[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6683443,"mediaKeyId","2259792-4d421e74408500d4d8885446fcf17703","parentId",2259792,"title","Council briefed on parking‑code updates including mailed citations and new bike‑lane enforcement; three‑month education period planned","audioSeconds",439,"startMs",3893000,"endMs",4332000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2259792-4d421e74408500d4d8885446fcf17703&start=3893&end=4332","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2259792-4d421e74408500d4d8885446fcf17703/thumbnail_3893000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6683443/Austin/Travis-County/Texas/Council-briefed-on-parkingcode-updates-including-mailed-citations-and-new-bikelane-enforcement-threemonth-education-period-planned","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6683443-d65ab4a454775e8f341f10fa8d542a47/orig.mp4?Expires=1771149689&Signature=Vagp4BnxttI7K0Kyt~MOf7qorVaSR6n~jW6EJPOnxLW1O7H~Nn4Nun81Ljva6baCsvrR~TXKWZHg7Vg0EPfxqyBRdfjoEL8XqucnDsODn9MarK4GoewXgxobOSo7gKCrfMrhzjJI8JJc737TiA6-AoCt4c647HtiDTkyPpH~OR8FPpau7snB1oiEt6HhA8hz5a4lkeXbxAPr9w0F8GlG0Aixyu0KHpg59NM4F0ZfgNSxaHrX1y9NHecTvADRvCODZkEbaoOxVS-iyYh8JshECsbkstDGHydu1NNAxBx8cnpI3nXLv6x8vrrGhGqa2DqNl4Zsa4O5K6CSLMP8pNZ8-A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Austin","date","2025-02-11T00:00:00Z","article","Transportation and Public Works staff on Tuesday briefed the Austin City Council on proposed updates to City Code Chapter 12‑3 governing meter and pay‑station parking. The presentation described a modernization of the parking code that would allow the city to mail parking citations, add three specific violations and implement a three‑month warning and education period for those new violations before full enforcement.

Deputy Director Jim Dale and Assistant Director Louis Lehi said the changes were part of a 15‑year update to the parking code and reflect current operations and expected future practice. The three new violations identified in the draft ordinance are: blocking a signed or marked bike lane; occupying an electric‑vehicle charging space without charging; and improper closure of right‑of‑way areas used for special events. Staff said the ordinance would retain in‑person citation delivery as the primary enforcement method while adding mailed delivery as an option.

Lehi said staff would coordinate with municipal court and the law department on business processes required to implement mailed citation delivery. The draft ordinance also sets a presumed delivery date for mailed citations 10 days after mailing and an additional 20 days before the appearance date, consistent with practices in other cities. \"We will be continuing to have in person enforcement and delivery of citations as the primary source of delivery of citations for the foreseeable future,\" Lehi said.

Staff said they will implement a three‑month warning and education period specifically for the three new violations before full enforcement begins and that any proposals for camera‑based enforcement would be considered cautiously and returned to the Mobility Committee for review. Council Member Paige Ellis, who pulled the item for the Thursday agenda, said she had met with staff and the municipal court clerk in advance and supported the educational approach. Council Member Chido Vela praised staff and the memo and emphasized concern about camera‑based enforcement and civil‑liberties protections.

Why it matters: Bike‑lane blocking has been repeatedly cited in public testimony as a safety concern for cyclists; the new violations and the education period are intended to reduce those conflicts while the city updates systems and business processes needed to mail citations and add enforcement options.

Implementation and oversight

- Staff committed to return to the Mobility Committee in July with a status update on implementation steps, timelines and any proposed camera‑based enforcement procedures.

- The ordinance language in the packet clarifies the presumed date of receipt for mailed citations (10 days after mailing) and an appearance date set 20 days after that presumed receipt, aligning with other jurisdictions’ practices.

- For the three new violations, staff recommended a three‑month warning and education window to allow public outreach; the remainder of the ordinance would take effect 10 days after adoption unless additional system updates require a slightly later effective date.

Council comments

- Council Member Paige Ellis said the update reflected careful review and stakeholder meetings; she asked staff to continue outreach and to coordinate with the municipal court clerk, Mary Jane Grubbs.

- Council Member Chido Vela said the memo was \"excellent\" and asked staff to be deliberate on any camera‑based enforcement. \"I am a fierce defender of civil liberties and very skeptical and concerned with... video enforcement,\" he said, and welcomed the plan to pause and return recommendations to the committee.

Next steps

Staff said the item will appear on the council agenda Thursday as item 26, with the expectation that the education period for the three new violations will follow adoption and that staff will return to the Mobility Committee in July with implementation details and timelines.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Austin - City Council Work Session - Feb 11, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Transportation and Public Works staff presented proposed updates to City Code Chapter 12‑3 to allow mailed parking citations, add three specific violations (blocking bike lanes, occupying EV charging stalls without charging, and improper right‑of‑way closures) and use a three‑month warning and education period before enforcement of the new violations.","taxTitle","Austin, Travis County, Texas","taxId",2819,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6683448,"Staff outlines ‘site‑plan light’ changes to speed small infill housing; council questions drainage, thresholds",3746,110000,3856000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2259792-4d421e74408500d4d8885446fcf17703&start=110&end=3856","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2259792-4d421e74408500d4d8885446fcf17703/thumbnail_110000.jpg","/articles/6683448/Austin/Travis-County/Texas/Staff-outlines-siteplan-light-changes-to-speed-small-infill-housing-council-questions-drainage-thresholds","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6683448-589662fe76a96e5ad2830e0a9a30538f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771149689&Signature=i3I1AdHf-ABTPBYTKRLJvUaS4dpE-4PKk7z0oF6uvRVxvctqSgl75DjERm~Bc~4Yor9JOqyoHW0lfCugvik9zT92Ez8aMlB7J54pcLFpXbGyHycp9aAdtuURtMpXALMfC~1hQKpD26P~iVpTd1EOJ6suT5JvbOChD8~Z3t5duwwlZUNQ9-VyGlCx5FXi2bCk~VYnmB-wgrDZd8IUT7ZvbqJ7PQVlS7Nlh~nnNCqNde9N~K7YbglVobtc49Qv3BcRx5UsD0q1s0wFFRUAvWlRqLfILtoDgzmr-JIcdCnROeZOEAy2J1l8F9j2x4aE3SLvhAhB-epm3AFc3yFiW3bAKA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City staff on Tuesday briefed the Austin City Council on a proposal to streamline subdivision and site‑plan review for small infill housing, often called \"site‑plan light\" or residential infill, that would speed approval for projects of roughly 5 to 16 dwelling units and simplify subdivision of existing lots.

The proposal, presented by Assistant City Manager Veronica Briceno and Keith Myers, assistant director of the Development Services Department, aims to right‑size regulations and administrative processes for infill redevelopment, set a 90‑day target for permitting for eligible projects and change how the city evaluates drainage for smaller projects.

City staff said the changes are intended to match review and requirements to the scale of development, reduce construction costs for small projects and make the process easier for homeowners and smaller developers. \"We believe we have a staff proposal that accomplishes a number of things,\" Myers said, including amendments to drainage rules and administrative procedures. Jorge Morales, director of the Watershed Protection Department, said the package includes both code changes and commitments to change administrative rules around stormwater connection, timing of drainage improvements and greater reliance on stamps and certifications by private engineers.

Why it matters: Staff estimates the recommended approach could reduce construction costs for small infill projects by as much as 30–40 percent and make nearly 80 percent of eligible single‑family lots more likely to use a simplified subdivision process. Council members raised repeated concerns about the risk of localized (lot‑to‑lot) flooding, the effect on the city’s regional stormwater fund and the fairness of sharp size thresholds.

Key proposals

- Two main tracks: a \"site‑plan light\" process for projects of 5–16 units, and a right‑sized subdivision review for infill subdivisions (staff framed a simplified process for lots 11,500 square feet or less). Myers said 3–4 unit projects already go through a separate residential review and the 5–16 unit band is intended to differentiate small infill from large developments.

- Drainage: staff proposed more flexible drainage calculations, timing drainage requirements later in the process (\"right timing\") and greater deference to licensed engineers via stamped plans. Morales described the approach as shifting some drainage review from the earliest subdivision step to later stages when roof lines and grading are known. \"One of our proposals is looking at a grading plan... when it actually comes time to construct those homes, that we... ensure public safety,\" Morales said.

- Inspection and certification: staff said they would rely more on professional obligations of licensed civil engineers and stamped surveys, and explore \"self‑certification\" or third‑party review approaches used in other cities.

- Turnaround and scope: staff committed to a 90‑day turnaround target for permitting on eligible projects and to expanding a \"small project\" development review path with less notice and a more limited review scope for projects that meet the thresholds.

- Eligibility and scale: staff said 80 percent of single‑family‑eligible lots are smaller than the 11,500‑square‑foot threshold. For 5–16 unit projects, staff said about 90 percent of lots with the applicable zoning are less than one acre and would be eligible for the streamlined process.

Funding and regional stormwater program (RSMP)

Morales and other staff emphasized the RSMP's role in funding larger regional drainage projects and said simplifying fees for small infill would have a modest effect on the program’s revenues. He said the city collects roughly $630,000 into the RSMP fund annually (divided across watersheds) and that staff analysis showed eliminating or reducing RSMP fees for small missing‑middle projects would have an \"insignificant impact\" on the overall program. Morales said capital projects and bonds will continue to be important sources for larger drainage investments.

Council concerns and questions

- Council Member Natasha Harper Madison asked for specifics about \"right timing\" and where grading review could be deferred. Morales said grading and drainage direction can be reviewed later, at building permit, when building footprints are known. \"It creates more flexibility and agility for those that are gonna develop these sites,\" he said.

- Mayor Pro Tem Vanessa Fuentes and other council members pressed on localized lot‑to‑lot flooding risk and asked how the proposal maintains protections. Morales said impervious cover limits adopted in prior Council policy (referred to by staff as Home 1 and Home 2) were not changed by this proposal and that the Watershed Protection Department will continue to model and monitor localized flooding. \"These changes are really streamlining the process... but not necessarily exacerbating what's already there,\" Morales said.

- Council Member Paige Ellis and Council Member Ryan Alter raised threshold questions. Alter described a concern that a single square‑foot difference in lot size around the 11,500 cutoff could materially change how many units could be built, and asked whether a buffer or tiered approach (a small plus/minus) had been considered. Staff said the 11,500 number came from benchmarking and stakeholder input (initially near a quarter‑acre figure) and that the simplified process would remain available up to larger sizes through fuller engineering review.

- Utilities and constructability: Council members asked about water/wastewater lines that cannot cross lot lines and whether utility rules could block subdivisions. Staff said utilities and the water utility are examining service extension request procedures and coordination to give applicants earlier certainty about utility costs and feasibility.

- Small detention ponds and maintenance: multiple council members questioned the long‑term viability and maintenance burden of small on‑lot detention facilities. Staff said the proposal looks to reduce small ponds in favor of options such as modular detention or regional solutions where feasible.

Data requests and next steps

Council members asked staff for follow‑up data: supporting analysis for the stated 30–40 percent cost savings, a breakdown of lot size stratification, the share of lots that currently drain to a public street or drainage system, and the legal/statutory remedy for a landowner whose property is flooded by a neighbor (staff agreed to provide those items in the Q&A packet). Several council members said they may still consider asking for additional time to review the full packet before a scheduled adoption vote.

Staff told council the ordinance would be on the Thursday, Feb. 13 agenda for adoption and that the Planning Commission had recommended the proposal in December 2024 after prior hearings.

The briefing closed after extensive questioning and a request from staff to provide additional data before Thursday's vote.

","City staff on Tuesday briefed the Austin City Council on a proposal to streamline subdivision and site‑plan review for small infill housing, often called \"site‑plan light\" or residential infill, that would speed approval for projects of roughly 5 to 16 dwelling units and simplify subdivision of existing lots.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council briefed on parking‑code updates including mailed citations and new bike‑lane enforcement; three‑month education period planned

Staff outlines ‘site‑plan light’ changes to speed small infill housing; council questions drainage, thresholds