current boundaries, with the
planning commission
recommendations, it protects
our single family
neighborhoods.

[00:20:00]

But here and now, we're
stating that this acceptance
is conditioned on
maintaining that hard edge
between the traditional
single family neighborhoods
and more intense uses by the
use of the compatibility
standards that exist.

The corridor must live
within its boundaries.

No more increasing
entitlements unless approved
by the contact team and as
stated earlier, if urban
rail fails, this plan must
be reexamined and restored
to the levels that the
corridor and the
infrastructure can support.

Thank you.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Karen gronquist.

Karen?

How about luke doddson?

You have up to six minutes.

>> Mayor pro tem and
council, I'm here to speak
on behalf of the penneck
place neighborhood
association who has
unanimously petitioned the
tract between penneck drive
and grove.

I don't know if you had a
plans to review the
petition.

I would like to first state
that I'm for the proposed
rezoning along the corridor
generally, but this tract
should retain its current
zoning.

In the '90s I earned a
master's in urban planning
from texas state, so i
understand and appreciate
the need for increased
density and urban mixed use
development along major
corridors but also
understand the need to
protect existing
neighborhoods and the
character and citizens who
represent the neighborhoods.

I support rezoning about 98
percent of the land slated
from rezoning.

[00:22:02]

The penneck place
neighborhood should be
exempted rezoning because
it's unique in a number of
ways.

First of all, it's 100%
owner occupied.

It's also 100 percent
unanimous in its opposition
to this zoning.

It's harvey pennick's rolled
neighborhood.

His house still is in the
middle of the block, his old
house.

You might know harvey
pennick, he wrote the little
red book, the greatest
selling sports book in
history.

The neighborhood has been
intact for almost 60 years,
retains it's original
character with the 100%
owner occupancy.

By allowing this tract to be
rezoned it would change the
character of the historic
neighborhood and rich piece
of austin history.

I want to briefly speak to
the more recent history of
this neighborhood.

In 2005, the number of
people, including my late
father, wayne gronquist, who
worked for and on behalf of
the pennick place
neighborhood association and
with the property and the
landowner, they came to an
agreement that allowed for
the lots facing riverside to
be light commercial and the
lots along pennick to retain
sf 1 zoning.

If the rezoning plan is not
amended to exclude the land
between pennick and grove,
it will allow for the
destruction of the character
of the neighborhood against
the wishes of the 100
percent unified, 100% owner
occupied neighborhood
effectively railroading the
citizens of the neighborhood
and rolling back an
agreement that was
negotiated and agreed upon
in good faith.

I humbly ask that the
rezoning plan be amended to
exclude the land between
pennick and grove to protect
the character of this unique
and uniquely austin
neighborhood.

Retaining the character of
this small part of austin is
consistent with the goal of

[00:24:01]

diversity and diversity
along the corridor.

And given the unique nature
of this small neighborhood,
its wonderful and rich part
of austin's history and the
unanimous opposition to the
proposed zoning change, i
ask that you approve the
petition to exclude it from
the rezoning plan.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: So
we know exactly what you're
talking about, are
talking about 5617, 5701,
5709, 5717 pennick drive?

That the item that you
are talking about or more
than that.

>> Correct.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:
That's motion number 10 on
our sheet just for -- so
everybody knows we're on the
same page here.

>> It's also actually motion
number 9.

5600 East riverside, 9 and
10, yes.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Okay.

In here, in both of these
cases, no action by the
planning commission.

And the neighborhood request
on both of those not to
rezone.

Thank you.

>> Mayor?

>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Councilmember tovo.

>> Tovo: Very quickly, mr.

Gronquist.

I think that you said you
had 100% opposition, do you
have a valid petition or the
boundaries so wide that you
were not able to assemble
one.

>> I believe it's a valid
petition.

It's 100% occupied and
everybody on the street
signed it.

Does that make it valid?

>> Mayor Leffingwell:
That's contrary to the
motion sheet again.

It's probably because you
are part of this larger
area, you've lost that
ability to -- to use the
neighborhood petition
process.

>> So it's not a valid
petition?

>> Mayor Leffingwell:
That's according to staff,
it is not.

>> Tovo: guernsey, is
that correct?

Yes?

Okay.

>> Sorry.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Thanks.

[Indiscernible] jack connor.

[00:26:10]

>> Thank you for staying
late.

Representatives of the
[indiscernible] have lobbied
you to release this 25-acre
parcel or 17-acres or
whatever they have under
contract.

Before you agree to that, i
would like you to recall
that in order to facilitate
the proposed creation, of
252 new low income housing
tax credit units, within a
half a mile of 712 existing
units, 192 of which are
directly across the street
from this parcel and
[indiscernible] tract with a
37% poverty rate, you,
council, just two weeks ago
allowed them to rezone their
way out of complying with
commercial design standards,
with the understanding that
the project would be subject
to the erc master plan.

In addition to shirking
commercial design standards,
now they're saying that the
affordable housing project
is compromised by the ercmp
and they cannot comply
without adding costs to the
site and going back to
review their plans at the
state.

I would suggest that all of
the requirements in the east
riverside corridor master
plan were there a month ago,
two months ago, a theory i
can't go theoretically.

The real problem with the
state is that more than two
weeks ago, tdhca notified
them that their tax credit
application had been
terminated for material
non-compliance.

Let me repeat that.

The week you rezoned this
property for them, they had
been notified that their
funding application had been
terminated.

Did you know that when you
rezoned the property?

The neighborhood surely did
not.

In addition, the current
fiscal and administrative
compliance infractions,

[00:28:02]

tdhca staff documented past
material non-compliance on
cesar chavez foundation tax
credit projects so is not
recommending to the tdhca
that it reinstate the
riverside application on
NOVEMBER 13th.

I say was not recommending
because monday, november
6th, SCOTT MARKS, CESAR
Chavez foundation
representative at coats
road, notified tdhca they
had withdrawn their
application for riverside
gardens.

Erc-mp is not the threat to
cesar chavez foundation
plans, these folks have no
plan to [indiscernible] with
the state because they
withdrew their application.

They are supposed to mean
something otherwise the
public gets the idea that
participation is pointless.

If the e eroc is not worth
depending against the
interest in the planning
process has only put down a
measly amount of earnest
5 million
parcel, an ban doned the
funding application and did
not tell them they were --
against what will you defend
the eroc?

In short, cesar chavez has
all kinds of compliance
issues.

Please do not allow them to
add the eroc to the list of
guidelines they can't --

>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Thank you, ma'am, your time
is -- the address is that
1700 and a half frontier
valley.

>> Yes.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Okay.

Just wanted to make sure.

>> Questions?

>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Thank you
Thank you
Lucy sheffield?

Trey sheffield?

Okay.

So you have up to six
minutes, too.

>> I will warn you, I get
wordy, I'm lucy sheffield,
thank you for being here so
late mayor and council.

I want to appreciate what
you have to do because it's
a big task the corridor.

[00:30:00]

I'm in real estate and i
can't imagine the decisions
that you have to make, so i
appreciate your time.

I've been in austin 30
years, three-quarters of my
life and I both a home in
pennick place that my
neighbor aaron just talked
to you guys about.

We fell in love with it.

There's a unique history
there.

I've been here 30 years.

I never knew about the
wonderful things going on
around east rerside, roy
, the
history behind the golf
course and in particular
where we chose to settle.

On pennick place.

I'm excited and
appreciative, again, to be
here.

I want to point out to me
the specific zoning I'm not
sure exactly how this works,
it might have been an
oversight about our
neighborhood.

I don't know if we can pull
up the little map with the
five stars on it or if you
have it.

We're the one in the middle
on the little section.

Our little piece probably
isn't big in the whole
scheme of things.

But there's four reasons i
think that I want to touch
on to preserving our
neighborhood.

You can do it however you
want.

We want to keep the zoning
as is.

Knock it out of the eroc if
you want or just keep the
zoning as it is.

The proposed plan has it as
nr.

Which allows it to be the
streets -- the streets in
front of us allow it to be i
think row houses, duplexes,
town homes, attached, could
be a small apartment
complex, I believe.

That does not fit with the
single family homes that we
have now.

Pennick place is a
subdivision.

As I best understand what
that is.

And it goes to east
riverside.

The purple -- where my lots
are on the other side of
that big black line.

There's seven of us that
live there.

100% Owner occupied.

I moved there.

I'm the second newest.

Lived there 15, 25 years,
generations have lived
there.

Harvey pennick's house, of

[00:32:00]

course is there.

And then x house.

The lots across the street
were all part of pennick
place, one owner owns that
through an agreement.

Aaron mentioned we allowed
him to do micked use in the
front part and then those
lots around it, including
the with unthat touches
riverside was agreed to stay
single family residence.

As it's zoned right now,
those again could be small
apartments, something like
that.

That doesn't even -- what
was agreed by the current
owner I guess is what I'm
saying.

So my four points the reason
to consider preserving our
neighborhood.

One that it's historic.

My home was built in 1957 i
believe.

We were talking about a
street on sam street that's
50 something years old.

This subdivision is from the
late '40s, I believe that he
developed.

The houses, late '40s, mine
in 1957.

So it's kind of in an odd
spot.

I agree.

Right there on east
riverside.

But it's a piece of history.

I think it would be the
oldest subdivision
in the whole area right
there.

I think that's important to
point out.

Number two would be the
prior agreement between us
showing that there is a
goodwill to, yes, go into
high density.

Let new development come.

But the agreement was on
pennick street, that that
would stay single family
residence and that's not the
way it's set up.

Third would be there's a
vision -- in the vision
statement, it says there's a
commitment to socially and
economically diverse, as
well as maintaining the mix
of housing options in the
area.

Including options for low
and [indiscernible] income
populations.

There's just not any single
family residents really
hardly in this whole
riverside area.

I'm in real estate, it's
called area nine.

There's very new.

[00:34:00]

So to even bring what last
is less of a large single
family resident
neighborhood, not only one
with historic implications,
but then to make that low
density doesn't make sense
to me when there's a lot
more other space.

Then fourth simplicity --
simplistically speaking, the
line runs right through our
street.

There's no neighborhood
where the east riverside
corridor literally cuts
through the subdivision or
neighborhood and that's what
it's doing here in this
case.

So we talked last night, all
of the neighbors, we will
welcome to have you all come
over and check out the
neighborhood and how it
would look and feel if, you
know, the I think 40-foot
buildings that could
literally go real close to
our homes would be.

Thank you.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Question for you.

Councilmember morrison.

>> Morrison: I'm a little
bit confused because i
missed the part about what
is not zoned single family
here or what was agreed at
this point because the
motion sheet that we have
describing your situation i
think that I only see sf 3
and sf 1.

>> Okay.

Well, is --

>> Morrison: Is there
something that's not zoned
single family?

>> I'm talking in normal
terms.

So all that I say was zoned
nr, which could be sf 1 all
the way up to multi-family.

>> Morrison: I'm talking
about currently.

Was there some agreement for
multi-use somewhere?

>> One of the lots was
switched to -- to
neighborhood mixed use.

>> Morrison: Okay.

So I will ask staff about
that because I'm not seeing
that.

>> It's purple.

It's purple instead of being
blue.

And then the blue is vague
because it could be
multi-family I believe --

>> Morrison: Do you have a
picture that you can help me
with here?

The blues and the purpose
pells are -- so it's all
current -- purples --

[00:36:01]

>> the properties that
they're requesting to be --
to be extracted, so it's
actually -- it's the middle
part in this map and I think
she's talking about in terms
of the commercial or mixed
use, that's actually the
property that's on riverside
and that's not one that they
are requesting a change on.

I think they are just
requesting a change on the
ones that are light blue and
they are kind of under that
middle star.

>> Morrison: Okay.

So we do have 5600 riverside
on the list.

>> Right.

And so it's the light blue
one that's touching
riverside.

>> Morrison: I really sort
of need a pointer.

I'm sorry.

It's too late for me to --

>> can I show you this map
that I brought?

Or can you get it up?

It is kind of squished,
though.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:
What's the property address.

>> Ones on the inside aren't
developed, I know them as
lots nine, 10, 11, 12, 13.

>> Morrison: One thing
that I'm concerned about is
I'm looking at the
development bonus
[indiscernible] map which is
in our draft on page 18 and
the way I read that, that
space on riverside is
actually is in there as
going to 65.

>> Yes.

>> Could potentially though,
compatibility standards
would I think limit that --

>> Morrison: To do
anything?

>> I would have to measure
the distance.

And I think -- so if the
triggering properties are
the existing single family
houses, then the
compatibility tent obviously
starts at that property line
and steps up.

So you would be able to
build something, but
obviously once you get

[00:38:02]

parking and -- and storm
water treatment and things
like that, it would limit
the site.

Quite a bit.

>> Morrison: Okay.

And so the -- what's in the
plan right now actually
would have on one side of
pennick the existing houses,
and then on the other side
could have townhouses,
apartment buildings and
things like that?

>> Correct.

>> Did you consider, was it
considered at all to make it
a little more transitional?

Since there will be some
pretty intense, that's a
pretty abrupt change.

>> Well, the -- I mean the
light blue neighborhood
residential subdistrict is
our lowest intensity
subdistrict and the maximum
height is 35 feet, which is,
also, I think the maximum
height allowed in single
family zoning, is that
correct?

Yes.

So the height limit is the
same, but obviously you
could potentially put
townhouses that type of
thing.

>> Morrison: And just one
last question.

So what's -- do you have an
estimate of number of units
per acre so that we could
compare that to number of
units per acre for sf?

[Indiscernible]

>> the maximum fa -- the
limitations are by far and
the maximum floor to area
ratio would be .5 to 1.

>> I want to come over here
and point real quick.

[No microphone]

>> Mayor Leffingwell: We
can't do it that way, sorry.

Loud doesn't matter.

That doesn't get you on tv.

>> [No audio]

[00:40:05]

>> these are blue.

This one wasn't included at
all.

This one was changed to
blue.

There's actually a house on
it.

I don't see why that even
needs to be the zoning
change.

This was left out,
coincidentally, this whole
section.

This is supposed to be part
of the single family
residence, it's currently
zoned sf 1.

And it's been changed to
purple.

Which is mixed -- I'm sorry,
neighborhood mixed use
development.

So we just want all of this
to stay the same, however
it's done.

You know, this is mixed use.

But not mixed use into, you
know, anything larger than
like office-type building
or -- and then the rest
would be sf 1 or sf 3 like
the rest of 'em.

>> Thank you, ma'am.

>> I think the nr expand it
past that.

>> Spelman: But if I could
just clarify, if we zoned it
the way you were
recommending, the maximum
height across the street
from I'm sorry, ma'am, i
have forgotten your name.

>> Lucy.

>> Lucy's house would be 35
feet.

>> Correct.

>> Spelman: It could have
a higher floor to area ratio
than single family, it could
be townhouses, for example,
but it wouldn't be any
higher than 35 feet.

>> Correct.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Larry sunderland?

>> Hello, mayor,
councilmembers, my name is
larry sunderland, east
riverside resident, member
of the working group and
right off the bat, I want to
say something about the
people involved in this
process.

[00:42:00]

Erica leak and her steady,
calm leadership, toni house,
jan long and ron thrower
have been there from the
beginning and they define
what a citizen is.

They are there for their
community and they have
worked very hard on this
plan.

We don't always agree, but i
think we've made a lot of
progress because they've let
me wear this tonight and I'm
a density advocate and i
will continue to work with
them and on them about those
issues because I think
density is really an
important aspect of -- of
getting workforce housing
and better transportation.

And I am personally not
afraid of density and i
believe that our
neighborhood is best served
in we have workforce housing
and have people living in
that housing, hopefully some
of them owning those homes.

Currently, a lot of what we
see doesn't meet the
requirements or the vision
of what my neighbors think
is worthy.

But -- but there are really
a lot of options out there
that we do not utilize in
this town.

Never have.

And until we understand what
those options are, we can't
really advocate for good
housing on our corridors.

I believe that I am best
served and my home is best
served by having everybody
living in good conditions, a
lot of the housing we have
in the corridor now is
substandard and I know that
we want to save it but it is
beyond saving.

When you have collapsed cast
iron pipes in the slabs, you
know, it costs millions of
dollars to repair those.

And that's just prohibitive
for property owners and they
have -- they know that and
that's why they're not doing
it.

They can't get a loan to do
it.

Those projects are going to
come down and we need to

[00:44:00]

replace it with something
appropriate for this time,
the 21st century.

We made mistakes 50 years
ago, we don't need to make
those mistakes again.

So my role in my
neighborhood is to help my
neighbors understand the
value of density and the
ways that we can go about
providing housing.

So that's what I'm going to
do going forward.

No matter what happens
tonight.

I spent a lot of time
walking the corridor,
handing out fliers to every
business on the corridor.

I did not hand out fliers to
any one of the -- of the
people that were here
because in my lack of wisdom
I did not realize that they
were locally owned.

They are good business or
they wouldn't be in business
and of course we have to
accommodate them.

In time I think as
conditions change, they will
change with it because
they're good business
people.

But currently I think we
need to pay attention to --

>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Thank you.

Malcolm yates.

>> My name is malcolm yates,
I'm a member of the eroc
contact team.

I'm here tonight to talk
about some of the other
aspects of the regulating
plan.

One of the primary design
goals of the east riverside
corridor plan is to create a
more bike and pedestrian
friendly situation.

We are not going to have
pedestrians and bike riders
on riverside drive unless we
also have routes that feed
pedestrians and bikes into
the corridor.

So please remember this
point when the eroc
neighborhoods come back

[00:46:00]

later to ask for funding to
complete the country club
creek trail.

Thank you.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Thank you.

Susana almanza.

>> Jean mathers also donated
her time to me.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Who?

>> Jean mathers.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: I
don't have her signed up.

Are you here?

Would you sign up with the
clerk to donate time.

>> He says that you need to
sign up.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: You
have to sign up to -- in
order to donate time.

Okay.

So you have three minutes.

>> Good afternoon, good
evening, mayor.

Mayor pro tem and city
council members.

My name is susana almanza,
I'm president of montopolis
neighborhood plan contact
team and also the director
of poder.

And at this time I'd like to
state that the montopolis
neighborhood plan contact
team supports removing the
property at 1700 and a half
frontier valley from the
eroc plan.

We are well aware that the
cesar chavez foundation a
couple of days did remove,
withdraw its permit for the
state financing, but we also
understood that the karneer
brook would be now financing
that project.

We think at this juncture
it's very important to keep
that affordable housing
project.

Just because their
affordable housing bond did
fail so we are at a deep
crisis of making sure that
we keep affordable housing
where we need it.

I also want to say that the
montopolis neighborhood plan
contact team feels that we
should have a presentation
on this particular case of
rezoning, because it is an

[00:48:00]

amendment to the
neighborhood planning,
montopolis neighborhood
plan, it also is bringing in
new zoning, it's also
bringing in new land use
districts and we think that
it should be treated just
like any other zoning case.

When there's a change
that -- that hits any of
these recommendations, it
comes before the contact
team and the contact team
gets to hear about it and
express its opinion and this
has not happened.

We have not had the
opportunity to review, you
can imagine yourselves the
complications, how
complicated this project is.

Just imagine the montopolis
neighborhood who has not had
a briefing of this
particular issue at all.

And I would like to state
that no there hasn't been
significant community input
when it comes to height.

There are very few
privileged people who have
that be opportunity to take
off and attend these
meetings.

But the montopolis community
is a working and a poor
working class community and
we don't have the same
privileges that a lot of
people have to be going to
all of these particular
meetings and to understand
the complexities of all of
this issues.

So I have to state for the
record, no, there hasn't
been significant input from
the montopolis community and
how this plan is going to
impact them.

And what we would also like
to have that state into this
plan as urban rail does not
happen, that the eroc -- the
erc plan reverts back to the
original montopolis
neighborhood plan zoning.

So I would like to take it a
little bit further to put in
there that if it doesn't
happen, we go back and we
begin and we stay with the
year that we put into our
montopolis neighborhood plan
and what we felt should be
there because we had to --
they blanket zoned us with
mixed use but we kept our
bases only.

So I would like to make sure
that that take place.

And that this is an abrupt

[00:50:01]

change to all of the
montopolis community and i
don't know that, I know it
hasn't been mentioned here,
but it will also add to the
gentrification of
montopolis.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Thank you.

Those are all of the
speakers that I have signed
up that wish to speak in
this public hearing.

Council, I'm going to offer
this up for a suggestion, it
will be your decision.

But one option that we have
we're looking at a motion
sheet that contains 13
motions.

A lot of them about -- about
half of those considered to
be controversial.

We do have the option of
closing the public hearing
and postponing action until
our next meeting.

It's now 11:30.

It's going to be quite late
if we proceed and I think
some of this stuff is pretty
complicated.

>> Cole: So move.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Mayor pro tem moves to close
the public hearing and
postpone until the next
meeting, which I believe is
DECEMBER 6th.

Is there a second?

>> Seconded by councilmember
morrison.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: All
in favor say aye.

>> Aye.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Opposed say no.

Passes on 6-1, councilmember
spelman voting no.

So council, that's all that
we have on our anda, we'll
look forward to addressing
these items at our next
meeting.

Without objection, we stand
adjourned at 11:33.