City Council Work Session Transcript – 4/5/2022 Title: ATXN-1 (24hr) Channel: 6 - ATXN-1 Recorded On: 4/5/2022 6:00:00 AM Original Air Date: 4/5/2022 Transcript Generated by SnapStream ================================== Please note that the following transcript is for reference purposes and does not constitute the official record of actions taken during the meeting. For the official record of actions of the meeting, please refer to the Approved Minutes. Part 1: [9:07:19 AM] >> Alter: Good morning. My name is Alison alter. I serve as mayor pro tem. I will be chairing the meeting today. It is Tuesday April 5, 2022. It is 9:07 as we convene this work session of the Austin city council. I'm joined on the regular dais by council members. Council membersfuentes, Ellis, pool and vela and in the virtual dais by councilmember tovo and mayor Adler and councilmember kitchen has also just joined us on the regular dais. This morning we're going to take up items in the following order. The jet fuel storage briefing. Pulled items, executive session, which may be during the lunch hour, we'll see, and then we have a pretty heavy Austin energy utility oversight committee agenda which is scheduled for 1:30 and we'll do our best to make that time. For right now I am showing the pulled items as the following: Item 69, and I know there are a couple of remarks perhaps on some other items. [9:08:21 AM] So we're going to begin with -- is someone talking to me? Okay. We are going to begin with the jet fuel storage briefing. If staff wants to make their way forward to do that briefing and council member Fuentes has asked to make a few brief remarks before we start so I'll recognize council member Fuentes. >> Fuentes: Thank you, mayor pro tem. I would also like to pull item 43, which is the jet fuel resolution, for conversation today. Colleagues, before we start I want to take a moment to provide some remarks because I know we're about to receive a lot of information regarding the airport's proposed expanded jet fuel facility. I first want to acknowledge that last week's incident at the airport that made national headlines due to the long lines at the airport was largely due to TSA staffing issues as well as a rental car agency hiccup. So TSA is handled by our [9:09:24 AM] federal government so that is subject from the low fuel alert that was issued. It's very important to recognize that the low fuel alert did not impact any scheduled flights in the way of cancellations, delays. So when we talk about this issue I just want to conflate what happened last week with the TSA staffing shortages that we're experiencing at the airport. This is the first time that I get to speak with the full dais about this issue. As you all know we do have subquorum rules and so I thought it was important for me to walk through a timeline to better understand how we got here because five of us on this dais were not part of the initial conversations regarding the master plan which I will refer to as the vision plan given the racist connotations associated with calling it a master plan. In 2017 the aviation department began creating the 2040 vision plan, which guides the airport's growth as it doubles in size and [9:10:25 AM] serves as a roadmap to the future modernization of our airport. In 2017 the airport then under the leadership of director Smith held three types of meetings. This included public meetings. It also included forming two committees, one was was which a technical advisory committee and another was a project advisory committee. Of the public meeting type, four community meetings were held and conducted as part of the vision plan engagement. So one, I think it's important that we know only four because I'd like to know of all of the vision plans that the city offers is four community meetings an average type of engagement to have for such a big undertaking of a vision plan and one iteration of a vision plan? Of those four public meetings that was conducted fuel was mentioned twice, at the second and third meetings. And with you on the dais, and we'll be sure to email this out to our colleagues [9:11:26 AM] joining virtually, there were two slides that are printed and for your review. Of those would slides that mentioned fuel it is a symbol of a gas pump and not what the tanks will actually look like. And I point this out because symbols matter and because when you're having these community engagement processes and you're setting up a conversation with your community, it's important that we're fully transparent. October 30th, 2018, city council held a city council meeting where a briefing regarding the austin-bergstrom international airport vision plan was initially presented to council. My staff and I have both reviewed the video. It's about a 20 minute conversation. We'll be sure to link it here on the message board shortly after today's work session in that conversation initiated by mayor pro tem alter there were many concerns by the council about the lack of information presented and confusion to the videotape due to the scarcity of [9:12:27 AM] information presented. And especially in comparison to other vision plans brought forward to this council. The concern voiced by members of this dais was that the map that was presented was a map without goals. And also with you on the dais there is that slide deck that was presented to council back in 2018 and we do have the graphic, the vision plan tabbed for you to look at during this conversation. As part of that conversation, the then airport director, director Smith, he highlighted that the guidance that this -- that this was a guidance document to the federal government denoting the capabilities of the airport to expand. That this was not set in stone. In fact, he said that this was not the pouring of concrete and that there would be various checkpoints coming to council in regards to the capital improvement projects, at which point council would be able to have more detailed in-depth conversations regarding the vision plan. Council member Flannigan, he [9:13:29 AM] asked if we were to change a part of this plan how difficult that would be or if it was set in stone. The response the council member received from the airport director was that these amendments could be made and that they were not laborious and that it would include redoing the community engagement process and making any adjustments to the plan. Now, I note this because it's important to highlight that that was the direction and feedback that this council received when first discussion the airport vision plan so why did this not come back to council? Why was the process painted to council at that time that it wasn't a big deal to have any awe justments or changes to the vision plan. The vision plan ultimately ended up being approved two days later at the council meeting in 2018 and I have not been able to find any other materials or communications that have been brought forward and of course I would defer to my colleagues to see if they have received any additional information as I was not [9:14:29 AM] elected yet and part of that original conversation. Here we are three and a half years later and the narrative presented to me is very different. Very clearly we saw that my community had hardly any say in this process and when it came to my attention about the proposed site my office immediately look action and we held two community meetings in the fall. We also passed a resolution that was unanimously supported by this council back in December that directed additional community engagement on this issue. It asked for an environmental analysis on the fuel site and asked for detailed information as to what other alternatives were considered. The responses I've received from our aviation department include that there is no other site, that this would take too much time and that all of this was already approved as part of the vision plan. I will be up front that I have had a range of emotions that include from being sad to frustrated to [9:15:30 AM] disappointed. When we look at the vision plan and what it lays out it calls for the relocation of highway 71. So let me repeat that this vision plan, we look at 2040 and beyond, we are willing to relocate a highway, which is going to be complex, expensive, difficult to do but yet when it comes to a fuel facility we somehow are not able to do that. We're not able to relocate it. So that is a very difficult thing for me to understand and of course that's what compelled today's conversation. It's why we're bringing forward item 43 that would ask to look at alternatives for this fuel site. And lastly, I want to highlight that we don't have to go too far back in our city's history to see environmental racism at play in the city that we all adore. In the '90s the community organized in a similar fashion to stop the fuel farm in east Austin. It took 15 years to clean up [9:16:30 AM] and countless families were affected with high rates of cancer and poor health outcomes. Now some of those very same families are organizing against this fuel tank farm in southeast. The mistrust in local government has only gotten bigger so we have a choice to make this week. Will we allow our eastside families to continue to be subjected to air pollutants or will we want to ensure the health and safety of our community? Item 43 is rooted in my community, it's rooted in understanding that we can do better for our community. Our community deserves better and so I look forward to today's conversation around the jet fuel site. >> Alter: City manager. >> Cronk: Thank you, city councilmember, for those open anxiety and I want to thank the council for the opportunity today to have this critical conversation as has been outlined. We have been asked to really review the safety that's [9:17:31 AM] involved in this jet aid fuel storage facility and look at the alternatives that were examined by our airport departments and others. So today we have a presentation that will be led by Jacqueline leatt, our CEO of the aviation department, and numerous staff here to answer additional questions. We want to make sure we are thorough, comprehensive in this discussion with you today. Director? >> Thank you mayor pro tem, city councilmembers and city manager for the opportunity to be here today. I am the director of the department of aviation. Joining me today a few of airport staff members, also the FAA will be available virtually, the watershed department representative and a representative from the Austin fire department and also a consultant that we hired to validate the [9:18:35 AM] process. They are all in the room to support the presentation today and answer any questions. I'm here specifically to discuss one of the many master plan projects, as you heard. The master plan calls for about 61 projects to meet the 2040 growth that the city and the airport was anticipated and forecasted. Part of also the airport expansion development program or you will hear me say a lot the adp which is about a four billion dollar program that, we announced about two years ago to embark to match the growth of the city that's happening behind us. I also want to mention that the airport expansion development program and the progress that we have in there today we are almost about six years behind taking on that expansion to match the growth and what we're seeing. And I'll explain later in the slides. Next slide, please. As council member Fuentes mentioned, the master plan was four workshops in 2017-2018. When I was hired in 2019 I [9:19:37 AM] was committed to delivering an improved and a modernized airport that supports our city and economic growth and the prosperity. That commitment is also to lead an organization that is not only an economic driver, but also customer driven and a community focused. The airport -- Austin's airport is co-owned and operated -- city observed and operated facility and I want all of the Austin and central Texas to be proud of what we do and who we are. I want to acknowledge on the slide here today that I clearly understand the city's history of discriminatory policies and decisions, and as a community-driven airport and operated by the city it's critical and we do understand that we have to make equitable and sound decisions for today and for the future of the airport. In 2017-2018, again the hosted the four workshops to give that vision of what the [9:20:37 AM] airport will do for the future of the airport to grow and match the anticipated growth of passenger and cargo activities. Those workshops were heavily attended by folks in the community from other interested parties to make sure they understand what the airport is putting together for a plan for the future. And it really looks at every square inch literally at the airport, how best to fit these critical infrastructure to support the passenger or cargo. There is a lot of requirements of where the sites at the airport that were discussed in the master plan to exactly what is best fit for the type of infrastructure or facility that we're opening or putting together. We've met with the community members, also recently as part of the district 2 concerned community of the project and the information about it. And we also as a part of the resolution we met again. So a total of six meetings since October of 2021 that [9:21:40 AM] we held with the community and the members. I'm very proud and grateful for the community to be engaged with the airport in what we're doing and they want to learn what's going on and also to make sure that we're engaged with them to give them information about our environmental focus and our engagement with them and the growth of the airport. Next slide, please. The community rightfully has had so many questions. A lot of them -- I'll talk about them, of what the information we have. And part of the workshops, part of the six meetings that we've had we provided a lot of the documentations, all the q&as on a website available at any time. So we were transparent from the beginning to make sure that we've had all the documents available for any questions and also available to answer any of the questions during the meetings or outside of those meetings. Next slide, please. A lot of the focus and a lot [9:22:41 AM] of the frequent questions came of why are you putting the tanks 500 feet away from homes? Is that really the site that's suitable? Is there any other locations? Is it safe? And how will highway 183, for example, the traffic will change and what would it do if we delayed the site and move it? And also will you be willing to hire and environmental firm to validate the quality and the data? So that's really what I'm going to focus on in the next few slides of answering these questions specifically because again they were the most frequent and we'll be able to provide you a bigger overview of what we've put together so far. Next slide, please. So first of all, let me explain the jet fuel storage facility, the purpose and the need, but also highlight the same facility that exists today for the last 20 years at the airport, operating safely for the last 20 years. The existing facility, as you've seen a picture on the right, is actually sitting [9:23:42 AM] about 300 feet away from buildings where city employees and other employees of the airport have been working nearby. As you see there's presidential boulevard leading to the terminal where we have passengers coming in and out everyday and across from our offices that we work from today also. The current facility offers two three-day worth of fuel supply. The industry average, I would like to highlight, is five to seven, however, what we're doing here is not specifically to try to catch up with industry standards, it's actually to try to respond to the growing and the growth that we're seeing at the airport. I'd like to point out that the average growth an airport sees around the country is four percent annually. Austin is doing eight percent. That growth is definitely putting pressure on the critical facility that we need to put and match with that AEPD programs and expedite with the projects. Today we have the badge bag [9:24:44 AM] badge handling project going on and also a cargo facility that's been going on to match the need. The master plan also called for 30 million passengers by 2040. Seeing the numbers that we have today and the recovery after covid, we will actually get to the 30 million passengers a lot sooner than 2040 and that is another need why we need to stick to the schedule on our projects that we have today, and I'll talk about the compliance that we've done with the projects to get them to the herd immunitying process and approval. Actually, can I go back one? One thing I do want to highlight on the site here if you look at the picture, the two tanks are sitting on what we call a containment pool. Literally it's like a swimming pool on top of concrete, that will capture all the fuel in the tanks if there's a spill today or break in those tanks. That is another safety feature and we'll talk about a lot of the safety features that the tanks have but that is a very important feature that I want to highlight [9:25:45 AM] today of why this site has been safe operating for the last 20 years and exactly we'll be matching that design in the new site but even more advanced. Next slide, please. So as I said there's about 61 projects in the master plan and also the airport expansion development program. As you shear in the purple, all of them, these projects are highlighted today. Some of them are already in progress or designed of some sort. The baggage handling system is one of them and also cargo facility. A lot of the projects you see in the purple are how part of they are dependent of each other to be able to match the growth of the parks, either being Gates, tax ways, even a utility plan that we need to build a new one to match the capacity and able to to serve the new Gates we have because the current facility that we have for utility plant cannot support that. There will be construction on the roadways, in the Barbara Jordan we're even adding and optimizing that [9:26:46 AM] Barbara Jordan terminal to add capacity. So every square inch of that airport will be in construction of some mode to add facilities that will support. The other thing I want to highlight quickly on this picture is the green box, which is the proposed site for the jet fuel storage and the transfer line that would be eight feet under the runways to the existing line. That transfer line is very important to understand the integrity of creating a transfer line between two facilities to transfer the fuel between the two sites. That is also one of the reasons of the criteria that was mentioned to pick a site and where it would best fit that transfer line plays a huge role of where it is and how far it's going to be. I do want to highlight that all storage fuel tanks will be above ground, the transfer line will be underground. So quickly I do want to -- [9:27:48 AM] I'm not a chemical technology or subject matter expert on the chemicals, but I don't to highlight a couple of things about what happened in east Austin tanks and the proposed site today. First of all it was 30 years ago. A lot has happened in 30 years. I'm not -- nothing about airport staff or us that we're actually discounting the issue back then. I would feel the same exact way when I have tanks that were plotted in the middle of a community four to five feet away from homes literally by a fence. Definitely also poorly managed and lacked some adequate safety and designs and protocols. Totally understand. However the situation we're in today is completely different. In 30 years there's been a lot of changes to especially prove designs, improved environmental and safety standards and also regulations. The new site sits on 10 acres, operated by one of the jet aid fuel storage [9:28:50 AM] experts around the country. Every airport around the Ken has a jet-a fuel storage facility and there are subject matter experts who have been doing this for years. It's also designed to prevent pollution violations. It has plans for leaks and spills. We have our own fire department on site. We also have regular inspections by the FAA, by the fire department and the airport staff on the site that it operates today. It's more important I want to mention too that phase I of the project that calls for the first two tanks, the distance between those two tanks and the residents is about 700 feet for the first residence. So that is again approximately, if I put in that language, two football fields separated by 183. A difference between today's project and proposed to what happened 30 years ago. [9:29:52 AM] Next slide, please. This slide actually highlights a little bit of the distance. If you see on the left side it talks about phase I, which is the first two tanks. If you see the one resident estimated within the 700 feet and four residents within the first thousand feet of the first phase of the project. Phase 2 is a total of four, which is the long-term plan, about 15 to 20 from now when we would eventually put up phase 2. One of the questions the community has in the meetings of what are the alternatives and why and can we look at other sites? And they also suggested by the community back in January, they gave us 12 [9:30:53 AM] sites. They looked at the maps and thoughts maybe can fit. I do want to highlight circle number 1, endless star -- the current site is number one. The proposed site is where the star is. The other sites as you can see, first of all, selecting sites under the FAA requirements, the FAA requires us to go through a site selection criteria that looks at the floodplains, specifically for this one . The other selection criteria that transferred line between the current site and the new Austin and protecting the integrity of that transfer line, also protecting the future development of the airport. So as I mentioned, the eight percent growth that we're seeing here, all the expansions inside the footprint, inside the fence, [9:31:53 AM] need to match that growth, cargo facility, jet-a facility, Gates for passengers, taxi ways and runways we're very limited to where we can put specific infrastructure to support that passenger growth but also to meet the requirement of the FAA either being the Hyatt, the protection zone for the runways, or the connectivity to the Gates or so forth. Some of the other sites also that are preserved for the future development have a larger impact such as noise or fuel from aircraft burning the jet-a or actually even the connectivity to the passenger facility also some of the other sites, the others have residential communities also. So if we look at other site it's 727 feet away from a residential community. We are surrounded by community. The focus of the airport and the commitment is to have a [9:32:55 AM] community engagement environmentally focused and to be a good neighbor for our community all the way around the airport. Be the alternative sites to be presented were as I mentioned similar distance to the current site today. Our main focus working with the FAA was no significant impact of the project to the community surrounding us. But I will-- would like to invite Ken carpenter to talk specifically about the environmental assessment. There was a lot of questions that came up about how we have done the environmental assessment. Are the tanks safe? And also the response to the future immediately to prevent a large scale emergency and likely if it happens for a fire or spill. Ken will talk about the next few slides about the environmental process. Next slide. >> Hi. Ken carpenter, the environmental manager at the [9:33:55 AM] Austin airport. So I think it's clear that this is a federally obligated facility and the Nepa process is driven by the FAA. So when we go through the national environmental policy act process, we're working with the FAA and the developer or if it's an airport project, the airport is working directly with the FAA. So today this particular project went through Nepa and the proper category to clear the project and evaluate any significant impact and that was decided by the FAA was an environmental assessment. Just kind of the highlights there for those first couple of bullets, we really looked at these categories which I think are relevant to a fuel farm and our FAA partners and the actual fuel farm operator have experience operating these facilities so everyone agreed that we really needed to focus on [9:34:56 AM] air quality, biological resources, land use compatibility, noise was a concern, surface transportation, wetlands, water resources, the floodplain, and any wetlands that would be within the project area or adjacent. Cultural resources were evaluated. Those can be, for instance, a cemetery, any kind of historic site, so we coordinated with the state of Texas, the state historic preservation officer to confirm that we weren't impacting any cultural resources designated by the state of Texas. Environmental justice was evaluated, hazardous resources, and floodplains does fit under wetlands and water resources. So we went through the process. It was determined that no significant impacts would occur based on the nature of [9:35:56 AM] this facility, meaning that it is heavily regulated. Lots much environmental permits are being required to operate the facility, lots of best practices. This is a heavily regulated facility. So part of those mitigation requirements of spill prevention is a top priority. They have a plan. It's evaluated by an engineer. We audit the plan every year. Another significant component is a facility response plan. And the facility response plan is actually sent to the E.P.A. Region 6 in Dallas so that plan is significant meaning that they're prepared to respond to a release. They have the resources available. They're doing training. And so that's -- those are some of the major mitigations that -- there are additional regulations but those are significant. And then any impacts to 183 that would be off site to the airport were worked through with txdot and we are modifying and adding a [9:36:56 AM] deceleration, escalation lane off of 183. We do want to note that 183 in this area will be updated in the future by txdot so txdot is in the planning phase to determine how and what 183 will look like in the next decade. So we'll be ahead of that with this project, but we are making modifications to 183 to limit the impacts to 183. Just some general facts there to phase I, which are the two tanks, 60 to 80 trucks per day. I think all of us know 183 is very busy and so the estimates are somewhere around 45,000 vehicles per day. So we can see here that the truck traffic will be minimal. And then last thing as Ms. Yaft stated, the FAA issued a finding of no significant impact in April of 2020. Based on the limited and significant impacts identified through this process. So I'm going to go to the [9:37:58 AM] next slide. I know we'll have some questions later on this. And as Ms. Yaft stated, FAA is on the call and they're available to answer any really specific technical questions. I will answer those the best I can, but I may be deferring to them in the future. Next slide. So just to go over some of the permits, the emissions I know are a concern, but they are authorized by the tceq through a permit by rule, which is kind of like a standard permit for facilities that have lower potential to emit emissions. So we have -- we've worked through with outside consultants, we've worked through with the actual developer meaning the fuel consortium, to confirm that this permit is legal and applicable to this site. And I can stand here today as someone who has been [9:38:58 AM] overseeing environmental compliance at the airport for many years, the facility is in compliance with the laws of this country as far as air quality. Additional permits that are significant, they will have a storm water discharge permit issued to them by the state of Texas. They have one today. They can be inspected by the state at any time and that permit is a public -- is on the public forum meaning someone can go in and make a complaint or ask questions about their compliance and the state will respond to that. They do report to the community. There's a program in Texas where if you have a certain threshold of chemicals at your facility you're required to report those to the community. That is often referred to as Texas tier 2. So they do that today and they will do that in the future. That is beneficial for the state to know and also the local emergency response entity, and that's AFD in this community. [9:39:59 AM] So AFD knows exactly how much-- how many chemicals and what volumes are stored at this particular site. They have city of Austin permits, site permit. I think everybody knows to get a site permit in the city of Austin has a lot of requirements, which are good to protect the environment. This site took about a year and they have received a city of Austin site permit. And they've received building permits. AFD then on top of this issues another hazardous materials permit due to the volume of the storage at the site and so they have -- they maintain another -- AFD hazardous materials permit. And then they have a state -- a city storm water permit issued to them by watershed protection department, our sister department, and they are required to comply with that tempt, which is inspected annually by watershed. [9:40:59 AM] So that's another storm water discharge permit that they have, which storm water is one of our major concerns with the volume of material and the amount of material that we're transferring at this particular site. National fire protection association, some setbacks there for fire and explosive protection, we are exceeding those with the project. The fire code is complicated, but we have focus here that can answer those questions, but those are just some general notes about how we're complying with the regulation. And actually, the nfpa is the regulatory guidance for this particular site. So I think that's it for me. And I'll hand it back over to Jackie. >> Next slide, please. And on the slide Ken was talking I also want to highlight that there is no, according to the FAA, [9:41:59 AM] regulation in place of how far jet-a storage facility needs to be from houses. There's nothing documented and defined that way. There is on other issues, for example, noise and the decibels and so, but there's nothing in the FAA that requires a certain distance from houses. The only thing we have, as Ken showed on the slide before, is the Nepa requirements. This slide talks about the environmental and [indiscernible] Safety. This is again what we have in place here about the fuel level sensors, the auto shutoffs, the spill tanks and water containment, the containment structures I mentioned and I showed in a picture in the beginning, and the multiple permits that we have, the multiple inspections that we have on the site that exist today to another 20 years is another testimony on why this is a safe site, this is a safe project to have. And if you see the history of all the other airports around in the country and how they have it. Sustainability highlights, I do want to emphasize today of what have we accomplished at Austin airport that the [9:43:01 AM] city of Austin and the council members should be proud of? And I know you are, of our carbon accreditation that we just achieved, one of the first airports to achieve being carbon neutral takes a lot actually from environmental commitment and sustainability for us to achieve such accreditation. And we've done. Kudos to my team and the city of Austin working together with all the other departments to actually get to that level. There's a lot of efforts in place. I won't talk about a lot of them, but we're Leed gold ratings on several buildings that we have. We buy back our emissions to make sure that everything that we do at the airport we are also conscientious of the environment around us and the community around us. Next slide, please. Two more to go. That's it. This slide here the question was asked what would be the impact if we are to delay this project? We did hire a third-party consultant to come up with the analysis as they do always for our economic engineer output into the community. As a regional airport, everybody knows that an airport is an economic [9:44:01 AM] engine to the region and to the city, specifically on this project, and these numbers are related specifically to this project. It takes -- it's going to take 58 to 60 months to complete this project from the day we talk about it to actually operating. So we're 30 months so we're 30 months into it. And where we are today, to be shovel ready, which we are on schedule. That was supposedly in March of this year that we were supposed to start construction, which is another 28 to 30 months. So if we are timeframe-wise to delay this project, another 30 months to start on a new site, because we have to start all over, but what does that do to our flight? So, today, as you're hearing about the fuel shortage notice and alerts that we're asking the airlines, basically when we have a fuel shortage alert, the airlines are asked to tanker fuel in or carry extra fuel with them. Or have the risk of diverting out of Austin to fuel in a [9:45:01 AM] different airport. We had British airways do that during the formula 1 timeframe. So, with the international flights that we have today, and all the growth that we're having, starting March 6th, we actually added flights to the airport. We have a risk of how many flights can we handle with the capacity of the fuel that we have today in the tanks, that if we are to delay this project again and start all over, the calculation shows at some point we would not be able to serve these flights and we risk losing these flights coming in to the city of Austin, either the cargo or passenger. We did not differentiate between the two of them. However, what that means is because of the direct and indirect jobs that are related to these flights being supported to the airlines or cargo or ground handlers, it equates to $4.7 million in community jobs that actually live off those [9:46:03 AM] flights, and the businesses that strive from the airport. And also about $6.7 million in lost output. This data was validated by a third party consultant, not airport staff. Okay. So, this is our last slide here, for exceeding the requirements. What I called this -- we hired an additional third party to validate the ea process at a request to make sure that we've done everything right and checked the boxes on everything that we've done with the federal, state, and city regulations. We also hired a third party contractor, this is part of our commitment to monitor and audit the facility when we start operating it to make sure that what we said is actually happening for our safety on our operations. We've listened to the community on a few other things, improving the facility design. They ask for decorative fencing, also landscaping and hard escaping, and we're also working with the art and public places to put some art coordination in [9:47:03 AM] front of the facility.hardscaping, and we're also working with the art and public places to put some art coordination in front of the facility. We're also committed to -- not just for this project specifically, one of the commitments I want to emphasize today is we're committed to having a better engagement going forward by creating what we would call a green team, which is airport staff, business partners, community volunteers, to share together division for collaborating with the community on the sustainability goals. For these projects and all the other projects that we'll see the next five years and moving forward, too. We want to celebrate together that environmental stewardship, and that green team would be our part to connect with all the communities and all the districts around the airport to make sure that everybody's knowledgeable about what we're doing. Sharing our documents and input and putting together the future together. We're also going to hire a full-time community engagement person, and work on a robust community outreach to support the AEPD projects. So, with that said, happy to [9:48:06 AM] take any questions. >> Alter: Thank you, Ms. Yaft. I appreciate the thorough presentation. Colleagues, questions? I understand that we have someone from the FAA also available, if we have questions. Council member vela and council member pool. >> Vela: With regard to the current site, and I've been looking at the maps, it's just hard to kind of track with the perspective and the current. What are the plans for the current sites where the tanks sit? >> The current site of the future plan is the runway and taxiway expansion. Again, part of that growth to handle the passenger flights is that current site actually -- the tanks will have to go away, and that is the reason for phase two eventually. And it will become only a [9:49:06 AM] transition line. For hydro and fueling. So part of the growth of the airport also, one of our projects will be hydro and fueling, which means we'll eliminate the fuel trucks that would be going to the aircraft to fuel the aircraft itself, and the hydro-- from the hydroitself at the Gates. >> Vela: So the current location will stay as part of the fueling infrastructure, but it will be -- something different will be there? >> Correct so. The tanks itself that exist will go away at some point, yes. >> Vela: Okay. But that's not the current location where the tanks are, is not going to be part of the terminal? Or part of like the runway or expansion or anything like that? >> Well, part of the taxiway in the runway projects, that the tanks need to be taken away. >> Vela: I guess is there some kind of -- do they need to be so far from one of the taxiways or the runways? >> Well, the taxiway and the runway has a protection zone [9:50:06 AM] around it. So regardless of of what is built, either cargo or buildings or tanks, when we get to that point where we're addressing the taxiways, yes, it has to be cleared around it to clear that zone around the aircraft, around the taxiway and the runways. >> Vela: Okay. And the transfer facility -- and I'm sorry, what did you call it, hybrid? >> There will be a transfer line between the existing site today and the new site. That is going to be underground. Hydro fueling will be actually at the Gates where the aircraft comes in to fuel the aircraft. >> Vela: So can we expand at the current site for now? >> So, to go to the existing site or any site goes back to that 30-month delay, because again, you need design, permission, approval, environmental assessment. So regardless of where we go, it [9:51:09 AM] has to go through the whole process of the 30 months. However, specifically to the existing site, it does not have fluff to be able to handle that same capacity that we would be putting on the proposed site. There is not enough room. >> Vela: There is not enough capacity for long-term capacity. >> To put the current proposed site on the existing, we do not have room for that either today. Possibly at best would be one tank, not two. >> Vela: Okay. And how much would one tank do in terms of alleviating the fuel shortages that we have right now? >> So again, with the flight operations, what the calculation did, again, of part of designing, the call is called for needing the existing two tanks and the two new tanks, all four of them, to be able to handle that for the next few years. >> Vela: What about a site outside the airport property? Was that considered or is that possible? >> So again, it's the transfer line. [9:52:10 AM] It's the distance, how far is it, and we -- the airport specifically, as far as the city department, our property that we own is inside the fence. Again, would we impact, we would have to go through all that design analysis, purchasing land, and that delay would be more than 30 months. >> Vela: But in -- going back to the fuel line, and fuels lines that you were talking about, the process would be where there would not be any trucks needed anymore to deliver the fuel from the tanks to the airplanes; is that right? >> Two differences, sir. The transfer line between the proposed site and the existing -- that's just a transfer line to transfer fuel between the tanks. The hydro fueling is at the gate itself, and that would be where there are lines coming from the site to carry the fuel for the Gates and we would not need the [9:53:10 AM] fuel trucks on the airfield. On the street trucks. >> Vela: And I'm sorry -- hydrant fueling? Is that what it's called? >> Yes, that's from a hydrant at the gate. Where they actually connect the hose from the hydrant to the tank of the aircraft to fuel it. >> Vela: And when is that hydrant fuel in the airport master plan? When is that supposed to take place? >> The hydrant fueling at the new concourse is part of the ne concourse design. >> Vela: And what would be the date more or less? >> Five to seven years as the new Gates come on. >> Vela: Okay. And... In the airport master plan, and I was reviewing some of the documents in the presentation, was the fuel form discussed in the community meetings that were being held to -- for the airport master plan, [9:54:14 AM] was the fuel form discussed? >> Yes, sir. >> Vela: And what was the feedback at that -- I guess, you know, when and how was it discussed and what was the feedback at that dime? >> So it was discussed in 2017-2018, those four workshops that were held to talk about the master plan and all the projects in there. The fuel was one of them. There was no feedback -- I should say no negative feedback received at the time. >> Vela: At that time, though, there were those 12 possible sites identified; is that correct? >> The master plan talks about the sites that are actually all the projects in the master plan and the locations of them. It doesn't elaborate in the discussions. Again, I was not here in 2017 of all the analysis that was done on every project, all those 61 projects. It doesn't go through that. The information is available, if asked. But... >> Vela: And were those materials or any meetings -- were those materials provided in Spanish? Were any of the meetings [9:55:15 AM] conducted? Spanish? And again, I'm sorry, director, I know this predates your time. >> I can't speak to if they were in Spanish or not. >> Alter: Council member vela, may I let someone else have a chance? If someone could keep their questions to a few questions, so that everyone can have a turn, we can go back through. So I have council member pool, council member Kelly, council member Fuentes and kitchen. >> Pool: Director yaft, thanks for being here and thanks to the folks who have come to provide additional information on all aspects of this project. I want to make sure I'm correctly understanding the context and acknowledging director yaft, you weren't here at the time. But we do have information about what was going on in 2017 and '18. So in 2017 and 2018, the city of Austin worked to create the master plan for airport expansion. It included community meetings [9:56:16 AM] in that process. The city submitted the plan to the federal government for approval. And in 2020, received the go ahead from the federal government in the form of the finding of no significant impact, which that means appropriate steps had been followed, as the process, robust, vigorous, because they had the oversight and the authority for the safety and the operations of the airport; is this correct? >> Yes, ma'am. >> Pool: There are two storage facilities on the site that have been there since 1999. Have there been any leaks from these storage units? >> No, ma'am. >> Pool: Are there safety measures to prevent fumes from leaking when trucks deposit fuel into those storage units? >> I'm sorry, say that last question again. >> Pool: Are there safety measures to prevent fumes from escaping or leaking when trucks deposit fuel into the storage [9:57:18 AM] units. >> Yes, we have plans in place. >> Pool: I imagine that they're probably at a higher level of protection than, for example, when you're fueling your car at a gas station, a gas pump? >> Correct. There's several valves on the facility, and we actually have a YouTube video that we did specifically for this effort to explain how the operation is and how safe it is. >> Pool: And one of the new safety elements it sounds like to me with the hydrant lines would be to even further reduce the chances of any fumes escaping during the fueling process? Because that will all be underground? >> Exactly, absolutely. >> Pool: Okay. Have there been discussions about building a barrier that separates the residential area from 183, that would be I guess on the west side, the side away from the airport? [9:58:18 AM] >> Has not, no. >> Pool: Okay. The vegetative barrier that you were talking about is closer to where the fuel storage facility would be built; is that correct? >> Correct. On the airport property, yes. >> Pool: Kut reported that the FAA said in a statement that the agency, the federal aviation administration, has no regulations or guidance on how far, and they use the term fuel farm, could be -- should be from properties outside the airport's perimeter. Is that accurate? >> That is accurate. >> Pool: So there are no regulations anywhere nationally for that. >> For distance with the FAA, correct. >> Pool: Is a buyout for homes that may be within -- I understand there are no homes within the 500- foot radius, but potentially in phase two, there could be homes within that radius. So a buyout as an option has been raised and discussed. Is that an option and why or why [9:59:19 AM] not? >> It is not. So the buyout under the federal regulation, the FAA regulations requires to meet eligibility criteria to mitigate some kind of an impact that has. Most buyouts comes through, for example, 150 study, that if there is a noise impact to the communities, the mitigation would be, for example, soundproofing the windows, or eventually a buyout where the federal will then support the buyout for using airport funds or also offer the funds through the FAA. Because all airports are federally funded and under the grant assurance compliance, we using airport funds and revenue has to be into criteria the FAA would approve. In this situation specifically, there was no significant impact on this project as a finding by the FAA, and therefore it's not eligible for buyout. >> Pool: And, in fact, if something were to change along those lines as far as the city, does that put the city of Austin [10:00:21 AM] in negative posture with federal aviation administration? >> Correct. If we do have to use airport revenues for a buyout on this project, it would put us in noncompliance with the FAA. >> Pool: And I have just one last question, and it goes to the potential relocation of 183. I just wanted to make sure I was understanding this. The reason why that particular element is a part of the future plan for adia is because txdot has indicated that the state plans a future expansion of 183, not that the city plans to move that road; is that correct? >> That is correct. Anything that has to do with txdot, in partnership with txdot or cap metro, that is part of their projects and we're working with them on that impact, but it's not an airport-driven initiative. >> Alter: Can I just clarify if that's 183 or 71 that was moved. >> Either one. Txdot, they're not airport highways. >> Alter: So they're being moved [10:01:22 AM] because of -->> Pool: We don't know if they're being moved. >> Alter: The proposal takes into consideration txdot's plans to move those roads. >> We work with txdot or cap metro on any of the expansion that they're doing or any of the initiatives that they're doing and how they impact the airport and vice versa. >> Pool: So again, does the city of Austin have the authority to relocate 183 or any state highway, or is the inclusion of that plan a necessary element of our planing processes, which we're doing in cooperation and collaboration with other autonomous government agencies? >> Yeah, we mainly in collaboration with them. That's their decision. Correct. >> Pool: That's all I have for now. Thank you so much. Thank you, director yaft. >> Thank you for being here and for the graciousness and the wonderful tour that you gave me and my staff last week at the airport. It really helped me understand a lot of the different intricacies of the work that you all do out there, and seeing the neighborhood nearby and being able to go over and look at it was very helpful. I'd like to ask a couple of [10:02:23 AM] questions here, just for my understanding through research that my staff and I have done, we came to learn that our city's ranked 11th largest city in the United States, but the airport itself is ranked 34th largest in the United States; is that correct? >> That's correct. >> Ellis: And then my understanding through the 11 fuel advisories is that while initially, individuals who purchase airline tickets coming out of our airport may not feel that burden, the cost is passed on to those traveling through the airport for having to have additional fuel on the planes and less passengers; is that correct as well? >> Correct. So the tinkering fuel in for airlines is an additional cost. There's a lot that goes into it for load balance, number of passengers, cargo that they're carrying, depends on how much fuel they're carrying. Cost of fuel also plays a huge role of how effective it is for them to tanker fuel, and is it [10:03:24 AM] doable for a certain number of flights versus so many a day for a specific airport. It also puts a strain on other airports. >> Ellis: Finally, I also understand that as part of the discussions surrounding our storage tanks for the jet-a fuel, we are also planning on expanding Gates at the airport. If we don't have the file on hand, it would not be>> Adler: -- Be as advantageous for other airports; is that correct? >> That is correct. >> Alter: I have council member Fuentes, kitchen. Anyone else? Tovo. Anyone else? Ellis, and then -- okay. >> Fuentes: Thank you for being with us. Can you talk us through how we [10:04:24 AM] currently obtain fuel for the fuel storage facility, where it comes in, and the process in ensuring that we have our reserves on hand? >> So the fuel comes actually from bastrop via trucks. They are trucked every day, daily. Comes in and what we call an upload into the tanks. >> Fuentes: And from my understanding, that's a 24/7 operation and that we have 60 to 80 trucks that are coming in on a daily basis that are ensuring that our fuel reserves are replenished and stocked up. What consideration has been given to increasing the frequency in which we obtain our fuel so that when we know we have formula 1 weekend or NASCAR weekend, any of these big tourist vents in our city, that we're able to increase the frequency of trucks coming in with the fuel to avoid any type [10:05:24 AM] of low fuel alert. >> So, it's not necessarily the frequency or more trucks that have fuel. It's more of the operation of uploading that fuel and letting it settle. Part of the contingency plan that we have when we have a high demand is we actually try to create the schedule so they can come in on time, and be available readily. Or even come in from Austin, some of the other cities or some of the other facilities. So to have the availability of those trucks coming in and be available. But it is a transfer situation between the trucks and the tank, the settling, and then the other side of the operation. >> Fuentes: So have we explored the transferring of that fuel to see if there is an interim solution for us to ensure that we're able to meet the current demand that we have for fuel? >> The fuel trucks that actually come from the facility to the airport have to upload into the tanks. They won't be uploading into the aircraft right away. [10:06:25 AM] So it really is, again, the capacity of the tanks and how much it can have to be able to go through that process. I am not a technical person to speak specifically to it. But it is an operation that is heavily managed by the Austin fuel folks. >> Fuentes: Okay. When we first applied, to your knowledge when we first applied for approval with the FAA, it was one site that we submitted for the fuel farm. How long did that process take? We received approval in April 2020, but are you familiar with when we actually submitted the application to the FAA? >> Hi. We started the process in approximately August of 2019. And so we started facilitating conversations between the developer and FAA. That's when it first started. Worked through the fall, and probably the first submittals to [10:07:28 AM] FAA, draft eas were probably in January of 2020. >> Fuentes: Okay, so that's -- >> About six months. Hard working on the document five to six months, yes, ma'am. >> Fuentes: Okay. My last question for now. You know, part of the review and research that me and my team did, we found that as part of the environmental assessment analysis, on page 5 of the ea, there is a fuel farm master plan that is referenced, dated September 2019. Can you share more about what this fuel farm master plan entails and was it ever presented to council? >> That's an internal document for the fuel consortium created, to evaluate based on their future projections, and current operations. In the actual master plan that was approved in 2020, I think chapter 5, there's a discussion about how and when new [10:08:28 AM] additional facilities would be required, and it's really left up to those folks. I mean, so the master plan, for fuel at the airport, is not really a city function. It's really an airline function. And airlines actually buy the fuel directly from Flint hills refinery in Corpus Christi. So I mean, they're managing this all the way from the coast, all the way to the aircraft here in Austin. And so that is not a city function and we're not the experts on that. But there was a master plan created and they developed that to determine their need. >> Fuentes: Thank you. >> I hope that answered your question. >> Alter: Council member kitchen . >> Kitchen: Okay. Thank you, I have three questions. The first one, I wanted to follow up on a question that council member vela asked about the existing site. [10:09:29 AM] So I want to make sure I heard you correctly. So, I heard that perhaps one additional tank, but not two, would fit on that site. Did I hear that correct? >> Correct. >> Kitchen: Okay. I also heard -- so my question goes -- and I think you mentioned that the timeline -- so if that were a route to pursue, the timeline would be 30 months; is that correct? >> That's correct. >> Kitchen: So here's my question. Because it's an existing site, is there any opportunity for either expedited or shortened version of analysis since the site is already being used for the same purpose? >> So the design of that extra tank or the modification to that site would actually take time to put that together because we don't have it in the plans on that site. That was never produced that way. So there was actually -- the timeframe is the design, the [10:10:30 AM] permitting process by doing the ea assessment, getting all the permits by the state and city. That is where that 30-month -- again, I can't speak to it can be 30, 28, I don't know. That is the average of how long it took us to get from the beginning of designing the site. >> Kitchen: Okay. Thank you. I understand the steps. The reason I'm asking that is -- and actually, you know, I'm not an expert on the process at all. But it just would be a question for me about whether you could actually significantly shorten that timeframe, because you're already using the site for the same purposes. So that's just a question and perhaps that's something that you could respond to let us know with a little bit more detail, understanding, of course, that you can't predict exactly how long it would take. But particularly the environmental assessment part, of course you'd have to assess, you know, three tanks versus two tanks. But, you know -- well, anyway. I would just like to understand the degree to which there are [10:11:31 AM] some synergies or some shortened timeframes from that kind of approach. My second question is the -- you had shown a slide about alternative sites that were mentioned. I think it was 12 sites. Can you help me understand what type of analysis was done of those sites? >> Yes. So, the site selection is the criteria, again, of what is that site, where it is on the airport. Land, storm water -- excuse me, floodplains, location. >> Kitchen: Yeah, okay. >> The purpose of the use of that site. For example, some of the sites were inside a gate envelope. That's really where the Gates would go in the taxiways. If we are to put fuel tanks in there, then I can't put the Gates. Similar thing to the use again, and the impact. Air cargo facility or general aviation facility would have a higher environmental impact from [10:12:33 AM] the fumes and the noise than a jet-a. So the location of those, again, are being used to decide what would be the best fit for that site, either the site that we're talking about, putting air car gore on there, for example, would have a higher impact.go on there, for example, would have a higher impact. One of the slides had the ten under the ea. That's the criteria we would look at. >> Kitchen: So each one of those sites was -- the 12 sites were presented from the community, did I understand that correct? >> Correct. >> Kitchen: And each one of the 12 sites were analyzed against the criteria. >> Correct. >> Kitchen: So there's -- I'm sure that others are aware of this and I have just not seen this detail. But there's a document that explains for each site what the issues were against the criteria; is that right? >> Yam, the matrix and the [10:13:35 AM] documents were presented.es, ma'am, the matrix and the documents were presented. >> Kitchen: Okay. The last question related to that. Was it that these sites were not possible because of one or more criteria? Or were they just not optimal? >> I guess I'm not sure that they're not possible. Again, the best fit for the site, comparing it to all the 12 sites again, because of that criteria, that's where, again, it was determined that this is the right site for the facility. >> Kitchen: Yeah, I understand that. I guess I'm asking a different question. And I'll go back and look at it and ask more precisely. But I'm actually asking what's possible, not what's the best fit. So I'll go back and take a look at that. My last question is, on the buyouts, I wanted to follow up on a question that council member pool had. So, I understand that it's not -- you know, for a range of reasons, using airport funds is not appropriate or possible for [10:14:37 AM] buyout. I'm just curious whether or not the city might have some options for buyout. Here's my question. Have we examined use of city funds as opposed to airport funds for buyout, understanding that we're talking about a small number of homes, if I'm understanding. So that may be a question for city manager. So I think we might have more flexibility with the use of city funds for other public purposes that are not what the airport would be constrained by. >> Council member, thank you. I know our legal team has looked into that. I don't know if our city attorney would like to weigh in on this. >> Kitchen: If we need to do it in executive session, that's fine. >> Council member, I think the question is -- I think that director yaft talked about the FAA being able to reimburse the city for something and that would not be possible. There certainly is a conversation we could have if anybody was interested in having [10:15:39 AM] a buyout, but I'm not sure we've been asked. >> Kitchen: Okay. All right. So that's a different issue. And there might be a possibility there. I'm not suggesting that we need to do that. I'm just asking. Okay. Thank you very much. >> Alter: Council member tovo. >> Tovo: Yeah. I think at this point, we've covered just about all the questions and comments that I had. I think I just want to underscore something that came up and that council member Fuentes brought up in her initial comments and in the resolution itself. As somebody on this dais during the period of time when we talked about the concept plan, I remember those conversations about some of those areas being very general. And, you know, I think I really want to underscore that there were not conversations that this council took part in, that talked specifically about a location for the fuel, and I'm now confused about whether or not those specific conversations were included in the community meetings, because it sounded -- [10:16:42 AM] it looked like the information we were receiving from your research, council member Fuentes, and some of the other research that I've -- that community members have shared, that there were not specific conversations about locations in that either. And so I just want to acknowledge that there's a real difference between having a concept plan that talks about different elements and actually providing a map with a specific location that is in close proximity to people's homes. And so that is a concern and I appreciate, council member Fuentes, your work in asking us to take a look at what other options are here for those individuals who would be living in close proximity. As well as acknowledging, staff, I appreciate the focus today on safety and environmental concerns, because I think it's all part of -- it's all part of the conversation that we need to have. >> Alter: Thank you. I have council member Ellis, Renteria, mayor Adler, and [10:17:43 AM] myself. >> Ellis: Thank you, mayor pro tem. Director yaft, can you explain the FAA lack of regulations around proximity to residences? Why is there not a standard that they typically follow for this type of location? >> I can't specifically say why they don't have it documented. They do have other ones. However, the nfpa has a specific separation from tanks as we showed into one of the slides. It's a documented separation requirement by another federal agency. >> Ellis: Okay, thank you. And then can you go into a little bit more detail about the difference between the previous tank farm and what the jet-a fuel storage would be? I know you had a slide up there, but I wasn't able to read through it that quickly. But what are the differences between those storage methods and the products in them? >> So, there's a huge difference between gasoline and jet-a, as [10:18:43 AM] far as its -- catch fire. There's a YouTube video, if you look it up, if you put a match inside a jet-a, it will actually turn off the match. The jar of the fuel will not catch. If you put it in gasoline, it's completely different, it will actually catch fire right away. But again, I'm not a chemist to explain that. But specifically, to what happened in east Austin 30 years ago today, there were several companies that were managing those tanks, not necessarily one together. The difference today is we have one jet-a consortium that's running that facility. They are running it on several airports around the country. They're excerpts at it. They're doing it again on behalf of the airlines. But there's also a lot of protocols in place and emergency and contingency in place to catch it from either their censors, the spill proof, auto prevention. It's staffed 24/7. Again, the huge difference between two is that contaminant pool that I talked about that's sitting on concrete. So there's no fuel spills to the [10:19:47 AM] ground. We have storm water. For example, today on the site, storm water inspections to make sure we are not impacting that. Again, and we make sure that we have inspections regularly from the airport staff, from the federal agency that comes to the airport once a year to inspect, and in the fire department, they do their inspections on the facility and on the fuel trucks. >> Ellis: Thank you, and I appreciate those images, because at first, I thought maybe they would be buried below ground and it's just the transfer line that's actually below ground. Everything else is contained below ground and has the extra containment pool around it in case something does go wrong. >> Correct, and that is really another reason, the transfer line. The short distance of the transfer line to maintain the integrity of that transfer line is important to us. >> Ellis: Okay, thank you. I think -- actually, I have one last question. I thought the graphic was really [10:20:48 AM] important to understand above versus below ground for these storage situations. Obviously, any sort of seepage or leakage into the ground would be damaging, I'm sure, for any type of fuel component. Can you talk a little bit about air quality issues? Is there any chance for this type of material getting into the air? It seems like these pools were actually contained and you said there was videos you could look up about how it's transferred from the truck into the storage facilities. Is there any chance of evaporation for lack of a better word, or other ways that this can get into the air and create breathing issues or anything of that nature? >> Yes, specifically for the tceq permit -- and again, I'm not a chemist, but I'll refer to what they call the vocs. So the permit by rule, everything that we have, and everything that we -- everything at the airport, even your bug spray at home has vocs. Again, depends on the size of the project. So I just wanted to explain what a voc is. [10:21:48 AM] It's the vapor coming from that chemical that has in your gasoline. When you're fueling your car, there's vocs. The tceq permit is what they permit to any site developer, a limit of 25 tons of vocs a year to be emitted. That's the limit that they put beyond that. You have to go through different mitigations and so forth. The project that we're proposing, we hired part of the consultant in the ea assessment is to get that permit, they did the study, and it's 3.6 is what the new tanks would emit. The current tanks, there's 4.9. So that way below the limit, the tceq would permit. As far as vapor, again, initial studies show that the vapor, if there's any vapor that would come out of the tanks, it would evaporate within about 200 feet. So, again, there's a lot of vocs around us in the air, specifically. [10:22:49 AM] But the limit that we go to is what the tceq puts into place. >> Thank you. That's the end of my questions. >> You're welcome. >> If I may, we do have a staff from our Austin fire department, so this might be an opportune time to just ask them to come up and speak to any other safety considerations that have been included in this discussion. >> Good morning. I'm Greg pope with the Austin fire department, battalion cheap over the arf division, aircraft rescue firefighting. With me, I have lieutenant Dave Mcguire. He is our main inspector out there. Any questions you have for us, we'd be happy to entertain them at this point. >> Talk about just describing the process that you currently use to inspect the facility and your involvement in working with [10:23:49 AM] the airport to identify this new facility and ensure its safety. >> Yes, sir. I do annual inspections -->> Alter: Can you state your name for the record, please? >> My name is lieutenant David Mcguire. I do annual inspections at all the sites out at abia, and then the arf trucks, the airport rescue firefighter trucks do four inspections, one every quarter. And then they also inspect every vehicle that is either coming online and an annual inspection. Those inspections include everything from safety, extinguishers, making sure that all the alarms, all the equipment is working correctly, is either green tag, blue tagged, or red tagged. Red tag means it's failed. We need to note that. We immediately turn all that equipment in. And all of that process goes to [10:24:52 AM] our hazmat engineers. And anything that we don't -- aren't an expert at, we have a hazmat engineering department that handles that. If there's any more specific questions... >> Alter: Okay, so we'll take a few quick questions for fire. Council member Renteria, did you have questions for fire? >> Renteria: Could you build a tank like that with jet fuel next to -- if it wasn't on the airport, could you build that next to a residential 500 feet away? >> That is beyond my expertise. >> So with that question, when it comes to proximities, our capabilities is mainly extinguishment and augmentation of the fire systems. When it comes to proximity, that's out of our realm of expertise, and I'd be remiss to [10:25:53 AM] be able to talk intelligently on that. For what lieutenant Mcguire and I have, it's actually the fire department response to this, and the capabilities of the actual fire department there on the airport grounds. >> Renteria: Thank you for being honest about that. >> Alter: Okay, so, I'm going to take questions, since our fire professionals are up here, I'll take questions for them specifically, and then go back to council member Renteria, if he has other questions, mayor Adler, and myself. Council member Fuentes, do you have questions for them? >> Fuentes: Well, I did have someone about whether or not this would be allowed with our residential zoning, would this be a permissible use? So if there is someone on staff that can help clarify or shed light on that issue, that would be helpful. My other question is, we know that we have fire at the airport that is on hand and available. But it's come to my attention that there's not a fire station [10:26:53 AM] in southeast that is equipped to handle hazardous materials. There's only four in the entire city and there's just not one in southeast. So if you could speak to, what would happen if there was an explosion, what would be the protocols in place to not only contain it within the airport property, but what would be the effort to the neighbors and the residents nearby? >> Absolutely. So, on airport grounds, we have three crash trucks or response trucks. They all carry 3,000 gallons of water, 400 gallons of foam. With that, we can produce with our reserve trucks there on the airport grounds, we can produce 42,000 gallons of foam in order to mitigate -- to augment the fire suppression systems within the tanks. If something were to happen, our response units, our hazardous materials, just like you said, we have four hazardous material response units throughout town. One is off airport, is right by the Mueller subdivision, or old Mueller airport. And one is off mancak and [10:27:56 AM] slaughter. So those would be the first responding units. The one there on airport, we have a foam trailer. That would be able to come help us augment our foam capabilities. The foam is the best way to put out these fires and it's -- you know, water -- just supplying water is not the correct solution. So we'd have to produce this foam. We have a tremendous amount of foam capability, and if for some reason we ran out as a city, which I believe the fire would be out before we ran out of foam. We have other city agencys that we work with a partnership that would respond as well. But as for the houses in close proximity, with the 51 fire stations here in the city of Austin, you're creating box alarms and response protocol, we would have the area covered more times over than we would need. >> And then director yaft acknowledged she's not a [10:28:57 AM] chemist. In your expertise, the difference between gasoline and jet-a fuel. If you could share your knowledge and expertise in that regard. >> Absolutely. My knowledge of jet-a and gas, I am a private pilot. That's the reason why being at the airport is a favorable job title for me, battalion chief over the Austin fire department that is at the airport. The volatility of jet-a, it's a mixture of kerosene and diesel, which I think I heard someone speak before. You can pretty much put a match inside a jar of jet-a and it's going to go out. 100 low lead or what the aircraft that I flies, it's basically a gasoline -- it's a hundred low lead. You can pour it on your hand and go like that, within five seconds, it has evaporated. So that's probably a lot more volatile. So having these jet-a tanks in [10:29:57 AM] close proximity to a roadway or house, whether it be jet-a -- and like I said, I don't want to speak out of turn, but it's not as concerning to me than having a million gallons of hundred low lead or regular av gas there, because it would be a lot more volatile. What makes me sleep better at night, knowing that the fire station is there, and we will be responding, all the fire systems that are in place that have been put there in order to first get a handle on this kind of situation, and then with what the airport provides us with response trucks, being able to augment that and keep it from becoming a huge deal, a huge environmental hazard, that gives us a lot of good equipment in order to handle that. I don't know if I just talked around your question, sir. >> Alter: Council member Kelly, questions for them? >> Kelly: Yeah. Thank you so much for being leer [10:30:57 AM] today. I know we're talking about foam and I want to clarify for people at home that might not know oxygen heat and fuel are referred to as the triangle, and if you take any of those elements away, that's what stops the fire. So when you talk about a class B fire, like what could happen if the jet fuel storage facility, the foam smothers the fire in order to put it out in a much safer, quicker, and efficient manner. So I just wanted to make that clarified so that people who didn't know how that process worked knew. Also, as far as fire safety, my understanding is you do inspections every four months; is that correct? >> Yes, ma'am. >> Kelly: And since 1999 when these storage tanks have been at the airport, have there ever been any issues there? >> Since 1999, there have been some small fuel spills, all less than 20 gallons. And that was -- that's at the current facility. So basically, you take kitty litter out there. You put kitty litter on it and clean it up. [10:31:57 AM] It's not what we call a major spill at all. >> Kelly: Okay. It's also my understanding there's lightning protection as well at the tanks? >> Absolutely. The new tanks are over-engineered. They actually have foam inside the tanks to put the tanks out before we would ever show up. So hopefully that foam would put out any fire. >> Kelly: And the way they're currently designed, they reflect heat as well? >> Yes. >> Kelly: Okay, thank you. >> Alter: Thank you, gentlemen. We're going to go back to our other questions. Council member Renteria, do you have other questions? >> Renteria: Yes, thank you. What I want to know is, was there an environmental justice impact study done? >> So, and we went back to ask the FAA specifically for clearance. Remember, the environmental assessment is part of the FAA, and I would like to actually refer to John from the FAA if we can bring him online. [10:32:58 AM] >> Hi. Can everybody see and hear me? >> Yes, sir. >> John Macfarlane, I'm an environmental protection specialist in the southwest region of the FAA's airports division in Fort Worth. I worked on the environmental assessment, finding the most significant impact. We work under Nepa. We worked under the framework of Nepa and we have Nepa implementing guidelines or policy. So under 1050-1f, which is our airport -- the framework that we work under for Nepa, for issuing environmental determinations, discusses environmental justice, and what is the threshold to do [10:33:59 AM] an environmental justice analysis. So what it says is, if there are no significant impacts, meaning if the impacts to those -- say, I think we have 11 to 14 resource categories. If those impacts do not reach a threshold of significance, which we have in our guidance, then there is no significant impact. So if there is no significant impact to a resource, that means there is no -- that there's no -- it's not required to do an environmental justice analysis. So the threshold would be a disproportionate impact to minority and low income communities. So if there is no significant adverse impact, then there cannot be any disproportionate impact to those communities. So this project was commensurate [10:34:59 AM] with the -- you know, it was completely contained on airport. As you've heard before, there was no -- the error emissions were way below the standard criteria from tceq. We weren't required to do an air quality analysis, because Austin is in attainment of all air quality standards. Because the project was entirely contained on the airport, and no significant impacts. There was no environmental justice analysis. >> Renteria: Okay. Because of all the criteria that you just talked about, you came to the conclusion that we didn't need to do an environmental impact study? Is that what you're saying? >> Yes, because there were no [10:36:00 AM] significant impacts. There were no impacts that could disproportionately impact those communities across the highway. >> Renteria: And since we have -- >> So no -- >> Renteria: I'm going to back off and see if anybody else would have any questions they would like to ask you. >> Alter: Council member Fuentes, pool, and tovo. >> Fuentes: Thank you. I just want to be super clear here. The environmental assessment that was conducted was focused on the airport property. The environmental assessment did not take into consideration residential uses, the fact that there are neighbors living with it, within 500 feet. So therefore, the environmental justice impact analysis was not triggered because the environmental assessment was only for airport property. And that is the crux of the issue, is that we have families living 500 feet away from the proposed fuel site, which is part of the reason the resolution that I'm bringing forward calls for an [10:37:01 AM] environmental justice impact analysis to be conducted. And this is an area that from my understanding, the aviation department has classified as an environmental justice neighborhood. And so that also brings forward certain classifications and considerations. And so, if I'm wrong in that, feel free to correct me. But that is the distinction in that we do not have an environmental justice impact analysis, because the ea says that there's no significant impact because they're only assessing property within the airport and not property residences outside of the airport. >> Alter: Ms. Yaft, did you want to respond to that? >> Hi. Ken carpenter again. Some of the media that are evaluated in the environmental assessment air quality, impacts to floodplains, those can leave the airport. [10:38:02 AM] And so even though those media can leave the airport, we did find that there's no significant impact that exceeds the thresholds established by the federal government. So, I don't know if that makes sense. Meaning, air quality -- we don't have off site impacts that would exceed permitting requirements, administered by the state of Texas. We don't -- you know, as John just stated, our community has good air quality. So we're not impacting the local air quality in a significant way that would cause a significant impact, that would then possibly trigger another study as we're talking about in environmental justice evaluation. >> So I think the other thing we want to add is the statement of the impacts were done at the airport only. It's doing air quality impact, you're doing storm water impact, wetland impact, which is the surrounding area of the project [10:39:03 AM] site. Not specifically to the Gates or the tunnel or the terminal. So it looked -- the environmental assessment exactly did that. It looked at the environmental impact on to air, to water, and to wetland around the site. Specifically found no significant impact. Did not need to go further to look at, regardless of who lives on the other side of highway 183, because it did find that there was no impacts to any around the site. >> Alter: Thank you. Council member pool and tovo, and then I may jump in here. >> Pool: That was the piece I wanted to emphasize, the reason why the conversation or the discussion or the documentation and analysis was completed the way it was, is because it was a comprehensive environmental assessment of the impacts, whatever they might have been in the area where Bergstrom [10:40:04 AM] international airport sits; is that correct? >> That is correct. >> Pool: So we didn't -- so there was an environmental assessment and it was deemed to be of no impact to surrounding communities. >> Correct, specifically to the project, specifically to the site. >> Pool: Full stop. >> Correct. >> Pool: Thank you. >> Alter: Do you have a quick question for them? Mayor Adler, was your question on this? >> Mayor Adler: I wanted the chance to give some comments when it's appropriate. >> Tovo: I have a few questions, but I'm going to ask one right now for our guest online. I apologize if you said this earlier. Can you tell me when Nepa was last updated and if there were any changes to the Nepa regulations during the last presidential administration? >> So the ceq, council on environmental quality guidelines, Nepa regulations [10:41:08 AM] were updated or amobbeded about two years ago during the last presidential administration.ended about two years ago during the last presidential administration. We have implemented -- a lot of those amendments were related to reporting and guidelines as far as permitting to a federal dashboard, and actually removed the requirement for analyzing cumulative impacts. However, I think those -- you know, I think those regulations would be amended again in the near future. >> Tovo: So if I'm understanding you correctly, during the last presidential administration, some of those regulations were actually -- I don't know what the right phrase would be. Were rolled back. In that some of the protections that exist for communities [10:42:08 AM] around airports were made less -- it sounds as if the regulations became less stringent during the last presidential administration. Is that accurate? >> I think that's a fair and accurate statement. >> Tovo: One example of how those protections were rolled back is cumulative impact. Were there other changes that resulted in a less protective environment for neighbors of airports? >> Not to my knowledge. It did require environmental assessments to be completed within one year and set page limits for eas and environmental impact statements. Environmental assessments -- so there's -- it's categorical exclusions, is the document that we would do for less impactful projects. Eas, environmental assessment is [10:43:09 AM] the next level. And environmental impact statements is the next level, or the most impactful projects. It did limit pages and set time limits as well, as far as having those assessments complete. >> Tovo: That's very interesting. Other than grants, I'm not sure that I've ever seen a governmental entity set limits on a page count. And I guess I'm glad we don't do that for resolutions, because I sometimes would have blown right by those. You indicated that you expect that there might be some changes to the Nepa regulations soon, some revisions? >> Yes, I would expect the Nepa implement -- ceqs implementing regulations to be amended by this presidential administration to kind of roll, you know, forward those things that are rolled back. >> Tovo: And so do you believe [10:44:10 AM] that cumulative impacts will be one of those areas that is taken a look at? Sorry, very bad grammar. >> I believe so. Yes, I believe so. I think cumulative impacts have been in the regulations since 1969. And evaluaing those cumulative. And going off site, further away. So, yes, I believe those would come back, because they have been in place since 1969, 1970. Until about 2020. >> Tovo: Thank you very much. Thanks again for being here today. >> Alter: Mr. Macfarlane, I have a question. As I understand it, I read through the environmental assessment and seems to identify there were construction impacts, and impacts to 183. But all the other environmental issues, there was considered to [10:45:12 AM] be no impact. So the question for me really is, what are the risks of having this kind of fuel facility within this level of proximity to a neighborhood, but just broadly speaking, what are the risks of explosion, what have been the experiences with these types of facilities elsewhere? Can you speak to what kind of risks and incidents have been identified elsewhere? Understand that we are planning to put in state of the art controls and follow all of the permitting. But it seems like the real question is this fear of what might be. And one way to understand how real that is or how justified it is is to look at what has happened elsewhere. Can you provide us any perspective on that given that you cover more than just Austin? [10:46:13 AM] >> I don't have a lot of knowledge on those safety risks of fuel farms. My analysis, or the Nepa analysis really only evaluates the impacts to the environment, like the 13 or 14 resource categories. Hazardous materials is one of the resource category, but it really pertains to the hazardous ways that would be generated by a landfill or by construction. Nepa doesn't really look at the safety risks per se. I'll have to defer those questions back to the airport or to AFD. >> Alter: Thank you for your candor. Can you help us understand that? So if the Nepa doesn't look at the safety hazards, which ultimately have an environmental impact, if they're real, how do we assess that? [10:47:15 AM] >> As John stated, yes, he's got a very specific framework that he's working within. But I'm glad you reviewed the ea that was created for this project. I think how most of your question could be answered is on page 6, it lists all the experiments and things that are going to be required to operate and construct this facility. So, that's really -- you heard from the fire department. I went over environmental permits that would be required. But clearly between the building permits and the site permit, this facility is heavily regulated. There's almost two pages of things that are going to be required to mitigate the risk that you're concerned with. >> Alter: Thank you. Are you aware of other jet-a [10:48:15 AM] fuel facilities that have had -- I don't know if it will be spills or explosions or whatnot. >> I mean, clearly you can go on YouTube and see that there were some facilities in the east that had problems in the past. And our understanding from the very experienced design team that is putting this package together and this project together is that those things have been mitigated in this project. The pumps have been changed. The system, additional controls have been installed to make sure that if you've googled, you know, tank farms on fire or something, that this project is capturing the requirements or the improvements that are necessary to make sure that that doesn't happen in Austin, Texas. >> Alter: Thank you. I might come back to that. Mayor Adler? >> Mayor Adler: Thank you. This is a really important [10:49:15 AM] conversation. Obviously, it's a big issue in the community. These kinds of questions present tough issues. I just want to start off by thanking council member Fuentes for her leadership and for bringing this question to the council. For her advocacy for her constituents. I think one of the big differences between the 10-1 council and the old councils, looking at this and east Austin, fuel tank farm, is that voices are being heard in ways that I don't think voices were heard before or as readily. And I remember going through that period of time. I just want to note that and say that I appreciate the ability to be able to participate a few weeks back with one of the public meetings that was held. And I think it's also important [10:50:16 AM] to note that the anxiety and real fear that you could feel among the folks at that community meeting that had lived through the east Austin tank farm period was still real palpable. And I remember those times and the harm that was being done, and a system and institutions that took way too long to recognize the legitimacy of the complaints from the neighbors. The real harm that was being done. And the equity and justice violations because that was not a safe condition. I also wanted to recognize Jacqueline yaft and the aviation [10:51:16 AM] folks. In the moment, I'll talk about the fuel issue. But separate from that, huge pride in our city with respect to our airport. How that's managed and operated. How it feels like Austin staff component that is dealing with tremendous growth. And there's so many airports in the country right now that are struggling to get back to pre-pandemic places or 50% exceeding pre-pandemic places right now. And you're at the same time doing this huge project, which is so large because the need is so great. You know, the time when some would have us not build infrastructure in the hope that people wouldn't come to Austin was demonstrated to be a failed [10:52:17 AM] policy, because people do come and you just get stressed and they are unable to provide quality for the life or for the people that live here. I recognize the recent challenges with the lines. As council member Fuentes pointed out, it's unrelated to today's fuel conversation. But the issue with respect to TSA and staffing issues is I think really the driving force of this. The personnel is something that we have recognized prior to the most recent couple weeks. We really do need federal assistance in that. We need help from our federal delegation to really help us or help this community. So all that background said, for [10:53:18 AM] me, this issue raises two questions. The threshold question is the question of safety. Is this safe for the people that are living nearby? Even if it is safe, I think we need to recognize the existing perception and anxiety about safety, in part borne of a very real experience that occurred over in new east Austin. But I think about the indicated action for us is different, depending on whether or not it's unsafe or if there's a perception of impacting safety. If it's unsafe, then I think we need to move the location, or we need to buy out people that would otherwise be in an unsafe place. I will continue to review the materials that were presented as [10:54:21 AM] I go through them. I'm not sure that I've heard at this point a compelling case that this fuel system as proposed is not safe. If it is safe, and we're dealing with a perception issue, then moving the location and incurring the associated delays and impact on service seems like an outsized remedy. If it's safe, but the perception exists, I think we do need to consider voluntary buyout program. That is not before us right now. But I think it's something that we should probably take a look at. I don't know the number of people that would want to be bought out. I think it would need to be a voluntary program. When you're dealing with a very real perception issue. I don't know how many people in 500 feet or people within 700 [10:55:22 AM] feet or a thousand feet, whether you go past 1,000 feet. Because again, you're dealing with a perception issue. I also recognize that as we expand this airport and the runways expand, I really think that the park 150 is going to result in the need to offer buyouts and finding people comparable housing, regardless of the cost. It's going to be something that arises. I don't know at what point we begin to have a feel. Said that the study takes a couple, three years to actually work its way where the FAA actually reimburses. But we ought to have a feel before that time as to what we think is the impacted folks. I think we should take a look at that as an option. The second real big issue I think is the process question. [10:56:23 AM] We need to do a better job as we move through this expansion of the airport. It's a huge project. It's a $4 billion project that's happening, significantly changing and improving and right sizing mobility to this city. It's happening at the same time we're doing a big investment in project connect, and on I-35. This is a big project. And we have to do a better job as we work through the $4 billion project that this is, to make sure that we are addressing not just the engineering questions, but also the real people questions. The political questions. The perception issues. And we need to staff the folks that are handling this with a real eye to recognizing that this is an early indication and a long process, and we need to [10:57:25 AM] learn from this because we have to do better. We have to affirmatively seek out people that would raise concerns or objections so that we can deal with them. We can't go through a process hoping that questions don't get raised. We should be raising those questions so that they can be addressed earlier in the process. And I am encouraged that -- it appears as if the aviation company is, in fact, moving in that direction. Thank you. >> Alter: Thank you. >> Renteria: I was asking questions -- but John was there. >> Alter: Sure, go ahead. >> Renteria: I just wanted to add on to what the mayor was saying. The rich land that was due north [10:58:28 AM] years ago, even though the FAA said that they wasn't going to buy out the people that was outside that, they still suffered a lot. I know the city at that time came up with saying we're going to come up with $6 million to offer buyouts. Which I don't think it ever happened. But there was that discussion that was going on. As the expansion, the way I understood it, there was a lot of concerned people in that area right now that -- you know, they're really concerned that with all that added noise, when we first moved out there, we wasn't operating the airline -- airplanes late at night. Now it starts around 5:00 in the morning and goes all the way to about 1:00 or 2:00 at night, and it's really impacting a lot of these people that are still living there. [10:59:29 AM] They really have a lot of anxiety right now because of the discussion about the new runway that y'all are adding on. And I really do believe that y'all need to reach out to the people out there and give them some honest answers. Don't send consultants to go out there and discuss that can't answer the questions. That creates a lot of frustration and anxiety, because they feel like you're not being truthful to them, and that's what creates a lot of the problems that we're facing. So when y'all do, please get professionals that know, you know, about airports and not just some team out there that's going to say well, we don't know, we'll come back to you, and never come back. So I really just recommend that you do that, you know, on the expansion process. [11:00:30 AM] >> Thanks for that. We presented last week to the hoa for the expansion program. And they had good questions and comments. >> Alter: Thank you. So, I wanted to first of all ask -- I guess it would be the clerk and our staff together, if you can please add some of the materials that have been shared with us to the backup so the community can see them. I know we have the environmental assessment, we have the airport master plan. I think there were various communications and reports that were shared with the community during the public meetings or somehow make it easy for folks to find that link under this item as well as today's presentation. I think that transparency would be for helpful and welcome. In the master plan, it indicates that there's -- the second fuel farm wouldn't really go into motion until 20 years, but it also says we have to do the [11:01:30 AM] design and figure out the best timing. So can you speak to that? On one hand, the master plan suggests it's 20 years. On the other hand, I'm hearing we need this yesterday. Help me understand that. >> Correct. The master plan, when it was put together, the forecast by the FAA process looks at the average, which is the 4%. Looking at a 4% increase annually for the airport, that's what it looks like, how many passengers. However, the reality is that Austin airport today, we are looking at 8% increase. So almost, you know, basically doubling what the forecast of the standard average is. That expedited the need to actually start building and designing some of these facilities in the master plan much sooner. Otherwise, we would run out of capacity. >> Alter: Okay, and is that true of all of the pieces of the master plan? >> Absolutely. As I mentioned earlier, we're about six years behind in [11:02:32 AM] building some of these facilities today. However, we are looking at short-term and long-term goals to match the capacity needs, the demands they were getting such as optimizing the terminal, adding Gates, looking at bussing abilities. We're doing a baggage claim today, which is the bottleneck of where it is and the priority of those projects is what initiates the timeline. So right now, the baggage handling project is one of the top priorities as a project that we need to address, for example the utility plant would be further down in the schedule because of the capacity that we have today. >> Alter: Thank you. It's my understanding that this facility would be run by the airlines through a con supervisor slum that they have called aos fuel. I'm not sure how they approach that. Can you explain how that works, because there is no cip project that we have to review because we're not building it. We're not paying for the building. It's on our land. [11:03:33 AM] Can you help us understand how this ownership structure works? >> That is correct. And I have also some of the airline representatives here in the room too that, that's exactly how the facility is at all the airports in the country, it's run by a consortium or airline specific private tenant, because the integrity and the safety and also the fuel is going into the aircraft itself. That is an operation that across the country is very similar to Austin. We're not the only one doing it that way. Because it is a tenant or a third party, it's not a cip project that goes through the process to the council. >> Alter: Okay. So, we're basically leasing them the land, our tenant in that sense? They're building it, they're responsible for all the safety, et cetera, and we take care of making sure that all the permits -- that the airport itself is -- making sure they're ultimately responsible for getting all the permits, but the airport -- [11:04:34 AM] >> Correct. It's considered still the landlord. Through the lease, they have the requirement for compliance. We have the requirement and obligation for the oversight of their performance. >> Okay. And so we are able to put this on hold because we have to agree to the lease? >> Correct. So right now, the project, it was ready to implement notice to proceed by March and right now it is on hold as of a request. >> Alter: Okay. So we've talked about the potential need for buyouts. We've talked about that the airport can't do it at this current time for this particular project because we can't be reimbursed by the FAA, given the scope and the environmental impact that was found to be non-significant for this project. The concept has been broached that the city might pay for it. I have a lot of reservations about the city paying for buyouts for the airlines. Can the airlines pay for the buyouts sooner than we would be able to do it from the airport? [11:05:35 AM] >> In our conversations with the airlines, they're opposing that option heavily. One, because again, there is no significant impact to the project that would validate that for them to do so. And also, it's -- there's large carriers around the country that operate in a lot of airports and that sets a precedent that really does not work for the aviation industry that way. So it's not something that, again, because of the no significant impact justify it for them. >> Alter: Thank you. I heard this conversation with you, Ms. Yaft. I would really like to see our airlines who are coming into our community, to be part of our community. This may or may not be the appropriate investment for you to make. I hear what you're saying about the precedent, et cetera. But we do have expectations for our corporate partners who are in our community and who are doing business here, and we invite you to be part of our community and contribute to what makes our community great. So I did want to add that. [11:06:37 AM] I think that would be something worth exploring further. I'm not sure how I could make it germane to the resolution, but I'll make that comment while you're here. Finally, I wanted to talk about sort of this question of the alternatives. Environmental assessment basically says this is the alternative of not doing anything at all as the opposite alternative. But there no other alternatives that were expressed. I understand that we looked at adding 12 locations, that the community brought forward. Tell me more about the process that arrived at the single alternative proposed option beyond the no build. And what were the other alternatives that were considered or was this really just the only place? >> So, again, I wasn't here during the master plan discussion of recognizing where the best site to recommend on the master plan, as you see it in the maps. However, part of the master plan [11:07:38 AM] as a general discussion is looking at the assets or the facility or the infrastructure that needs to be built in the airport, and creating that roadmap of where it needs to sit, the connectivity to airlines or Gates, the purpose of the use, the impact environmentally either the noise or jet-a burning. Also, the accessibility to the roadway or to the airfield. Some of our infrastructure today in the AEPD does not need to be accessible by roadways, or some does not need to be specifically closer to the Gates. That's the criteria of the need, the best fit, the impacts, that's what goes into the criteria deciding where is and how every piece of land on our footprint inside the fence is used or planned. >> Alter: Thank you. I heard that sort of every inch needs to be used. I spent hours with Mr. Smith going through the master plan with giant maps and all sorts of [11:08:38 AM] stuff before we voted. My understanding is this is a giant puzzle to get all of the pieces, and they each have their requirements from the FAA. And so it's not -- pieces are not intertwinable and there's lots -- there's a huge amount of logistics that I'm not going to pretend that I'm an expert on. What I am really -- you know, let's just say we didn't put it there. What would we put in that spot that would be less impactful than the fuel facility, of all of the things that we have. I mean, you know, we basically said we have to use every inch of this space. You know, it's not just can we find another alternative on the airport. We'd have to put something there, or you have to seriously cut back some aspect of the expansion plan, as I'm understanding it, given how much is filled with this stuff. So, you know, if you move the [11:09:39 AM] runway closer, that's not going to make it better for the community. You can't move the terminal because you've got a runway in the way. You wouldn't want to have one terminal on the other side of the runway and not be connected. So, I don't know, are there -- I mean, that seems like other things would be just as impactful as this if you move them over there. >> Absolutely. It's either just as impactful, if not more. Inside the airport -- the facility infrastructure we need is air cargo or general aviation, Gates or terminal and so forth, baggage handling process, which again, has to be connected to the terminal. So we really -- when you look at the design of airport, you start with the terminal and the Gates would be. Where would be the main terminal, which is the passenger processing screening, baggage handling, ticketing. And then the support facilities [11:10:39 AM] would go there. We're also limited to where the runways and the runway protections zone and how and what can we put. So for example, with the nav AIDS or the equipment for the runway, that is only the few things that can be around in the runway. The runway protection for approach and approach zone, that has to be protected. There's very limited options of what we can put, according to height, according to use, and what that facility is. So, it really is a very intelligent process. It's not just kind of a drawing from somebody that thinks this is what I want. It really is put in a place. So any airport with their planning team, their consultants and even the director, can't just decide where they want to put things. It has to go through this intelligent process of the best use for that facility. And the low ashen. >> Alter: Thank you. I appreciate that.cation. >> Alter: Thank you. [11:11:40 AM] I appreciate that. Putting the transfer piping under the new runway, I believe. I've got too many maps here. So if it's going under the new runway, that runway is going to impact that community as well, correct? >> Correct. And that is again part of that environment. Assessment that would happen. >> Alter: Okay. So there would be an environmental assessment when that runway happens. And if I understood what the mayor was saying, it's likely that there will be some kind of noise corridor or something there where there will be an opportunity for buyouts for some that would involve buying out their property and helping them to finance the relocation. It's more than just a normal buyout. Is that correct? >> Correct. The buyout for noise specifically is tied to the FAA part 150 study, and that depends on the number of aircrafts coming into the airport, number of our -- the noise, the type of [11:12:41 AM] aircraft, and the size. That all impacts that noise contour. And that drives the 150 study, if need to. If the environmental estimate realizes that needs to happen. They are going into an environmental assessment for other parts of the AEPD and some of the other projects that we want to initiate. So that really is driven 2015. Every project has its own environmental assessment the project also looks at collectively what all are the impact of the airport. >> Alter: And what would be a timing on that process for the new runway? >> Again, the ae is going on today. John is on the phone and he could probably answer it too. A 150 study if it needs to be initiated, and if it is initiated and we have the results we're looking at at least two years, and John can add to that if he has anything. >> And the current [11:13:42 AM] environmental assessment for the expansion process, the Nepa process we're going through, takes us to about 2032 according to the approved airport forecast, our passenger forecast for our airport. So we're going about to 2032. Does not include the runway. That is not included. That will most likely be an environmental impact statement, kind of like what project connect is doing. That will be significant impacts. So in the future we could get there. In the master plan it's after 2040. >> Alter: Thank you. Colleagues, do folks have other questions? Council member vela? >> Vela: Actually, this question would be for Mr. Mcfarland. Just off of councilmember kitchen's comments with regard to a potential expedited approval process for relocation of or in addition of a tank to the [11:14:43 AM] current location, is that possible at all or I guess what would be the expected timeline if we were just adding a tank to the existing location where the current jet fuel tanks are? >> So the Nepa process or the environmental determination for -- you're asking about adding a tank to the existing fuel facility, is that correct? >> Vela: Yes. >> Okay. That would most likely fall under categorical exclusion or the airport could do a categorial assessment. Based on our orders it could likely be done under a categorical exclusion, otherwise known as a cat ex. And that could be a four to six-month process depending [11:15:43 AM] on the situation. >> Vela: Thank you very much, director Mcfarland. Just a couple of questions for director yaft. Thank you very much, I was out there, my staff and I were at the airport looking at everything with councilmember Kelly Wednesday of last week. And I appreciate the hospitality and information and the frank discussion that we had regarding the issue. And I just want to say I know that you were not the director during this whole process. You're inheriting these decisions that were previously made. Imu I was looking at the master plan and the plan it referenced as well, the site location and the criteria was proximity to a residential housing of one of the criteria, it wasn't considered as part of the fuel tank relocating process. >> No. Again, it looks at inside of -- because there is no specific requirement of how far the tanks need to be from residents. That's one. [11:16:43 AM] If there was something to regulate and say the minimum was 500 feet that would be included in the criteria, but there isn't so that's number one. Number two, it really looks again at where the location is, what is the need of the projects? One of the first needs of the project is the connectivity to the current site, which is the transfer line again. And then looking at the impact it would do on all the other future projects looking at the current facility that we have at the airport to put a transfer line under the roadways or terminal all the way over to the other side of the airport again is not feasible. So the feasibility of the location goes through several criterias, including what is around it in the impacts. But because there is no specific requirement in the regulation that is not a specific regulation that we look at. >> Vela: Proximity to the fuel tanks was not a requirement? >> Because there is not one [11:17:43 AM] that exists today. >> Vela: The FAA does not require one, is that correct? >> Correct, there is not one from the FAA. >> Vela: But there is no reason that we as a city, as a community, request not look at that? >> Absolutely. And part of the discussion again if we do not put a fuel storage facility, we would put an air cargo orgeat, we would consider that has more impact on residents. There is no requirement on how far a cargo facility needs to be from residents but we're looking at which facility would have lesser impact. >> Vela: Looking around the nation is there any other airport that has fuel tanks as close to residential homes as Austin is proposing? >> Yes, there is. >> Vela: Which airport? >> I can't criteria them all off the top of my head, but I know for sure Dallas love field is within 500 feet. >> Vela: No further [11:18:46 AM] questions. >> Alter: Colleagues, are there any more questions at this time? Okay. Council member Fuentes. >> Fuentes: Thank you. Thank you, director yaft and team for Mr. Carpenter for being here today and thank you colleagues for this conversation. It was super illuminating. I think as part of this conversation it was brought to light that this proposed site for the expanded fuel facility was approved during the trump administration which rolled back our environmental standards. So when we have situations like this come up, and that we know that residents being within 500 feet were not considered as part of the site selection criteria, this is when we have to make tough decisions as policymakers. And I know that what we heard today was a pretty outstanding impact, economic impact this would have to our airport expansion and operations. But equally as important is the human impact that this would have. So I appreciate the [11:19:50 AM] conversation that we've had centered on the safety, protocols and regulations and standards that we would have. To me still a lot of questions, especially knowing that we have policy in place and zoning that would prohibit having such fuel thanks that close to residential uses. So there are still some gaps and so again I want to emphasize this resolution item 43 was brought forward by community who are protesting this proposed site. I hear their concerns, I share their concerns and I look forward to our deliberation on Thursday. >> Alter: Councilmember Renteria. >> Renteria: For your information, the city does have a policy about having chemicals near residential, it's 1,000 feet. You cannot build houses next to any kind of chemical [11:20:51 AM] facility here in Austin facility here in Austin within 1,000 feet. So just to let you know that's a policy we have here in the city of Austin. >> Alter: Can we get some clarification on that in a follow-up? One way or the other. I'm just a little confused by what we've heard. So if we could get some clarification. >> We'll have to contact our sister department to figure that out. We went through full site permit and there are no variances that were issued. >> Alter: Councilmember pool. >> Pool: To that point, exactly what is intended by chemical and does that include gas stations is? >> Thank you. We'll get clarifications because we did get the permit from the city. Thank you. >> Alter: And we do have gas stations -- I don't know if they're equivalent, but there are gas stations -- close to residences that are [11:21:53 AM] existing residences, much closer than 1,000 fight feet. I think it's good for us to have the facts on that. So if there are no further questions or comments, thank you for being with us this morning. Look forward to the conversation on Thursday. Thank you, council member Fuentes, for your diligent attention to this matter. Did you still want to talk about 43 in addition? >> Fuentes: One takeaway that I hope our aviation team takes from this conversation is just that the need for robust and early engagement of our community, especially as we undergo the expansion program. And I know that our aviation team under the leadership of director yaft and acm fiandaca and our city manager are committed in being a good neighbor for our residents out in southeast Austin. So I look forward to our continued work together. [11:22:59 AM] >> Alter: Councilmember kitchen. >> Kitchen: If you're ready to move on to other things, I had like a 10-second statement that I wanted to make about one of the items. Not a pulled item. It's another item I wanted to give some notice of my intention to postpone. Is now the appropriate time? Could I do that? >> Alter: Sure. >> Kitchen: Okay. So this is item 52 and I have requested and the staff has requested for postponement of item 51 to the April 21st council meeting. The item is not on consent agenda and so the postponement will actually be voted on when the item comes up on Thursday. I wanted to thank you, mayor pro tem. I just wanted to use this time to provide the public an awareness of the intent to postpone the item. So thank you for allowing me to do that. [11:24:00 AM] >> Alter: No problem. Thank you, council member. >> Pool: Thanks, mayor pro tem. I wanted to let you know that I would like to join as a co-sponsor on your item, I think it's item 42, which is commercial parkland ordinance change, thank you. >> Alter: Thank you, councilmember pool. So clerk, if you could please add councilmember pool as a sponsor for item 42. Councilmember kitchen. >> Kitchen: I want to thank you so much for your leadership on item 42 also and would like to be added as a co-sponsor. >> Alter: Thank you, councilmember kitchen. And I also want to acknowledge my current co-sponsors, council member Fuentes, Ellis and mayor Adler. Thank you. Mayor Adler? >> Mayor Adler: I just want to add to councilmember kitchen's discussion of the item being postponed for Thursday. For that reason we won't be taking any testimony on the merits of that item. [11:25:01 AM] We'll have that discussion at the end of April. >> Alter: Thank you. Any other items before we move to the state man pud? -- Statesman pud. Okay. So while staff move over, we can take a couple of recess for a minute. I think -- why don't we take a five-minute recess and then we'll start back up with the statesman pud. So please be back in five minutes and we'll take up item 69 as soon as we get back. [11:33:41 AM] >> Alter: I'm mayor pro tem Alison alter. It is April 5th and we are just back from a five minute recess and we will reconvene the city council meeting from that and we will take up item 69. And let me see what time it is. My computer went off. It's 11:34, thank you. Is staff here to answer questions? >> Yes, mayor pro tem. >> Tovo: Mayor pro tem, I pulled this item for discussion today and really I didn't intend to have a very long discussion about it. I just wanted to lay out a few things. The staff reached out and asked me what kind of questions I have and I indicated I have a range of questions on a range of elements but we didn't need all the staff from different [11:34:42 AM] departments that have weighed in on this to be present today. I know we have Jerry rusthoven here and he can likely answer any questions raised by the comments I make and I may have a couple of questions do him as well. Shall I lead into it? Well, thanks very much. This is a -- this is going to be a complicated discussion, a long discussion going on a long time in our community preceding boards and commissions but I would say it predates the community conversations around the future of our waterfront date back decades long before any of us were on the city council with the town hall corridor study and some of the other planning that ended up and got merged into the south central waterfront plan. So what we plan and do with the largest plat in the wastewater overlay, as my staff and I approach this, we're looking at it both [11:35:42 AM] with a planned unit development to make sure it really fulfills the requirement of our ordinance to be superior to what would be developed under conventional zoning as well as to see how closely it complies with the south central waterfront overlay. I wanted to lay out for you all a couple of areas I'm looking at. I know we have a representative from the applicant here today. Thanks for being with us. I know we're scheduled to meet tomorrow so I look forward to talking through some of these items with you. I would say one of the things that is complicated is we don't have the ordinance in front of us. What we have is our planning commission recommendations, parks board recommendations, zoning recommendations and I am proceeding looking at additional amendments that I would suggest speaking to the planning commission recommendations. The planning commission has done a really great job taking a very careful look at this. They embedded within their recommendations as I [11:36:42 AM] understand it a lot of the environmental commission's recommendations, and the environmental commission's recommendations also had some of the concerns raised by the parks board. So as I approach this I started from the planning commission recommendations and went from there. I would also note and I would wrap around to this a little bit later, that looking through this is our first large pud in a long while and as I look at the pud ordinance I see some real need to make some additional revisions to it. Some of what we require -- some of the pud ordinance expresses, thank you, as superior elements are now current code. I think that unfortunately Fors those who might serve on that process, having been a community member who served on it, it was lengthy, long and whatnot the last time we revised the pud ordinance. But I do think there's a need for some additional work on that and I may actually just bring forward some direction to do that this summer because I think [11:37:42 AM] the pud ordinance is in need some of revision. But as I approach this, I took a look at what their existing pud entitlements were, what the entitlements were as they were described in the south central plan, which did go through and identify rents -- entitlements, suggested entitlements and what was done by the work in eco northwest under a contract with eco northwest who helped the city develop the balance of entitlements and community benefits and determined what was appropriate. And then I looked at what was being proposed. So I definitely see a need for -- I think there are some terrific elements in here in this plan and I think it's going to be exciting and transformational. I think the planning commission has gotten it a little bit closer to where the community benefits are beginning to be commensurate [11:38:43 AM] to the entitlements. I see areas of opportunity and a need for improvement within a few different areas, parks and trails, potentially environmental with regard to the use of reclaimed water and really critically and I think most important areas of a real need for more affordable housing. And just to give you a sense of that I'll read out some numbers and I'll probably distribute these in some fashion on Thursday. But based on my office's calculations, and I am awaiting verification from our staff on this, the south central plan -- I'll read through them and then tell you what the up shot is. The south central plan identified targeted square footages for office, residential, retail and hotel. [11:39:44 AM] And those were about 812,000 square feet of office, 960,003,000ish square feet or 902 units of residential, 254 square feet of -- thousand square feet of hotel. And those -- that worked out to a total development on this tract at 2,142,900 square feet of development on the statesman tract. And this was the work done by eco northwest, which was balancing both an increase in entitlements and community benefits and it suggested a four percent on-site housing for that level of square footage. The proposed pud actually exceeds those by about 3,515,000. So it's considerably more. It's asking for considerably more entitlements than were in the south central waterfront overlay. Which I think we can [11:40:46 AM] certainly consider, but I would suggest that we also have considerably higher requirements commensurate with that increased entitlements, I think we need more community benefits and the area where I see the biggest gap again is affordable housingment I have asked our -- my staff did ask the real estate department to weigh in on what some average values are for those different uses and we calculated those based on the increased square footage and it looks like these are rough numbers based on this calculation. This is not the only way to assess costs and things on this, but in terms of an average square footage value, the average -- the total value of that gain from the south central plan to what's being proposed is somewhere in the order of $840 million more. So there's a considerable amount more value on this -- [11:41:47 AM] being asked for in this tract than is in the south central waterfront plan. I think we should look to the pud ordinance and look at 10% of affordable housing rental units on site at 60% mfi, which is what the pud ordinance falls for. I believe we should look for five percent ownership units at 80%, which is again what the pud ordinance would call for. I am going to be prying some direction on Thursday asking eco northwest to update and take a look at their model. I think they did some updating of their model in 2021. I'm not sure whether this site was or not included and that will give us a more nuanced, more realistic set of financial understandings with regard to the statesman tract of what is doable under these entitlements. I also would like and will be having this conversation with the developer tomorrow, I would like to see the site [11:42:48 AM] participate in better builder program. I would like to see them work with unite here on the hotel use and the ability for unite here to work with the employees on the eventual hotel use, which the hotel use is one of the items that we are being asked to approve within our discretionary zoning abilities. I think it is part of the planning commission amendment to include better access to the park. I have to double- check that here in my chart. My handy dandy chart. But that is important I think that the public follow the parks board recommendation, that the public continue to enjoy the park from the congress avenue bridge rather than go through the entire development. So that part I am going to include. I mentioned trails. There are some things that the applicant has proposed regarding the trails and [11:43:48 AM] I've asked for q&a that we get feedback back from our parks board on whether those are desired elements and if so what those might cost. The developer has -- this is a second tier issue but the developer has proposed that the park be maintained through the tirz which we have set up but not funded. Some of my questions in the q&a will ask about what those costs are and we will have the decision of who will ultimately bear the costs of the parkland that is part of this development. I think that kind of covers a lot of the main areas. Again, my focus at the moment is on affordable housing, though it will cover some of the direction if we consider this on Thursday we will relate to some of the other issues we're submitting questions to the q&a asking about some of the elements within the parks design that are proposed by the development. And also talking about a different model for approaching the park's [11:44:49 AM] design which would include public input. There is a proposal within this to draw water from lady bird lake for use on site. I don't believe that this is what the south central waterfront plan called for, so asking questions about that. We have an opportunity to implement water forward strategies into this development. I believe we should. The other puds that are coming forward seem to be working with those strategies and I think we need to encourage all of our large developments to do so. So land there for the moment and welcome your questions. That's where I am in my thinking on this. >> Thank you. Other thoughts or comments? Councilmember tovo, thank you for raising the importance for us to be comparing this to existing zoning. This is a zoning change. It's a pud amendment but it is relative to what they currently have and under a [11:45:52 AM] pud making sure there is superintendent with -- superiority with the additional entitlements and it would be very helpful to -- I'll be asking my staff and I know I have some meetings tomorrow on this as well but really to get straight having a very clear chart with this is what they're entitled to now, this is what the south central waterfront called for and this is what they're asking for because the numbers are somewhat staggering and that would be a good place for density but it would be nonetheless still a a very big change entitlements, it is an area that is extremely important for community. I share your concerns on the affordable housing. I would like to ask our staff and if you're not prepared to tell us today maybe you could follow up with it. We talk about south central waterfront saying it should be 20% affordable. I don't know if it details the mix of that [11:46:53 AM] affordability because the levels of ability that we ask for mean different things for the developer, whether it's 80 percent, 60 percent, if we're talking about workforce housing and that may go into our calculations and guidance from the staff as to what that ideal mix is for 20% in this location or what we should be thinking about as we think about that. So that would be helpful for me. I am going to need more information about the park amenities and what is being covered and what is not being covered? It seems like we're giving a whole lot of weight to this underground parking structure and not a whole lot of weight to the community benefits that the most people will use. I understand there are benefits to underground parking and I'm not saying that we don't want underground parking but we do need to examine the trade-offs that we're thinking about. So I look forward to more of the discussion and I know [11:47:55 AM] that I have set aside quite a bit of time tomorrow for discussions on this. I likely will have more thoughts and comments on Thursday as well. Councilmember kitchen. >> Kitchen: Thank you also and thank you both for your thinking, councilmember tovo and mayor pro tem. I wanted to mention that I do share the concerns about the pud ordinance and I think it needs some revision. The original intent to have pud zoning attached for significant community benefits is something we seem to be losing along the way. I've encountered these concerns with pud applications in the past too. I appreciate your comments there. So thank you. [11:48:56 AM] >> Alter: Councilmember pool. >> Pool: Yeah. Just a bit of agreement with what councilmember tovo has lined up and councilmember kitchen has said. I'm particularly interested in ensuring that the trail is an easy access to the site as was discussed. Councilmember tovo, could you reiterate what that piece was? >> Tovo: So I believe it may already be captured in the planning commission recommendation because they picked up the recommendations from some of the other commissions, including a parks board. If you give me a minute I will figure out what that is. Basically, though, the concept would be I think the proposal at present has a building right nix to the bridge more or less where there is currently access to the park. And so all the boards, all of the boards so far have suggested that that access [11:49:57 AM] have really -- have really strongly suggested that that access continue to be from congress avenue bridge so that the public feels welcome in their public park and is not compelled to sort of walk through the development to get to that space. >> Pool: And that's the piece that resonated with me. We need to make sure that that access is easy and welcoming and well signed so the wayfinding is simple and that the park is available because it is -- it's a public asset. Thanks so much. >> Tovo: Mayor pro tem, thanks for talking about the entitlements. One thing I failed to mention in my opening remarks is with the pud ordinance it requires there be a baseline set and that baseline is supposed to be existing zoning. The existing zoning on this tract is also pud and so it is appropriate I think to look at their current entitlements for that pud. The staff have set that [11:50:58 AM] baseline at the south central and so I think there is a policy question to be had about whether that's the appropriate a place because it is a jump in entitlements before you even get to talking about the Chris in entitlements that they're asking for on top of that. I'm sorry to be confusing on that. But where you set the baseline is really confusing because the difference between the baseline and what is proposed that triggers the affordable housing requirements. We had this conversation, gosh, almost every time we have a pud, but this one is more complicated and I acknowledge that it is more complicated because you have the south central work interacting in that as well. I mentioned that I think the pud ordinance is in need of some revision. There are some things that are just not superior. A two star green building is not in my mind superior. We continue to have I think puds coming forward with three stars. I think some coming forward are three stars. Those are some of the elements that I believe are really behind where we are, [11:51:58 AM] especially those that relate to environmental issues given the state of the climate. The other thing gets back to having a chart every single time and I ask for this every single time and sometimes it's almost what I need and sometimes I have to do a lot of work on it. This time my staff had to do a lot of work on it. Thank you for doing all that work to really lay out what is -- what are the existing entitlements, what does south central require? What's the proposal? And because right now in our application all of those things are interwoven. So as I look through the superiority chart that the applicant gave us, some of what's being suggested is the current code. We should always get information I think as part of our pud that makes it clear regardless of what the applicant has said is that we are -- what is being credited as community benefits? Is that current code or is that actually superior? That would help us I think [11:52:59 AM] at this -- from this side, do our job of making sure that it is truly a superior development. >> Alter: Thank you. Council member Fuentes. >> Fuentes: Thank you, and thank you, councilmember tovo, for flagging the areas for us to look into. I share your sentiments around wanting to ensure that this is a three-star green building element as part of this pud agreement. I guess my question is we started a question on the message board around funding. For me it's important that we retain requirements around affordable housing within the pud agreement, but also look at identifying additional revenue, direct funding for the unhoused. Just knowing the immediate need that we have right now in our community to provide shelter, to provide housing, both short-term and long-term. And so I wanted to see kind of where we're at with that [11:54:00 AM] conversation and if there's anything that the staff wanted to share as we have this conversation. >> Alter: I see Ms. Gray is here. Is that -- Ms. Gray, did you want to respond to that? >> Yes, mayor pro tem. Of course this issue or some of these questions emerged last week and I want to acknowledge that some of the questions that are being raised are -- touch on several policy priorities around affordable housing and homelessness that in my view are very related. There have been some conversations about setting aside funds directly for homelessness, but obviously the affordable housing stock in our community is directly linked also to housing stability at large. And so there is certainly [11:55:02 AM] initial analysis that we want to provide council should we want to look at this as a policy option. But I did want to give a general lay of the land in terms of our current status and also some of the ongoing processes that might inform council policy making. So first of all, the overall question that's been asked is do we need additional shelter. And I think that clearly the answer is yes. We have a substantial unsheltered population. We are working to restore some of the capacity that was diminished due to covid in our congregate shelters, but even so our current shelter capacity is far below the number of people experiencing unsheltered homelessness in the community. The next question has been do we need funds for the heel initiative so I would love to give a quick update on where we are in terms of the funding of the heal initiative as currently framed and what some of our [11:56:02 AM] options might be. Council set a goal for this fiscal year of at least 200 people served through the heal initiative. Based on our case year to date, we believe we will meet that goal. Part of that has been achieved or will be achieved through six million dollars that council earmarked through the arpa funding for rapid re-housing so that is funds to move people into their permanent housing location. And we already had some, another funding source for existing shelter this year. We believe that we can meet the 200 person goal with the current bridge shelter capacity, but I will tell you that we are having to manage that very closely. There is no excess in that bridge shelter at present. So generally we would love to exceed that 200 person goal. We're looking at our options [11:57:02 AM] to do that and we're cognizant that should we want to expand the heal initiative, which we've been very pleased with, we would need to be looking at additional bridge shelter in general. So briefly I would love to talk about some of the upcoming funding actions that could impact the landscape overall in terms of access to emergency and bridge shelter. We currently have through Austin public health a request for proposals open for crisis services, which includes at least five million dollars set aside for shelter. We have another three million dollars in that rfp that is flexible for crisis services, could be street outreach, could be day resource center, could also be additional shelter, depending on the proposals we receive from community-based service providers. [11:58:03 AM] I don't -- I would not represent that that will meet our overall need for shelter in the community, but we will know more when we receive those proposals when the rfp closes on may 12th and we would anticipate recommendations for funding in early June based on aph's contracting time. And I will also point out that in the summit investment plan there is another seven million dollars targeted to shelter and other crisis resources which are part of the ongoing fund-raising we would hope for secure from private sources or other governmental entities. I'll stop there and answer any additional questions you may have. >> Alter: Go ahead. >> Fuentes: Thank you so much, director gray. I guess so at this time what are your thoughts about us revisiting the funding framework that we approve [11:59:04 AM] towards reducing homelessness as part of the American rescue plan act dollars? Do you recommend any changes or are the funding streams that you just laid out with both the rfp and with the seven million as part of the community investment that is coming in, are any changes that you would recommend, any insight that you would like to share with us on that? >> We've committed to update council and city leadership about approximately every quarter on our framework for spending. We are due for an update to council approximately may 1st, so we are working on that right now. I will say that my sense is it might be a little premature because we are still -- we have two open rfps right now, or rfps that are in process. So we'll be looking at what the funding commitments that will be coming out of that process. [12:00:05 PM] But we certainly can identify in our feedback to council in the next 30 days or so areas where we'll be. -- We'll be watching closely or that council may want to consider for potential shifts. Again, I think it's quite early in the several-year process, but we're certainly open to discussing or providing further analysis. >> Alter: Council member kitchen. >> Kitchen: Yes. Thank you very much, director gray. And as part of your updating us, I would ask that you give us your thoughts as part of that process on what we need to do to accelerate heal. So, to help with exceeding 200 this year. And also, as part of that process, if you're prepared to do that, speak to what we could do next year. [12:01:05 PM] So, again, you may need more time to speak to next year. But if you can forecast through next year, that's great. I hear -- first off, let me just say congratulations and thank you to the incredible work that you and your staff have done to keep heal on track and to keep this successful program moving forward, and I want to acknowledge as you said, that yes, we need more shelter, and we need to -- and I believe we need to accelerate our heal program. So, I look forward to getting your thoughts as part of that update on how much would you say and if you have thoughts on ashe options for the source of that. So, I think that's going to be really, really critical. We know that 200 is important. That's a significant number of people for this year. [12:02:05 PM] But it's not making enough of a dent. So I want to see us move forward. With regard to this pud, I would just say that the on site affordable housing is very important. This is a transit area and that's really critical. If there's a path to do both in the sense that if there's sufficient dollars available through this pud, I would welcome that. But I do want to make sure that we have affordable housing onsite because of the importance this transit area -- and I appreciate your reference, council member tovo, to push for a higher level of on-site affordable housing. >> Alter: Mayor Adler. >> Mayor Adler: I appreciate the conversation and kind of the pulling stuff together that council member tovo did and the mayor pro tem. Probably go back and look at the tape so that I can watch it more [12:03:10 PM] closely. It would be great, director gray, to be able to advance and speed up heal and get people out of encampments. I'm mindful, as you laid out the program, each piece was being done in proportion to the other pieces. So a lot of cities have failed by providing a lot of emergency sheltering before they actually had the next step in housing to be able to pull people through those emergency shelters they had set up. People in an emergency shelter, if I recall, which you've thought us before, that's not a really good environment to efficiently make use of services and the like to actually get and keep someone off the street. It's a really important component, but it has to be done in scale with the next thing, which is how you pull people out of that. We've seen examples of some [12:04:10 PM] cities like Portland and others that may be overly invested on the emergency sheltering component, not really advancing taking people off the street in a permanent way. But exhausting all their funding in doing that. And now have significant challenges because they didn't do it scale. And I appreciate what your approach is, and the summit is to do all that in scale. I'm eager to hear how we can scale that up, recognizing it has that ripple effect. As we go through the pud, I have the one I think we need to drive as much affordable housing as we can. The question I have with affordable housing in the most expensive locations in our city [12:05:12 PM] is that I'm not convinced that that's the way to best help the greatest number of people and to put people in the community where there's a critical mass of others that are sharing a similar experience in an environment where people can afford to live. So I've always wanted us to look at housing that might be a stop or two stops, bus stops away to see if that enabled us to provide for a greater number of people. But I certainly want people from all over the city, from all different kinds of backgrounds, that includes people with lower income. I just don't know for me whether it needs to be at ground zero. But I appreciate and look forward to the conversation. [12:06:14 PM] I'm happy that we're starting this conversation with this discussion about the rfps that are out. Council member vela, there's that $10 million rfp that has apparently just hit the streets, and a lot of that seems to be real flexible dollars. I would join in following your leadership and that of council member Fuentes to make sure that we were maximizing opportunities with the encampments that we have. Thank you. >> Alter: Council member Kelly. >> Kelly: Thank you, and thank you, director gray, for all of the work that you've done to implement the heal initiative. I know it's a proven way that the council has been able to move forward to help so many people who are in need, especially those experiencing homelessness. It's also wonderful that we have a goal of helping 200 this year, but as we all know, our homeless problem in Austin is much larger than that. So, I wanted to ask just [12:07:15 PM] briefly, are you limited by funding or resources in your department? Because I want to make sure that we're mindful of that as we enter our budget discussions to make sure that you have the funding that you need, but also the human resources or personnel in your office to be able to scale up that operation. >> So let me address the second question first, council member. I'm pleased to report that we have filled three permanent positions this fiscal year. So far, we have four additional staff members coming on next Monday and anticipate filling all of the newly funded positions within the next -->> Alter: We lost you there for a second. We heard that we have four staff coming in on Monday and then we lost your sound. Still can't hear you. [12:08:18 PM] We can hear you now. Go ahead. >> Okay. Sorry about that. Simply that we would expect to have all of our positions filled within the next six weeks or so. So that will certainly relieve some of the capacity pressure within the division staffing. I mentioned specifically $6 million for heal within the current rfp for rapid rehousing. The overall rapid rehousing resources within that rfp are approximately 37 million. So, we are funding substantial rapid rehousing in the community that is not explicitly set aside for heal. We are hopeful that we may receive additional proposals from community-based organizations that allow us to dedicate more than $6 million to the heal initiative. And again, we'll be looking to match that or right size it to [12:09:19 PM] our group shelter facility. So currently, for the heal initiative, I do believe that we have conceivably enough to expand that effort. Of course, securing the physical shelter space is one of the things that we have to be executed on. And again, the longer-term operation of such shelters is something that goes past the period of arpa funding. And so we would have to consider what the longer-term resources would be for such a facility or whether it would be something that might have a limited lifetime during this period in which we're really trying to have a surge, if you will, in reducing unsheltered homelessness and permanently housing folks. >> Kelly: Thank you so much for that. >> Alter: Thank you. I would just add that I believe [12:10:22 PM] that we have invested quite a lot of money through arpa, and that the timeframe within which this pud would provide the resources, we will hopefully have implemented our plan and have reset the equilibrium for our homeless response system. And so, I think that we need to understand the timeframe that we're talking about here. And I think sort of broader affordable housing, but within that, we do have to understand what kind of housing we are targeting within that. So, I'm going to call on you -- I have been told by the attorney that we are straying from germaneness here. It's a little bit inevitable, given that the question was raised about whether we should spend more money in homelessness. So, if you could keep that in mind, we'd appreciate it. Council member vela, and council member tovo. >> Vela: Just very quick [12:11:22 PM] question, because I know we are running a little late. When will the rfps that are out -- director gray, when will those be closing? >> So the housing stability, which is the rfp, has closed. And we anticipate representations -- internal identification of recommended funding agencies by the end of this month. The prices on rfp, which includes funding for shelter, closes on may 12th, and we would anticipate recommendations for that funding in June -- evaluations would be complete, it would then need to make its way to council. >> Vela: Thank you. Just a quick follow-up. I know everybody in the city, including other departments, are hurting because of the inflationary pressures. How is that affecting your goals in terms of, you know, real estate acquisitions and costs. What are you seeing out there? [12:12:24 PM] >> So, certainly, I think -- let me speak specifically to potential facility acquisition. I think that HPD would be better suited certainly to speak to construction costs. For affordable housing generally. You know, we have acquired as the city for hotels thus far, which are being -- two of which will be converted to permanent supported housing. One is operating as a shelter long-term. We have had a partner acquire a hotel for, you know, obvious reasons related to decreases in tourism during the course of the pandemic. There were more hotels on the market at that time. We still think it's a viable option. But we do anticipate that our cost per unit might increase somewhat. I will say that with a caveat, that even so, the cost per unit in those hotel acquisitions has been substantially lower than a new build cost per unit for a [12:13:26 PM] comparable studio apartment. So, it will have an impact, council member. I think that it will probably play out more in the new construction space, and would -- if you'd like further information, I think we would probably prefer to housing and planning on that front. >> Vela: Thank you very much. I just wanted to thank you and your staff for all your hard work, in particular with regards to the rehousing of the folks in St. John's. Very happy that those 35 or so folks are now in bridge shelter. And again, appreciate your work and all your staff's work on that issue. >> Thank you, council member. >> Alter: Thank you. And thank you, council member vela, for working on that as well. Council member tovo, do you have something that brings us back to item 69? >> Tovo: I do, yes. This is perhaps a longer conversation, but I continue to support the goal of having onsite affordable housing in town, when we have the ability [12:14:26 PM] to -- I think it's important. And I would say we have multiple policy documents that our council or previous councils have passed that call for that. We also have set goals, affordable housing goals by district. And it's always going to be true that we can build more units in certain parts of town than we can in others. But that's not the policy direction that our council has on the books. We don't have a policy direction that says we should build the most affordable housing and get the most numbers. We have a policy direction in multiple documents that says we should build affordable housing in all parts of town. So I'm going to continue to stand by the need for affordable housing on this site, in the south central waterfront generally, in health south, in one Texas center, and in some of the other projects that we've talked about. You know, that's how we're going to achieve those goals and we just need to stay firm, in my opinion. So, I'm certainly supportive of identifying additional funding [12:15:28 PM] for heal, if we get to that point where that's the will of council, I will be asking the manager to look at all of our available sources of funding, rather than trying to, you know, balance it against another existing priority. I would like to know first whether there are other options within our means. And let me -- I'm sorry, let me just end by saying, Diana talked about the really significant private fundraising that's going on around homelessness, and I welcome that and I'm excited about it. I would also say, you know, just -- there's not a day that passes where I don't wake up to emails in my inbox about encampments or the number of individuals experiencing homelessness throughout our city. I know most people in this community share a real genuine concern to see that each and every one of our neighbors is housed. And so I will just use this as an opportunity as related to the statesman pud and the determination of whether we [12:16:29 PM] should require on site affordable housing to say, you know, all of you who are writing and are concerned about it and care about your neighbors, please, you know, join us in this effort. You know that we have allocated lots of our federal funding to this need, but we are not going to meet that shelter need, and the shelter and emergency shelter especially and that emergency response is something that our private community can really step up and help us with. So I just want to issue that challenge to the businesses within our city and individuals to really help us meet that particular need. That's the way we're going to achieve ending homelessness in this city. >> Alter: Thank you, and I just want to also underscore that money that would come from this pud would be so far down the line that it would not address any immediate needs that are not being covered. >> Vela: Mayor pro tem? >> Alter: Quickly, please. >> Vela: My understanding is [12:17:30 PM] that's not true. We could acquire the money, for example, on passage on third reading, that the puds are very flexible. That was essentially the reason that I've been pushing this, because the funds would be immediately available as opposed to the affordable housing that's coming years down the road. >> Alter: Thank you. I think there are some tradeoffs that come with that in terms of how they structure their finances, et cetera. We have a lot of fees that come due and very rarely is it right when it passes. But it's certainly something that we can talk about. But again, it's not clear that there aren't other options for funding and the need for additional funding is not clear, in my view. But we can continue to have the conversation if it's the will of the dais. So, we have three executive session items to cover as well as moving back out here for a pretty heavy Austin energy session on the potential for a [12:18:31 PM] rate process, and after action storm uri items, so we want to make sure we give that plenty of time. What I would propose is that we move up to our offices to do executive session with maybe a 15-minute pause to get settled, et cetera, move through as much of the executive session as we can, and then come out as close to 1:30 as possible, if we determine that we can get through the executive sessions with an extra half an hour, we'll try and stay for that. But aiming to be out here for Austin energy at 1:30, 2:00 at the latest if everyone is on time and we move through the other items. Anyone object to that as the approach? Okay, then I will read the script. City council will now go into three items to take up three items. The city council will discuss [12:19:31 PM] legal issues related to e1, comprehensive strategies and actions intended to create a safer sixth street area, including repeat offenders and gun storage and buyback programs. E2, Acuna et Al V. City of Austin, cause number d-1-gh-19-008617, city of Austin, V. Acuna et Al, number 14-20-00356-cv. Pursuant to section 551.074 of the government code, the city council will discuss personnel matters related to e3, the performance of and consider compensation and benefits for the city manager. Is there any action to going into executive session on the items announced? Hearing none, the council will now go into executive session. So, let's reconvene at executive session at 12:35. Thank you. [2:24:43 PM] [Music] [2:42:55 PM] >> Alter: It's now 2:42 P.M. And we are out of closed session. In closed session we discussed legal issues related to items e1 and e2. We did not move to e3, personnel issues. I am going to recess -- recess today's work session of the Austin city council, and I will pass the gavel over to chair pool, who will convene the Austin energy oversight committee. PART 2 >> Thank you it is 4:01. I'm going to reconvene the Austin city council work session meeting. I believe we have one more item. I want to check if anyone had any other notes or comments or [4:01:47 PM] items on the agenda. Okay. So we will now go into closed session to take up one item. Pursuant to section 551.074 of the government code city council will discuss personnel matters related to e-3, performance and compensation for the city manager. Any objection to going into executive session on the items announced? >> Tovo: It's gone so smoothly I thought I would throw a wrench in the works. I don't have an objection. I did have a comment before but I had a cracker in my mouth. I wanted to call my colleagues to some questions I'm submitting in the Q and a. There's one, for example, in one of our downtown buildings that is -- my suspicion is much [4:02:51 PM] lower rent per square foot than would otherwise be of the other real estate item that talks -- that has us subleasing a -- one of the tracts that we own to a pottery and boat storage place. I think worthy of some conversation as we consider how we're using our facilities and how we're really being good stewards of the revenue. Thank you. And again, no objection. I'll let you finish your statement there. >> Thank you. I believe I had some questions in Q and a on least one of those items. Any objection to going into executive session? Hearing none, the council will go into executive session, and I will plan that I will come back out and close the meeting, but if everyone could try to get up stairs in five minutes to be on, that would be great. Thank you. [4:55:19 PM] [Music]. [Music] [4:58:19 PM] >> Alter: We are out of closed session. We discussed in closed session item e3 and I will now adjourn the Austin city council work session. Thank you.