There was plenty of business at the March 23 City Council meeting, but by the time matters concluded, a little after 1am, observers could be forgiven for imagining that the only item on the agenda was the proposed Austin Oaks PUD.
Public testimony on the PUD (considered for the second of three readings) actually began mid-afternoon, when a few witnesses accepted a courtesy opportunity of daytime testimony. The full public hearing resumed in the evening (nominally at 6:45pm, which in Council time turned out to be just about 8), and lasted (including dais discussion) until 12:30 Friday morning.
Was anything decided? It’s not entirely certain. An amended form of the PUD (planned for a 31-acre site at Spicewood Springs Road and MoPac) passed on second reading – 7-4, over strenuous objections from District 10 Council Member Alison Alter, joined in nays by D1 CM Ora Houston, Mayor Pro Tem Kathie Tovo (D5), and D7* CM Leslie Pool. At Alter’s insistence, despite previous hours of testimony – and her own reiterated objections to meetings lasting beyond 10pm – the public hearing will remain open, although under limits yet to be decided.
Thursday’s belated testimony (divided, but mostly opposed to granting PUD approval), featured as its melodramatic highlight an extended peroration in opposition by Northwest Hills resident Idee Kwak, who brought along both a video featuring nearly a dozen smashed eggs (symbolizing “broken trust” by developer Spire Realty) and a diorama of the site – no current office buildings, but plenty of trees to be uprooted and tossed about the Council floor. Like many of her neighbors, Kwak opposes the prospective traffic, the tree-removal (“stealing oxygen” from the neighbors), the effect on future rain, the public charette process that helped design the site, etc., etc. “This is a game of green eggs and sham,” passionately declared Kwak, accompanied by her own brooding soundtrack.
Although not quite so histrionically, other residents echoed Kwak to one degree or another, denouncing the PUD process and the alleged Dallas-based developer Caleb Smith (although the PUD process was actually initiated by current Spire President and landowner Jon Ruff). Opponents demanded that the PUD should be denied and the 31-acre tract, currently an office park, be developed under the existing, conventional zoning. Other witnesses, including representatives of the nearby Northwest Austin Civic Association, defended the PUD proposal. NWACA board member Caroline Alexander described the lengthy public process that developed and refined the PUD as in fact inclusive and reciprocal, and said it had resulted in “a balanced plan that represents all of the different interests.”
Alter, who in part owes her 2016 defeat of former CM Sheri Gallo to her opposition to this PUD and the Grove at Shoal Creek, remains unalterably opposed to the development, and her mind wasn’t changed by the amendments adopted early Friday morning. Alter and D4 CM Greg Casar offered opposing amendments, both aimed at increasing the amount of affordable housing on the site, as well as additional funds for traffic mitigation. But Alter insisted that the development should be allowed no additional entitlements (e.g., added height or parking) in return. The dais was narrowly split on the question (the initial amendment passed only 6-5). Casar argued that he wanted a deal that would in fact produce a PUD agreement and a sustainable mixed-use development; Alter angrily denounced her colleagues for “giveaways” to the developer. “And that’s on you,” she told them. Unsurprisingly, they didn’t take it kindly.
Third reading is yet to come – not yet scheduled – but the prospects for a consensus resolution appear slim. Because a “valid petition” has been filed against the PUD by 20% of nearby property owners, the city’s curious process enables those 20% to require a “supermajority” (nine votes) for third and final reading approval of the PUD. It’s not at all clear if two additional votes are achievable on this dais, now or in future weeks.
On the other hand, should the PUD be defeated, conventional zoning (of what would remain an office park, without mixed use) would yield almost the same amount of traffic (the overwhelming neighborhood complaint) but none of the community benefits negotiated in the PUD process. As enumerated by NWACA, those benefits include: traffic mitigation funding, multi-family housing (affordable and otherwise), a restaurant, five acres of parkland (plus park funding), and various environmental protections. Except in pyrrhic terms, that doesn’t sound like it would be a win for the neighbors or the city.
Although they’re difficult to recall, in its long day and night, Council took a number of other actions.
• DNA Deals: In its ongoing attempt to catch-up with the disastrous backlog of forensic DNA analysis (most in sexual assault cases), approved agreements with Travis County, the Texas Department of Public Safety, Van Daal Consulting, and Bode Cellmark Forensics. The announced target to clear up the mess is April of 2018.• Find a Manager: Council heard a briefing (from consultant firm Russell Reynolds) on its plan to recruit potential city manager candidates for Council review and approval, and Council tentatively decided to keep the candidacies secret until the search is concluded. Expect more debate.
• Hold that Trash (Again): Postponed again revision of the ordinance governing organics and refuse recycling policies and contracts, while creating a Council working group to review the question.
• Historic Aldridge: Granted historic district status to Aldridge Place (30th to 34th St. between Guadalupe and Speedway), which would require contributing structures to maintain architectural consistency. Supporters say it will not affect inclusiveness or discourage affordable housing.
• Housing, Briefly: Heard a briefing on the proposed Strategic Housing Plan, which would promote 135,000 new housing units (market rate and affordable) over 10 years, although nobody seemed completely convinced that’s either doable or sufficient. Public hearing on the matter scheduled for April 6 meeting.
• Zoning, More Briefly: Zoomed through the usual brace of zoning cases, at a pace too fast for the naked eye, or the naked correspondent. A 1am Friday, passed on second reading a South Austin 16-unit project (Villas at Vinson Oak) that apparently features only one important oak, but it’s a doozy. The neighbors don’t mind the project, but worry it will set a burgeoning infill precedent.
There was more, but it will have to wait for another day and more reader indulgence. Follow the Daily News and this week’s print edition.
*D7: Council Member Leslie Pool was initially identified incorrectly as representing District 6. She represents District 7.
This article appears in March 24 • 2017.
