City Council Regular Meeting Transcript – 09/29/2022 Title: ATXN-1 (24hr) Channel: 6 - ATXN-1 Recorded On: 9/29/2022 6:00:00 AM Original Air Date: 9/29/2022 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. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. Thank you. Colleagues, we're going to go [10:22:55 AM] ahead and call to order this meeting of the Austin city council here on September 29th, 2022. The time is 10:22. We are in the city council chambers here at city hall. We have a quorum present. Everyone is here with us on the dais. Councilmember harper-madison is with us virtually now, but will only be with us for part of the meeting. She'll travel -- she's traveling to the east coast, to confer on housing mobility with mayors, councilmembers, and other local official from Baltimore to Boston, and we thank her for doing that on behalf of the community. Councilmember Fuentes is not with us. She was invited by the Dutch government for an urban mobility study tour in the Netherlands. She's joined by other local and federal U.S. Government leaders to study how high-quality urban [10:23:57 AM] mobility and cycling are incorporated into everyday life. And she will return by the start of next week. I think that's a phenomenal opportunity for her on behalf of the city. I had the chance to do that in Amsterdam with the secretary of transportation then, as well as the future secretary of transportation, then the mayor of South Bend in Indiana. And I hope that councilmember Fuentes gets to see the parking garage that's downtown in the Netherlands that's not for cars, it's just for bicycles. And I think on the day I was there, there were 27,000 bicycles in their parking garage. It gives you an entirely different worldview, especially to know that that is the city where so in people are riding bicycles now, even in winter [10:25:00 AM] storms, which makes me think about the people that say people won't ride bicycles in Texas because it gets too hot. It's a question of what you get used to and your clothing that you wear. But to know in the early '70s, the traffic in the Netherlands and in Amsterdam was worse than the traffic that we have here in Austin today. So it has not always been a bicycle-centric city. It was a conscious choice that was made, as well as the benefit of building out a network where people on bicycles felt safe because of physical barriers between their lanes and car lanes. So I'm glad that she's going to be there doing that. Colleagues, we have a little over 30 speakers signed up to speak here this morning, so it's my intent to do two minutes a speaker. [10:26:00 AM] That gets us roughly to the hour I said we were going to use. This afternoon, same kind of thing. Two minutes perspeaker there as well. Councilmember kitchen? >> Kitchen: Just a reminder that I have to leave at 12:15 for about an hour. I'm going to speak on behalf of the council on an item. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you for that. If it is okay with you, we may use that time to try to hear from the public communications, but see if we can avoid calling anything for a vote, maybe take the lunch break during that period of time. We have -- I'm going to read the changes and corrections into the record. Item number 1 is withdrawn. Item number 7 on September 20th, 2022, that was not reviewed by the resource management commission. They didn't have a quorum. [10:27:02 AM] Item number 10 is withdrawn. 41 concerns the approval of a grant, not a supplement grant. Item 44 is withdrawn, 48 is withdrawn. Item number 62 has additional sponsors being councilmembers Kelly, kitchen, and the mayor pro tem. Item number 70, when public hearings are taken up, this item's going to be postponed to October 13th, 2022. It should be noted a valid petition has been filed in opposition to this zoning request. Item number 90 is the waiver for the festival. The date was may 7th, to 8th. Item number 70, that will be postponed, the public hearing is [10:28:02 AM] the water quality ordinance. I anticipate we're also going to be postponing item number 71, which is the public hearing related to an action related to the Austin energy pass-through charge. Items number 70 and 71 are going to be postponed when we get to those two items. The pulled items today include item 38 pulled by the mayor pro tem, item 59 pulled by councilmember vela, and also item number 92. I'm sorry. Which is the number for healthsouth? >> I think it's 12. >> Mayor Adler: 12. Councilmember tovo is pulling item number 12. [10:29:03 AM] So, I'm looking at a consent agenda today which is items number 1-66 and also items 86-93. I'm showing the pulled items are items 12, healthsouth, item number 38, which is the councilmember schedule, unless we can just put something in and keep it on consent. I'm going to come back to you in just a second on that, mayor pro tem. Item number 39 and 40 are both postponed. 39 to 10/27, 40 to 10/13. Those are the tenant/landlord issues. 59 has been pulled by councilmember vela, the I-35 matter. And item number 92 is going to stay on consent, but it's being postponed to 10/13. [10:30:08 AM] That's councilmember tovo's omnibus resolution. Mayor pro tem? >> Alter: Thank you. I would be perfectly happy to have 38 go on consent with my exhibit a substituting for what is in the backup so that we can take that up at consent. Let me explain it really quickly. So, the draft calendar had two council meetings between the time that we were presented the budget and the budget, which is unusual. So we moved one of those council meetings and we basically made the first and the third and the 8th and the 10th budget work sessions so we would have more time to work as a council. One of those work sessions, I don't know if it's the 1st or the 3rd, is the time for a second public hearing and setting the tax rate. We moved the November meeting to November 9th to avoid the [10:31:11 AM] Atlanta hosting of the national league of cities, which several of us may want to attend next year. There will be audio ] [10:32:17 AM] >> Mayor Adler: On the consent agenda. Anything else before we get to speakers? Councilmember tovo. >> Tovo: Mayor, I have a couple quick questions for staff about a couple different items. Is there any chance that we could ask those before the speakers so we can be mulling over the answers prior to voting on consent? I'll tell you what they are. They are -- if we have staff available I indicated I wanted our staff to affirm their plans for the renaissance market beyond the waiver of the fees on our agenda, but that'll take a couple minutes. I have a quick question -- maybe I'll just ask it and then the staff can email me. On 29 for the healing modality contract with ywca, it's not clear to me from the backup information how individuals will be selected to participate in those or to receive those resources? And I have -- I continue to have [10:33:19 AM] questions and will need to pull the two APD items with regard to txdot and U.T., because I think my fundamental question since our conversation on Tuesday is what happens if those positions can't be filled over time and why are we doing it through an interlocal. It's my understanding that most of the time, officers opt into those assignments, whether it's a whole foods or other kinds of things through individually, but they -- those are handled outside of the department activities. That's how the sobering center contract was handled during the period of time where they had one with APD. An individual officer organized those officers. It did not go through APD. Let me pull those two items. >> Mayor Adler: Let's pull 53 and 54. I'd like to get to speakers, because right after speakers I want to pull up item number 12 while we have councilmember harper-madison here. I want to get to that quickly and then we'll pull up the other things subsequent to that. [10:34:19 AM] Yes. >> Pool: One last item for anyone who may be here to speak on item 71, which is the Austin energy item. We will be postponing this and so the topic will not be one for if you choose to speak, it will only be on whether you support or oppose us postponing it to gather additional information, which seems to be the request across the board. And so I wanted to make sure that's clear and give people their time back if they have better places that they would rather be today. We will not be taking up item 71 today. Instead, we will be postponing it. >> Mayor Adler: I appreciate that, both items 70 and 71, the water quality ordinance and the ae both being postponed to 10/13, if speakers would choose not to speak on the question of postponement today, that would better ensure we can get to the healthsouth matter before councilmember harper- madison [10:35:20 AM] gets on the plane. Councilmember kitchen then councilmember tovo. >> Kitchen: Mayor, I have two items. I think they can stay on consent. That's item 58 and item 87. At the right time I want to move negotiation and execution on October 13th. These are the street outreach contracts that will give some time for the staff to continue to work out some terms for these contracts. These are new contracts. So we can get them started by voting on, negotiating, and have it come back on the 13th for execution. And that's the 58 and 87. But we can -- leave it on consent if that's acceptable. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. While the speakers are speaking, manager, if you could check with staff and see if there's a [10:36:20 AM] problem with approving on consent. >> Kitchen: I've worked with the public health director on that. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. Councilmember tovo. >> Tovo: Given that response, mayor, I'm going to withdraw my request that our parks staff speak to the renaissance market. I'll summarize what I think in my expectations so they don't have to wait for several hours. I voiced my question about the ywca, I need to ask the questions about the two items once I figure out the numbers. >> Mayor Adler: Sounds good. All right, colleagues. We have late backup in Austin housing finance corporation item number 2, if someone would remind me to say that when I call up Austin housing finance corporation. We also have backup in 12, 37, 41, 61, 63, 70, 71, 72, 75, 77, 78, 79, 81, 83, 84, 85, and 91. Councilmember Ellis. >> Ellis: Thank you, mayor. [10:37:21 AM] I just wanted to circle back on the calendar. I think for what's been proposed for today is acceptable. I know it was mentioned during the work session that with the new dais some of those later dates with a slew of people who will be going to their first budget process, the date of the 20th essentially means, I'm assuming the manager may unveil the budget around the 14th, so we'd be triaging an agenda while having the first week of budget. So I think this is great to approve for today and I appreciate the mayor pro tem's work on it. I wanted to make sure that we flagged if there's any dates early next year, maybe in January, double check and make sure. I appreciate the extra time for work sessions and think the 20th is a little early with the budget coming out a week ahead of that. >> Mayor Adler: Good note. I'm sure the next council will want to entertain that. Let's go then to speakers. I think we're going to do the ones in person first, or remote [10:38:22 AM] first? Remote, okay. Let's start with remote speakers. Everyone has two minutes. At the end we'll see if we can deal with healthsouth. >> The first speaker speaking on item 12, Karen. >> Mayor Adler: Is she here? Next speaker. >> Speaking on item 11, 37, and 70, bill bunch. >> Mayor Adler: Is Mr. Bunch here? Okay. >> Against the increase of $10 million to the aedc budget unless you restrict it to be used for the iconic music fund and the cultural arts work of [10:39:24 AM] the aedc, which I think is broadly supported by the community. While the efforts of the aedc on the proposed south central waterfront tirz is opposed by the community aggressively, is illegal under state law, and is highly offensive to basic decency in the sense that the aedc is supposed to be helping poor people and folks in need rather than providing welfare for billionaires, developing the most valuable real estate property in perhaps the entire state of Texas. So, please take steps to restrict the use of those funds and keep aedc focused on its proper mission. Thank you. [10:40:27 AM] >> Kelsey Hughes speaking on 59. >> Hi. I'm Kelsey hues. I'm a supporter of precinct 35. I am urging you to oppose item 59 because understate highways don't belong in cities. We take a second to think about what is the purpose of an interstate highway, right through downtown, this doesn't make any sense. It just requires people to get on the highway to go to the grocery store, to go to school. It brings in more noise, pollution, car crashes, dust, accelerates climate change. And voting yes on this item just puts a little bit of green space on top. We need to study rerouting I-35 around the city so that we can use that land for the people who live here. So I urge you to please oppose item 59 and study rethink 35 and reconnect Austin's plan. [10:41:27 AM] Thank you. >> Karen Popp speaking on item 12. >> Good morning. My name is Karen, and I'm speaking on item 12. I want to congratulate you, city council and city staff, for getting so much more out of this agreement than was thought possible when it first came before council. There are a couple of items that would benefit from more public input or more council input, and those are an affirmative marketing plan for the housing, whether we can get a good daycare center there, and whether we can make sure that the employees there get paid a good wage. But just in general, congratulations. Thank you for sticking with this and getting so much more out of it. >> Monica Guzman speaking on [10:42:28 AM] items 11, 70, 92, and item 3 for the Austin housing public facility corporation. >> I am not speaking on 11, 70, and 92, but regarding the other one. [ Laughing ] Sorry, I'm not used to the acronyms. I don't understand the totality of it, but knowing that caritas is part of that makes me feel good. District 4 has been in critical need of affordable housing. I'm looking forward to hearing good news both from the city and caritas on that particular item. And for transparency purposes, I am a member of the caritas board of directors, but I'm not speaking in that capacity. Thank you. >> That concludes remote speakers. [10:43:28 AM] We will move to in person. First speaker, Weldon on item 3. On deck, Gus peña. >> Hi, good morning. So, I'm also on item number 71 as well. So in 2020 during the height of the pandemic, Austin energy announced special discounts for low-income residents to be able to get discounts on energy -- electric bills and credits. And it also opened up the door to those that were under-200% of the federal poverty income level. So my income level was 102%. As part of that I applied for that discount rate. And I was denied. I reached out to find out what was wrong or what was involved. [10:44:31 AM] And nobody could answer the questions. When I called the 311 operator, she agreed I met every qualification, but they could not come up with an answer. I emailed my city council representative and got no response. One of the things I've learned is there's a lot of administrative flaws going on. And we need a full city audit of what's happening with the Austin energy, their processes, their administration processes. I wish y'all would at least look up and acknowledge me. I apologize. I understand you're busy, but this is something I'm taking my time so at least give me the acknowledgment that y'all are listening. I would like y'all to please take -- you know, consider this when you're passing these electric, you know, department initiatives, how it's actually impacting, or is it just another -- what are we doing with these. I'd like to see that audit be done. It's one of the things I'm going to press very hard for going forward is a full independent [10:45:33 AM] third-party audit of Austin energy as well as other Austin departments. Thank you. >> Gus peña speaking on 12, 18, 20, 35, 36, 37, 49, 56, 57, and 58. On deck, Alan Bonn. >> Gus peña. I'm here to -- I'm happy to be here because I nearly was rear-ended by an automobile accident. I'm going to speak to number 18 about black chamber of commerce, help them out. They need a lot of help. Number 20, the children's program. You can't pass by that. They need help. We hope we get them help. Number 43, resolution authorizing accepting funding [10:46:34 AM] from the state of Texas, department of Austin police department entitled APD violence against women right. Nobody has the right to hit a woman or a child, so we'll leave it at that. And sunrise church number 58 is the church out there in deep south Austin that helps out the homeless. And it is very, very needed, a church has given so much help to the homeless. I'm sure -- I hope any of y'all can tell me did you read the paper yesterday? Will Austin be affordable for them? What in the heck are we doing to help this situation? Get this situation down to a zero, okay? We need a lot of help, okay. You remember when my wife and I were form banking for you, look at it, Steve. Former special agent with the irs, okay? Irs also, okay. Give me -- at least acknowledge that I'm not stupid, okay? I know what's going on and I [10:47:35 AM] want people to stop talking bad about me. I'm not going to put up with that from anybody. Kathi, you know I worked hard on your campaign. I don't want to see you leave, but I wanted to thank you, because you've been one of the top ones also. And Mackenzie Kelly, you've been also helpful to this. [ Buzzer sounding ] >> Thank you very much for the help you do. Please continue to help out the community that needs help. Thank you. >> Speaking on items 39 and 40, Alan Vaughn. On deck, Alex stringer. >> Mayor, I just wanted to acknowledge, I think we have some U.T. Journalists here from the reporting class and I just wanted to thank you all for being here. I had an opportunity to speak with this class earlier this week and I think we have dozens of reporters covering our council meeting. Thank you all for being here, either in person or virtually. We hope it's a very entertaining day for you. [10:48:40 AM] >> Alan Vaughn. Alexander stringer. Jay Crossley on item 59. Brendan whitstruck. Speaking on item 59. >> Good morning, council, my name is Brendan, chair of the north central I-35 neighborhood coalition, we are a coalition of 13 neighborhoods. In central Austin. I am speaking on behalf, in support of item 59 to submit an application to the U.S. D.O.T. Program. I come with concerns and a clarion call for more leadership. We're calling this the connecting equitability study, [10:49:40 AM] yet the current scope of this study is to solicit feedback on a small number of txdot-provided caps over 35 between lady bird lake and airport boulevard totaling only 15 acres, preordained locations by txdot, nearly entirely downtown and lacking substantive community input. The community on economic benefits are unassailable, a project that benefits downtown while hurting the rest of the city is not a path toward equity. If [10:51:33 AM] desperate. I call on this council to work with us to provide clear guidance to staff and I support this item 59. Thank you. >> Vela: Mayor? Brendan? I want to thank you and the different neighborhood groups that have come together to discuss the I-35 redevelopment. This is a really critical [10:52:47 AM] neighborhoods. >> There's a lot of ways we could mitigate the effect of the highway on these neighborhoods, billboard crossings, and just generally have safer communities, a smaller footprint to this highway. >> Vela: I appreciate it. And just for reference, I'll be discussing this further, but between 51st street and 290, those are the last -- the two crossings at the beginning of district 4. That's .7 miles without an east- west crossing in the heart of a major American city. A freeway should not divide a community like that and looking at -- this is questioning district 9 as well, but that airport crossing of I-35, I don't know how a pedestrian is going to be able to cross I-35. If you want to get from the Mueller neighborhood to Hyde [10:53:49 AM] park, there may be some complex system of ramps and pathways that txdot is going to have to design around that intersection. So there are lots of concerns and I appreciate your work and the group's work in bringing these up and organizing around them. Thank you so much. >> Thank you, councilmember. >> Zack Alan on 59. On deck, Alexander stringer. >> Hi, guys. My name is Zach Allen and I wanted to share about my wife and I. We love to travel. We've been able to visit in great cities around the U.S. And the world. We both share a love of being able to explore and having in options of -- many options of getting around good cities. We used to live on south Lamar. Once we moved down there, we were so excited about being in the space with this wonderful stuff. But then we couldn't get where [10:54:50 AM] we wanted to go because it was on a five-lane highway with another four-lane road intersecting it. So it was like walking wasn't pleasant. It could be dangerous. Biking was okay as long as you went to the back neighborhood, otherwise it was downright dangerous. This really shrank where we wanted to go unless we wanted to get in a car and drive. And so I can imagine how many times over this exists in Austin. And it affects communities over the years. So this is just one thing. And I personally experienced it. I see so in missed opportunities here in Austin for projects that need funding and support. So more walkable bikes, other transit options, things like small sidewalks next to dangerous, noisy roads -- that's just like our place, it was a two-foot-wide sidewalk next to cars going 40, 50, 60. A train running every hour doesn't cut it. A bike lane painted next to a four-lane highway that masquerades as a street is not [10:55:51 AM] great. We move on to a poor choice between a highway expansion through the heart of downtown or a slightly less worse option, I guess, with the cap and stitch. Ultimately we have to have a way -- ultimately we're ending up having to pay or solicit grand funding to try to make this thing being forced upon us vaguely usable. And so just think about how many communities there are around Austin that can't thrive because they're disconnected by large roads which masquerade as streets, or an interstate. The possibility that we'll be forced to use a giant grant to reconnect communities to somehow try to make what happens with 35 better, that's odd. [ Buzzer sounding ] >> And you could even say perverse. And I think there's great projects that already exist in Austin that we should dream up something that's fantastic and a really good use of these funds rather than trying to make 35 -- >> Mayor Adler: Thank you. >> So, thank you. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you. >> Speaking on items 48 and 52, Alexander stringer. On deck, Jay Crossley. [10:56:55 AM] >> Good morning, council. I am speaking in support of item number 48 and 52 and the safe neighborhoods program. The best way to ensure safety is to make sure that everybody is wearing a mask and everyone is getting vaccinated. And that's why we need to invest in hiring more police officers to really crack down against antimaskers, the people that refuse to get their shots, and the people who spread climate change disinformation on the internet. Just look at what happened with hurricane Ian, do you think it would have occurred if people didn't have cars or own private property? Absolutely not. Not only that, nobody even knows what gender hurricane Ian is. Mis-gendering that hurricane, that's a microaggression. That's almost worse than calling councilwoman Madison by her first name. That is actual racism. If you do that you deserve to spend the rest of your life in prison. Anyway. Listen. I want to say one thing. [10:57:57 AM] And if we add money to these police funds, it can not be for prosecuting violent crimes like rape, armed robbery, burglaries or assault. That's white supremacy. The only thing we need to focus on is arresting people for not wearing masks, not getting their shots. We've got to arrest parents for complaining at school board meetings, the real issues. You all agree with me. I know that for a fact. And one last thing. In support of item 52, we've got to add money to the juvenile fund because if the kids don't want to wear masks or get vaccinated, they belong in prison, too. Thank you. >> Item 59, Jay Crossley. On deck, Adam Greenfield. >> Hello, mayor and council. Thank you for your time. My name is Jay Crossley. I live in d4 and I'm executive director of a nonprofit called farm and city. And I've been very involved with [10:58:57 AM] trying to work with txdot to improve the way they design things and improve I-35. And I'm here to strongly support the city's application to reconnecting communities. I think it's crucial that re- --we connection Austin and build the street grid back together as much as we can. For example, councilmember vela talking about in my neighborhood, the long distances you can't get across. I do want to push that the scope of this and the scope of the city's role should be not just sort of caps and stitches and parks. We're talking about building walkable urbanism, building a city for the people of Austin to live. Between third and seventh we should imagine plaza saltillo continuing through to downtown. If I am walking with a friend in a wheelchair from the saltillo station, I want to be on a sidewalk and all the way to city [10:59:58 AM] hall and never interact with fast cars. And you can achieve that with txdot. So I hope you can focus. Whatever we do on caps is worthless to children if you have to cross a high-speed street to get there. And so I believe txdot is in a position where they will accept the kind of street designs that you were doing in downtown and we should design any surface elements of this project the same as the city of Austin is now designing streets in downtown. And I hope that this can be part of the experience. I hope you prioritize human habitat and not necessarily parks and entertainment on the cap space. Thank you very much. >> Adam. >> Good morning, Adam Greenfield, district 3 resident [11:00:59 AM] with we think 35 -- rethink 35, speaking against item 59. I was part of the discussions and the advocacy around creating this reconnecting communities program, and there was a lot of concern at that time among advocates that these funds could be used to actually assist and sugar-coat highway the intention of most advocates is the reconnecting communities program help steer us away from the things we did with highway expansion. A lot of advocates are sad to see so many coming in for this program to go along with highway expansions and new programs. I think it's important you vote against this because otherwise this kind of approach will be [11:02:00 AM] used by state deities to get more and more new expansions and new highways in. They'll use this again and again. I think it has the potential to backfire and lead to more harms to local communities. I want to add that rethink 35 and other groups are working every day very, very hard to rally the public to give you the support you need to come out and voice what I think is in your hearts, which is this highway expansion will be a very, very bad thing for Austin. There is a historical precedent of communities standing up to state deities and stopping highway expansions. We see this in Houston where the government came in and told them to pause while they investigate civil rights [11:03:01 AM] violations. We can do that here too. Thank you for your leadership on this and, you know, those who have already come out against this expansion. Thank you very much. >> Item 59. Mary shoonfield. >> Thank you. District nine, supporter of rethink 35. Our future of 35, the name of this project, is a collaboration with the highway expansion -- an expansion that is antithetical in every way to the climate and equity goals of this city. If this expansion goes through it will mean for generations to come every single person that lives in this area will be more [11:04:01 AM] reliant on cars. I had a disability for many years which prevented me from being able to drive and I know a lot of people who aren't able to afford driving a car. Expanding the highway means it becomes increasingly difficult to live here without being able to drive. We need you -- we need your leadership to stand up and say an absolute no to expanding the highway, not to be collaborating with it. Who would tell somebody, sure, you can expand this giant gash in my leg so long as maybe you're willing to make it so a few band AIDS can be put on top that we will have to pay for. That is not a solution that's going to work. This is a bad deal for ausaustin, and the leadership in the city should be fighting it tooth and nail like we've seen in Houston and Harris county. [11:05:05 AM] >> Item 62, Glenn towerytowery. >> Thank you, city council of Austin and mayor. I'm here to talk about the Austin veterans art council. This is the fourth annual event and we are on item number 62. We do need approval in order to secure some of the theaters and things we need. More importantly I'd like to ask for you to look at the fact that we're two weeks from this festival starting and we're just now getting these -- talking about receiving these facilities, and I'm hopeful there will be a better way that we can do this in the future because it's difficult for us to plan without actually knowing that we have these theaters. Right now the city has been giving us a lot of support. You should be proud of the cultural center department -- [11:06:08 AM] cultural center and recreations. This is the exhibit we're doing. It's one of the first we've done in the city this way. It's a combat warrior exhibit. We are pressing for people to understand the power and the use of art and veterans. Also, I just want to say right now I'm not sure if you're aware but Texas is the leading state in terms of veteran suicide. We just had -- we're on the front page of the vfw magazine, the national magazine, and the reason why we're there is because the people there believe in what we're trying to do. Using a nonpharmaceutical approach to saving veterans lives, to improving their health is a very powerful thing. I hope Austin takes the leadership in this and we are taking the leadership in this approach right now by doing the [11:07:11 AM] Austin veterans art festival. Thank you. This is our fourth annual arts festival. We would not be here doing it if it wasn't for your actions and belief. >> Sir, thank you for your work on this. We've had an opportunity to speak on occasion, and I just wanted to let you know because our processes are a little confuing at time. A couple council members added to the work council member pool had been done so it looks like your entire fee waiver will be taken care of my council. I'm not aware that there's anymore balance. Maybe council member pool knows. It looks like it's full, so for at least that piece of the puzzle hopefully we have that resolved. Just want to ask about securing locations in a short period of time if we could try to [11:08:12 AM] expedite that. I think this council fully supports this work. >> Thank you so much. Thank you. Is everything okay? City manager. >> I was going to speak to this when we're done with consent but I may as well with Mr. Towery standing there. The Austin veterans art festival will indeed be happening in person and soon and we did find additional funds to cover all the waivers that you were looking for, and I wanted to thank my co- sponsors, mayor Adler, mayor pro tem alter, council member Renteria, Fuentes, and kitchen. I would note that the dates are October 12 to November 12. >> Yes. >> At the art center and at the carver museum. [11:09:14 AM] The show cases will be veterans art, dance, comedy, and a whole lot more. Ava fest.org is the site that you can click on and get more information about the artists and the festival schedule, and then just to shout out and special thanks to district 7 commissioner on the veterans affair commission for his work to bring ava fest back and for all the work that the commission does to support veterans in our community. Pete has ably represented d-7 on the commission since the start of 2017 when I first took this seat. I appreciate his leadership on issues concerning our vets. Thank you, Mr. Towery. >> Thank you for taking the lead in this and believing in us and for pushing this [11:10:15 AM] forward. God bless you all. >> Thank you. I wanted to thank council member pool for sponsoring this item. I'm glad my office was able to donate the remainder of the balance so we could make sure the fees were waived. Such a wonderful opportunity in the community and we're so thankful to be part of it. >> Next speaker, item 71, tray Salinas. On deck Paul Robbins. >> Council, a week ago austinites were shocked by Austin energy's announcement of high fuel prices that are intended to be implemented this fall. I am aware that this item is postponed. I want to describe information that we will need to make a [11:11:18 AM] decision. Personally I've been trying to get fuel costs for months and the utility has hidden them. Slide, please. Next slide. For each month of fiscal years 2021 and 2022 we need the supply of kilowatt hours and the cost in dollars of each fuel, including gas, coal, nuclear, solar, wind, and purchased power. Second, we need an explanation of why Austin's main gas plant, sand hill, was not producing power for most of four months of 2022. Do not let Austin energy try to scare you. This information was routinely [11:12:19 AM] made public. Some of it is actually on a federal internet site. It's just not in a user friendly form. Next slide. And regarding rates, I'm one of ten active interveners in Austin rate case which looks at the non- fuel portion of the bill. The utility is also hiding key information -- specifically, I've asked about windfall revenues that the utility had earned in the hot summer and Austin energy has not provided it. At San Antonio's municipal utility, the council decided how to spend a $75 million surplus. Why isn't this happening here? Second, I have also asked about key information on how capital improvement projects might be defrayed by increased charges on new Billings. When this took place in 2014 Austin energy experienced a [11:13:20 AM] rate decrease. I think there's more money in this strategy, but the utility has not provided information. Council, I appreciation your attention. >> Speaking on item one of the Austin housing finance corporation, Paul Talbert. On deck, Brittany jack. >> Mayor, do we have to call the meeting to hear someone from ahac? >> Mayor Adler: How many speakers do we have. >> The last two are hfc. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. Let's recess the -- thank you, mayor pro tem. Let's recess the Austin city council meeting here at 11:14 A.M. And convene the Austin [11:14:22 AM] housing finance corporation meeting here on September 29, 2022. The quorum of directors are present here in city council chambers and city hall. We're convening for the purpose of hearing speakers that have signed up and also to note that there is a late back-up for item number 2 for the -- it is in the back- up materials posted. Let's hear the speakers that have signed up to speak on today's agenda. >> Item 1, Thomas Talbert. On deck Brittany jack. Brittany jack? [11:15:23 AM] >> Mayor Adler: Anyone else signed up to speak in person or remotely on the Austin housing finance corporation matter sns. >> No, sir. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. Let's go ahead then and recess the meeting here at 11:15 A.M., and I am going to then return to and call to order the Austin city council meeting here on September 29th, 2022 at 11:15 A.M. Having just concluding a recess. We are back this the city council meeting. Any other speakers signed up. >> No, sir. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. [11:16:40 AM] All right, colleagues. That gets us to our agenda. I don't see Kathy here. Hang on here one second. I don't know -- would you check and see if Kathy is out back? Council member kitchen? >> Kitchen: I have a question for item number 11. I've set the question to staff and hopefully it's a quick answer, in which case we can leave it on consent. If I don't get the answer by the time we do consent, I'll have to pull it. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. It's good that you've sent that and we'll see later if we need to pull it. Let's see how close we can get to taking a vote on the health south matter. Council member tovo, do you want to make a motion? >> Tovo: I do. I'd like to move approval to negotiate a master development [11:17:42 AM] agreement as posted in the back-up to separate the execution. >> Mayor Adler: The motion is to approve the staff recommendation with respect to health south except it's only to negotiate and then return to council prior to execution. Is there a second to that motion? Council member harper-madison, do you want to second that motion? Discussion? Go to the maker of the motion first. If the maker -- >> Tovo: I'll make my comments in a bit. I do have amendments to distribute. I'm having some challenges today that I haven't had an opportunity to address. I'm running behind on those. I can read them if I need to but just as a heads-up I have some amendments, questions for staff and at the end I'll make my comments. >> Mayor Adler: It's 11:18. [11:18:44 AM] I think we have council member harper-madison for a little over an hour. I think the question is are we going to be able to resolve the amendments in that period of time. Council member pool. >> Pool: I was going to weigh in support of the -- >> Mayor Adler: That's the base motion at this point and I haven't heard anybody suggest an objection to that. I posted yesterday someone raise their hand if they object to that. Does not appear to be any objection. Staff seems okay as well for the reasons we talked about at our work session on Tuesday. Council member -- I'm sorry? You want to take a quick recess so you can finalize your amendments. You want to address them out loud quickly and then take a quick recess so people know? Really briefly identify the four amendments you're doing [11:19:44 AM] and we'll take a quick recess. That might be the quickest way. >> Tovo: First affirms our expectation that aspen heights and any other investors part of the deal shall pay full taxes for the development for any commercial or market rate housing associated with it. It also asks that as part of the negotiations for the master development agreement in addition to affordable housing, which I think you picked up in your motion sheet, mayor, the manager is directed to identify affordable wages and child care as we discussed. Living wages, though they were and contained in the motion sheet I brought forward be asking -- they are not part of this deal right now. I do have a question to staff I put about why that is, what the obstacles are of acquiring the [11:20:46 AM] living wage. I didn't understand the response back. That's a question I need to get answered here in the open session. I'm not understanding the oppositions are to acquiring a living wage. It is really a challenge for me. Maybe for some of my colleagues to have commercial businesses operating on city- owned tracts not paying a living wage. I think that's out of alignment with the values that we have echoed again and again. It's an expectation we make and talk about with your private developers when they come forward and ask for major zoning changes where we have zoning discretion. I would be -- anyway, that's my point on that. So to continue to negotiate on that we have had conversations back and forth about the affordable child care. It's my understanding that aspen heights as well but some of the parties we have been [11:21:47 AM] talking to -- I think we've continued to talk about the affordable -- the 60 per cent market rate for the lease base, which is only part of the equation. It's my understanding that the number of children accommodated in the space is too low to make the 60 per cent affordable for most high quality child care operators who accept child care vouchers or child care vouchers. So I think we do not yet have a deal that would assure we have affordable child care in that space, and so that is a sub -- the substance of my second bullet -- that the manager is directed to continue negotiating with hopes of achieving a more affordable rate for the child care facility. And thirdly there be an affirmative marketing plan that -- I think all three of these are items that others [11:22:50 AM] have spoke to today. Those are my amendments. I have questions about yours. I'm sorry. I have one additional one. And that is there be regular check-ins with council. I'm going to suggest those be monthly in form of a memo or in a brief update. There are some things that you are asking them to explore. I have questions about them, but I do think it would be appropriate to have regular check-ins so when the master development agreement comes back there aren't -- the council is really well informed about any changes or additions that have come up in the course of negotiations. >> Mayor Adler: I appreciate that. Let's go ahead and take a quick 10-minute break so that you can pass out the wording. Colleagues, I had, as council member tovo has mentioned, a motion sheet posted I think yesterday on the message board [11:23:52 AM] that seems to go with -- that seems to go with and relate similar to the second one that council member tovo raised but that's on the message board. Take a look at that. Let's come back -- does that give you time >> Tovo: I have a question for you but maybe we can talk about that. >> Mayor Adler: Let's go in recess about ten minutes. >> Vela: I think there were some folks that did not get to speak on health south. If we could take them after the break. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. If you wanted to call -- as is the prerogative of any council member -- if you want to call [11:24:54 AM] them up now in case -- >> Vela: Sure. And let me go ahead -- could we do it just right after the break. >> Mayor Adler: Yes, we can. >> The additional speakers are for two minutes each, any additional speakers. >> Mayor Adler: Let's urge the council member to do that. We don't have a speaking rule with respect to this kind of thing but I would agree with council member pool that our goal is to move this quickly forward. >> I'm sorry. Are they not signed up? I'm not understanding. Did they not sign up to speak on this? >> Vela: I'm not sure. I believe they did but I'll double check. >> Mayor Adler: If they're speaking pursuant to signing up they'll have two minutes. If they're not signed up and you'll calling them, we don't have a two-minute rule but we ask that you police that and the dais can -- >> Mayor Adler: All right. [11:25:54 AM] Let's take the 10-minute break. We're in recess. [11:49:57 AM] [No audio] . >> Mayor Adler: Council member meeting here -- it is 11:50. Is staff here? Does staff want to give us any opening comments on this property. >> Good morning. Assistant city manager. [11:50:59 AM] I'm going to turn it over to the deputy director tor ebbing N, ma'am -- the deputy director who has been leading the project. >> Good morning. It is my pleasure on behalf of the city of Austin negotiating team to present to you item 12 for approval to negotiate and execute the master development agreement based on the term sheet in back-up for the master development agreement with aspen heights for the redevelopment for the former health south property. This does bring significant community benefits to the community to the citizens of Austin with significant affordable housing, affordable commercial space for live music venue, child care facility as well as retail space for a local food incubator. With that I'm open to any questions or comments. [11:52:00 AM] >> Mayor Adler: Okay. Anybody from the community that you wanted to call to speak. >> Mayor,mandy Demayo. We had someone from the community who signed up and was missed. She has been brought in to help with affirmative marketing of the -- particularly the family and the affordable units in partnership with nhp foundation. She runs a nonprofit. I would love to give her the opportunity. >> Mayor Adler: Is she here. >> She is. >> Mayor Adler: Why don't you come on up. We'll give you two min you wants to speak as requested by staff. >> Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I am here on behalf of item 12 in support of it. [11:53:01 AM] I'm with saffron trust women's association. We act as care coordinators and helping out the housing cycle. We're part of the diversion program here within the city of Austin where we have 15 families that we're helping to input to their income for about a year. We are accepting the rights of refusals for 20 to 30 units with capital a housing. They are working with us to place program clients in the affordable housing unit. This is going to make a great impact here in Austin. I'm in support of item 12. Thank you. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you. Council member tovo, you have questions for staff? >> Tovo: Yes. First of all, I think this is [11:54:02 AM] for staff or aspen heights. I need to better understand what the obstacles are with relationship to living wage. I did ask that question in the Q and a but I'm not sure that I yet really understand. The answer came back they're not paying living wage. I'm not understanding what the challenges are there. >> Good morning. Per the city's resolution, the resolution applies to the city's contractor and in this case it's aspen heights. Aspen heights has committed and is being the minimum living wage to its employees. The resolution does not directly apply to the commercial tenants within our redeveloped properties, so with that I'm also -- welcome aspen heights to come on board and talk to their piece. >> Tovo: Sure. That is -- just to reflect back that is one of the amendments I brought forward back when we [11:55:02 AM] voted to authorize the exclusive negotiaing agreement. My hope this is -- I'm hoping to embed this within the city policy so we're -- so that future councils are not in a position as we are this time for negotiating something that wasn't in the rfp. It will be just be they'll be required to pay a living wage. I would like to talk about why that wasn't an element that at least until now you haven't committed to but perhaps you have had an opportunity to think about it and are now willing to make that commitment. >> Good morning. Aspen heights to pro-ied vooing living wage for all of their employees [audio [11:56:08 AM] lapse] >> Tovo: If you haven't gotten a copy I'd be glad to [11:57:37 AM] . At a rate we regard as living wage in Austin, so I hope we'll see some success on that as you work with the city. I think you heard my question before. As I understand from those who are experts -- thank you for reaching out and having those conversations. Is there any.... [Lapse in audio] [11:58:41 AM] . I think that is -- my amendment simply asks for the manager to continue to -- is directed to continue negotiating with the intent to require. We understand at this point since it wasn't part of the rfp that we can't make it a blanket requirement. It seems the commitment [lapse in audio]. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you. Could you come up, please, for a second. Colleagues, this -- I'm going to raise something here that may be more than a nuance. It may just be a nuance, but I think it's important. You've negotiated a deal at [11:59:42 AM] this point that originally asked to be able to finalize negotiations and -- that's the deal you brought to us, correct. >> Yes, sir. >> Mayor Adler: In doing that you have negotiated and gotten, in your opinion, the absolute, total amount of community benefits that can be derived from this deal based on the current discounted cash flow and the economics presented. Is that correct. >> That's correct. >> Mayor Adler: Now, I handed out a direction, which council has had, which has said we're not going to authorize execution now, but if we can change things, if there can be more money that's brought to the deal, not knowing whether that's going to be able to happen or not, but if there's more money brought to the deal then we want you to add and take that additional money and see if you can get more affordable housing. So if, for example, the applicant can get lower [12:00:43 PM] financing by using an eb-5 vehicle or if there's an opportunity to do a partnership and to get an ad valorem tax waiver or reduction -- if you can bring more money to the deal, we want you to prioritize these things. I think I support what council member tovo is doing because she's not saying get more money out of the deal that we see, but if there's more resources that can be brought to the deal to help with child care, then see if you can get more resources brought to the deal and get us a better deal on child care or on wages. But I just want to make clear that if we're trying to get additional benefits with the exact same amount of money already in the deal, then if we got additional child care or additional affordable housing or additional affordable [12:01:44 PM] concessions, it's going to have to come out of somewhere else. Is that correct. >> That's correct. >> Mayor Adler: I want to make sure in that regard that as we're passing direction we're making that clear because I will not support sending staff back in and saying renegotiate the deal and get a better deal -- get us more things because at this point, having sent you back three times, I'm going to trust that you have gotten everything that you can get absent there being more revenue, which is why our direction said try to find more revenue. If you can find more revenue or more value, get better things. That's what I'm going to be looking at in the amendments that are presented. I'm now going to recognize council member harper-madison. Thank you. >> Thank you very much, may R Yo. I appreciate it. Can you tell me if you can hear me okay with my headphones? [12:02:45 PM] >> Mayor Adler: We can. >> Harper-madison: I don't have questions. I just have comments. If you'd like to know why people call it urban removal it's because the city of Austin intentionally displaced 475 working-class households on that corner of downtown. We replaced them with hospital, water loo park. What was once a bustling community was turned into a lifeless crater. It was more than 3500 in 1960. By 1990 it was down to 1300 -- largely because of the people we deliberately kicked out of the 144 acres of the so-called broken ridge area. With this pro Sal we have the opportunity to rebuild the [12:03:46 PM] neighborhood -- more than a quarter reserved for 99 years for people who make less than 60 per cent of the median family income. It will cater to historically mar marginalized musicians. Just a short walk from project connect's goal line. I'm proud of the work we've done to dial in with so many community benefits. I'm glad my colleagues stuck it out when we asked to give the deal a few more weeks to come together over the summer. I think we'll see some transformative change to part of downtown that's gone through it before. This time things will be better. While I have a moment I'd like to extend my deepest gratitude to everybody on the dais for your patience and understanding as I am traveling. [12:04:47 PM] We had to move some things around. I also understand I missed you all singing happy birthday to the libras on the dais. Thank you for that. I appreciate it. Thank you for recognizing me, mayor. >> Mayor Adler: We'll try to do this. I understand you board a plane in 15 or 20 minutes. Travel safely. We'll see how close we can get. >> Harper-madison: Is it possible for me to cast my yes vote before I board on the record? Or do I have to wait for the motion and then subsequent second and vote? >> Mayor Adler: I'm afraid under our rules you have to wait until we call the vote. But the minutes can reflect that you were here and expressed that if we could call the vote while you were here you would be voting yes, and we can make sure that the minutes -- clerk, if you would please note that specifically in the minutes. Council member kitchen? >> Kitchen: Yes. And I have to leave in ten [12:05:48 PM] minutes also. I do support both of these amendments and I support moving forward. So if I'm not here, when y'all vote, I just wanted to put that on the record. I also wanted to thank everybody who's been working on this and just also suggest that I think it's really important to see if it's possible to do something around better wages and living wage related to the child care. So that is a fundamental tenant of -- fundamental policy for the city of Austin, is taking care of our workers. It is particularly important for child care. So I thank you for bringing that forward. Mayor, I also appreciate you bringing forward the suggestion of some ways to see if there's additional dollars for the deal. I think that's important to do also. So I just wanted to make those comments because I will have to step off the dais shortly. [12:06:51 PM] >> Mayor Adler: Okay. Thank you. Council member veal la. >> Given we're about to lose two council members, are we ready to go ahead and vote? >> Mayor Adler: We could try that. I would offer my direction. Any objection to my direction being in there? Comb tovo? >> Tovo: I have to clarify something you said about my motion, though. So we are going to need a couple minutes on that. I need to ask our staff to provide us with some information about taxes to make sure we're on the same place with regard to taxes. With regard to yours I would like to specifically -- add another bullet, permanent supportive housing. That was in the original amendment way back when. [12:07:52 PM] >> Mayor Adler: Hearing none, it gets added as a fourth. >> Tovo: As an I look at the term sheet it says affordable child care. The information we've gotten suggests there's a little more work that needs to be done before we can check that box. So I do regard my amendments as not only in the case that there's additional value. I regard them as I really want the staff -- I am providing additional clarity about items we've talked about. I know -- >> Mayor Adler: We'll call it in a second. Then we can discuss it. I'll make an amendment to your amendment and you can argue against my amendment and we can take a vote on it. But what's in front of us right now is the one that I posted yesterday. >> Tovo: And my amendment [12:08:52 PM] would be to be to add supportive -- since you're describing my amendment and I needed to clarify, >> Tovo: I think it's important to highlight if there are ways in which the project will ask for tax exemptions and those things. Those are the things that should be highlighted in the monthly updates. Some of the pro Forma talked about the tax benefits Oen this property. If the deal changes and there's suddenly property taxes that we expected that are not coming to [12:09:53 PM] the city those absolutely have to be discussed -- possibly with the other taxing entities who would also have an impact like aisd. I'm supportive of the last bullet the mayor has about exploring other financial tools but some of those will come at a cost in terms of the financial underpinings of this deal. >> Mayor Adler: I recognize that too. And my understanding staff ability, if you can bring additional value and resources [lapse in audio] -- please make it part of your updates. Please involve other taxing entiies so nobody feels blind side and they're able to discuss and be part of that. I think that's the intent. Absent any additional community benefits, we want to make sure that the taxes are paid as is contained right now in the proposed dcf -- discounted cash [12:10:55 PM] flow. Council member tovo, do you want to make your amendment? >> Tovo: Yes. I would say the last one is designed -- manager, to provide you that opportunity to highlight any additional shifts in the agreement. >> Mayor Adler: I would propose number two and I would add a phrase. It reads now as part of the ne gauche yagss for the master development agreement, the city manager is directed -- I would add the phrase "If additional resources or revenue request come to bear and continuing on to prioritize fair wages and affordable child care." If there's a second to that, I'll explain it. Council member Renteria seconds that. I think at some point -- manager, there should be someone on staff that is our own independent, in-house person to address calibration and what we can get. Working on the assumption our [12:11:57 PM] staff has been able to negotiate and get all the blood out of the turnip -- we can't ask for more without saying these are the things you negotiated for that we're willing to give up on unless you're able to get more revenue in the deal, either with the conversations that you're having apparently with affordable housing to bring additional resources -- I mean, child care to bring additional resources associated with that, other ways to bring additional resources in the deal. We have listed some of them here, but I would urge that we add those words so that staff knows that we are good with the deal as it is. We would like them to make it better by bringing in additional resources. That's my amendment. >> Kitchen: Can I speak? I have to leave. I cannot support that amendment. I don't think it's necessary. I think you've made it clear, your position, which is fine. I think staff probably heard it. But to ask us all to vote on that I think is not [12:12:57 PM] appropriate. I mean, it's -- I can't vote for that because I don't want to put my thumb on the scale one way or the other. I want the staff -- I trust the staff, and I trust them to hear what you said. And I think it's important what you said. But I don't think we should be voting on it and reducing the intent of council member tovo's amendment. And I cannot vote for your amendment. I can support what you suggested and I know the staff will look at it that way. That's fine. But let's not put a thumb on what they can accomplish. We'll see what they can accomplish when they come back. I trust them. >> Mayor Adler: Further discussion? Mayor pro tem? >> Alter: With respect to child care, it seems to me the intention of the developer. We have some conflicting information and I don't know what the delta is. I'm not sure anybody knows but I think that's what we're asking staff to figure out, how to do that. [12:13:57 PM] The delta may be in the scheme of a gazillion million dollar project. It may be small enough and there may be commitment enough on the developer's part to do that so I don't know it requires additional resources from the city to make that happen and I wouldn't want to say it has to, given what we've heard for that. Certainly the -- your amendment takes care of other financial tools that might allow us to get additional levels of affordability, et cetera, and, you know, as this project evolves, those may be there and allow us to do additional things, but I don't know that your additional language is necessary to provide in the direction -- yeah. Leave it there. >> Mayor Adler: Council member tovo? >> Tovo: In addition to the fact that when she spoke, there seemed a willingness to try to [12:14:58 PM] work it out. So I just -- I can't support that either. >> Mayor Adler: I understand. Let's -- >> Tovo: If it's a tight vote, I'm going to have to [lapse in audio. ]. [Lapse in audio] >> Tovo: To me it makes sense to split out living wage from -- living wage -- for one thing you're also then modifying my third bullet about an affirmative marketing plan, which is the intent of the developer anyway. So I'm going to as the maker of the amendment, I'm going to request that we split these out and so -- yours -- I think yours should -- I [12:16:00 PM] think you should make yours -- I would like to present my amendment differently and I would like to present the intro, the intro to number 2, with the third bell let. Let's knock that one out quickly and we'll take childcare and living wage up separately as the intent was to create an affordable childcare and it sounds like there is an opportunity to do that. So I would really strongly suggest that you use different language there. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. So I think in the effort to reach something that we can all agree on consistent with councilmember kitchen's [12:17:02 PM] request, let's go ahead and do number 2 with respect to childcare without my additional seven words because I heard that there's going to be additional revenue brought to get that done, so based on that assumption and discussion I won't offer the seven words with respect to that. Any objection to that being included? Hearing none that's included. Are you okay with the seven words with respect to prioritized fair wages. >> Tovo: I will still have to vote against it and here's why. This is based on an April from 2016 on. Obviously our values have increased quite a bit. This new proposal is also based on the fact they have acquired a tract that their requesting our assistance? Rezoning. The language has now changed that their going to file it on there then out based on a zoning change and increased entitlement. I will finish my sentence. This is something we asked to be included at the time of the Ena, more value has been brought to the project through the various means I've talked about and I think they can accommodate the living wage. [12:18:03 PM] I'm going to vote against it but understand that you feel differently. >> Mayor Adler: I understand that and affordable housing is also something that was addressed in the Ena. We did add the seven words and that last situation. Those in favor of that please raise your hand. Councilmember Renteria, vela, Ellis. Four. Those opposed? That's five people. Those opposed? Two votes opposed. So the amendment fails. >> Alter: I'm abstaining. I don't know what councilmember pool is doing but I'm abstaining. >> Mayor Adler: That effectively counts as a no vote in that instance. A no vote. Councilmember tovo. >> Tovo: Let's say the city manager is directed to continue discussions with [12:19:09 PM] aspen heights around bullet this living wage. Continuing discussions I think is not required. >> Mayor Adler: I'm fine with that. As a substitute to all of this, are people okay with saying we'll have continuing discussion on fair wages as proposed by councilmember tovo. No objection to that? Hearing none that's how we'll handle the fair wages component. That being said does anybody object to councilmember tovo's amendment being added as amended? Hearing none, that's added. We are now to the base motion as amended -- >> Tovo: Mayor, I don't think we voted on my amendment number one regarding taxes. We skipped right to two and I think this is a really important one. >> Mayor Adler: I intended it to actually be part of the first vote, but if it's not we'll vote on it specifically. >> Tovo: I move number one. >> Mayor Adler: Anybody objection to adding number one. Councilmember Renteria? >> Renteria: I'm -- this is very confusing. It seems like either we're trying to throw a poison [12:20:11 PM] pill in this program and kill the entire project. I'm very concerned about this. We have a good opportunity to build affordable housing, multiple bedrooms, and the citizens are always saying we can -- how come you're not building enough affordable housing? And here we are debating -- we have an opportunity to build these affordable housing and it's so frustrating to hear what's going on on this dais because it seems like we just want to kill this project. And if that's -- what you want to do, why don't we just come out and say it instead of bringing all these amendments to this project? >> Tovo: Councilmember Renteria, I'm going to assure you that's not what I'm trying to do. You may remember back when these proposals came forward I was the one who brought forward the amendments and you co-sponsored them, to ask our staff to go back and in the exclusive negotiating [12:21:12 PM] agreement we couldn't require at that point, but we asked them to use their absolute best efforts to get a better affordable housing deal. Frankly without our amendments, which you supported and I'm grateful to you for doing so, and a lot of hard work and arguing since, I'm not tovo I can assure you this is not designed to be a poison pill. I am committed, I commitmented to councilmember Houston, to my colleagues and all the people who care and have asked us for years to make sure that we're using our city owned tracts for the benefit of the public, I have committed that I am going to -- councilmember Houston and I and we probably said it in these meetings, we were going to chain ourselves to this [12:22:13 PM] property if we couldn't get affordable units on this tract. You have my absolute assurance that I am going to until we vote going to do my best -- [lapse in audio] [12:25:11 PM] >> Mayor Adler: With respect to us -- that's the taxes part. Whatever taxes were shown in the dcf and I think part of it may be waived because of the arrangements that would be waived, not being waived. If there's any additional taxes being waived other than what's in the dcf and in your deal we expect it to be associated with community benefits otherwise we expect that measure of taxes to be paid. Second, we want to have affordable childcare. We understand in the discussions there are additional discussions being put to the table and we want to push to you do that. I'm okay with not including the seven words because of the discussion I heard where that's going to be the source of that. And in the last oned discussion on fair wages and then the other amendment on affordable housing says try to get as much as you can, recognizing there might be opportunities to bring additional revenue. But as we sit here if we pass all these, do you see [12:26:12 PM] this as something that indicates to you that this deal should not move forward or you have to make this deal better in order for you to be able to bring it back to council? >> Mandy de mayo, deputy director of housing and planning department. The deal as presented we have reviewed thoroughly, vetted both internally and with our third-party consultant and we feel like this is a good deal and worthy of recommendation. The childcare conversations as Amanda mentioned, are ongoing and we always anticipated them to be ongoing. We haven't nailed down a childcare operator and that frankly is years from now based on the current development schedule. Regarding living wage, we have committed based on today's conversation, to continue conversations with aspen heights regarding the feasibility. Regarding affordability in the property taxes, what we know is that the current pro Forma is currently modeled with the expectation that [12:27:12 PM] there will be a 50% property tax exemption on the affordable units which is in the south tower, the 232 units, which is approximately two-thirds of the south tower. Currently modeled, and I've confirmed this with our colleagues at nhp and capital a, currently modeled the 232 units, the property tax exemption is on the improvements only. They haven't contemplated or incorporated any property tax exemption on the land. That is going to be for future conversations and a bunch of tax attorneys to hash out. Frankly, this is a bit of a unique animal. Affordable housing, a lihtc development incorporated into a larger development. So how you apportion any property tax benefits I will leave to the tax attorneys, and I am certainly not one of them. And to our tax assessor. [12:28:13 PM] Regarding the larger question about going back and negotiating for a trade-off between property taxes, property tax revenue and additional community benefit, that was not contemplates as part of the mda negotiations. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. That's fine. But if that opportunity exists, if there is an opportunity to do that and get greater affordability this is asking you to look at that, ask you to look if the property owner brings in ev5 financing that reduces the financing charges that are going to be paid, it's going to affect the dcf, there may be other kinds of affordable housing revenue that can be brought to bear. If those things happen and it impacts the dcf, what we're saying is we want that benefit to at least some [12:29:15 PM] degree to accrue to and innewer to the benefit of the public. >> And we would always want any sort of windfall to accrue to the benefit of the public. That would always be our expectation. With respect to the affordable housing, frankly other than anybody he willing around the edges from a financing perspective, the volume of affordable housing, the 232 units under the lihtc program, that's a solid number. We're not going to get 500 unitment we're not going to continue doubling the affordable units just because of the limitations within the private activity bonds and the limitations within the lihtc program. >> Mayor Adler: I think people are saying four or five hundred -- >> There could be nibbling around the edges if that is a technical term. >> Mayor Adler: In this housing market I would say every additional unit you can get in that building. >> Agreed. I'm with you 100%. >> Mayor Adler: And I think that's all that's said. [12:30:15 PM] But if we pass this do you see this as a poison pill or something that -- you've already negotiated this deal and if we need to postpone this to this afternoon or two weeks from now I'm going to do that before I'm going to vote for something that put on you an additional negotiating demand from the city council that can stand in the way of this deal being done. I don't hear or read this as doing that and I want to see if that's your read as well. If not, say that and give us a chance to postpone this if the maker of the amendment wants to do this, let's postpone it to next week or two weeks from now. >> Tovo: Mayor, I'm not clear about what amendment you're talking about. >> Mayor Adler: I'm talking about all the amendments in total -- >> Tovo: But yours are the ones -- >> Mayor Adler: I want to know if any of them. >> What I'm hearing from the dais is direction to continue conversations on some very important public priorities which we will [12:31:16 PM] continue into the mda. But the term sheet as presented in backup is the foundation of what is moving into the mda. >> Mayor Adler: So you don't see it as a poison pill that will present an obstacle to bring this back to us. >> I'm hearing continuing conversations on living wage and childcare and we will do that in partnership with aspen heights and HP foundation capital a in good faith throughout the mda. We will bring back I heard on a monthly basis to bring back, whether it's memo or executive session to bring back updates. If there is some anticipated windfall, eb5 or some other thing that comes up during the mda, then we would anticipate bringing that back if it's in executive session or just part of a memo. >> Mayor Adler: Okay, thank you. [12:32:18 PM] Okay. I think we're ready to vote on -- where were we? >> Tovo: We still have not voted on the codification of number one. I think you said we thought we already voted on it, which may be -- >> Mayor Adler: Does anybody have a problem with number one being added? Was my description of number one consistent with your understanding that we should -- any objection? >> Tovo: One confusing thing, mine are about the term sheet. Yours is about ongoing negotiations if there's a windfall. My updates applies to both, but yes, I'm talking about the existing deal as I understand it with regard to the tax implications. >> Mayor Adler: Any objection to that being included in number one? Hearing that that's included. I think we've hit everything. Let's take a vote on health south. Those in favor of this item number 12 as amended please raise your hand. Those opposed, those abstaining. Councilmember Kelly votes [12:33:19 PM] no. The other six, seven of us on the dais voting yes. Councilmember harper-madison, is she still with us? She was a minute ago and not here now. The record will reflect that commissioner Natasha harper- madison was present, she was serious justice a minute ago, but had to get to her plane, would have voted yes if she was here. Council member Fuentes is off the dais. So one against, two off the dais, the others voting aye, it passes. >> Pool: Councilmember kitchen is not here. I imagine she would like to be included in the same way Natasha was, but I can't speak for her. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. >> Tovo: We could certainly reopen it later and allow councilmember kitchen to vote and councilmember harper-madison. >> Mayor Adler: We could do that in the future. I understood councilmember kitchen's comments earlier to ask that the record reflect that this was something that she supported [12:34:20 PM] as well and I think the minutes should reflect that. All right. That gets us through that. Thank you everybody for that. Congratulations to everybody, staff, everybody who worked so hard on this. Let's get to public communications. People have signed to speak on public communications. >> Alter: Mayor, is there a reason we can't vote on consent? >> Mayor Adler: We could try. Do you want to vote on consent? It's 12:34. We have people waiting here to speak. We have staff as well. Let's see how quickly, mayor pro tem, that might happen. Let's see if we could vote on the consent agenda. I'm looking at the consent agenda which is items number 1 through 66 and 86 through 93. I'm showing the pulled items [12:35:22 PM] are number 12 because that was already voted on separately. I'm showing items 53 and 55 53, 54 and 59 as the pulled items. 53, 54 and 59. >> Alter: I'll move approval of the consent agenda. >> Mayor Adler: Is there consent to passing the consent agenda? Council member vela seconds it. Any discussion now on the consent agenda? Councilmember Ellis. >> Ellis: I need to be shown as recusing on item number 60. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. The record will show reflect. -- So reflect. Mayor pro tem. >> Alter: Thank you. I'd like to be shown as abstaining on item 57, which is negotiation and execution of an amendment to the interlocal agreement with Travis county for the provision of public health services. I'm abstaining because we still have not gotten agreement with the county [12:36:24 PM] over reimbursing us for covid expenses. The county received money from arpa and cares, the arpa double counted with the city and the county. Our original Ila does not cover covid. I know our staff are working diligently to get that funding but this has been an ongoing discussion to surface this. I can't vote affirmatively for an agreement. I understand it's only three months so that that relation can happen. But I can't vote in favor of it. >> Mayor Adler: So noted. Councilmember pool? >> Pool: I want to abstain from voting on that item and would extend the mayor pro tem's comments to say that the county just passed its budget. I think Tuesday. And that would have been an object pop tune time for the appropriation or at least a general estimate of it to have been made. And those numbers that have [12:37:26 PM] been agreed to could have been reimbursed to the city of Austin potentially with leaving the piece that they have not been able to confirm left unreimbursed. But I strongly support Travis county and the city of Austin making good on its debts to each other as entities. Thanks. >> Mayor Adler: The minutes so reflect. Councilmember Kelly. >> Kelly: I would like the consent agenda to reflect items if 56 and 57 I will be voting against and I will be abstaining from item number 19. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. So reflect. Councilmember tovo. >> Tovo: The minutes should reflect my vote against 37, flew and other transit oriented development at plaza saltillo. I am interested to see how we're going to make sure -- how we will select individuals to receive resources from the ymca. And on number 12 -- I'm not [12:38:32 PM] sure what it is. The animal services, the extension of the contract on animal services, I have requested a briefing from animal services in a few weeks at one of our work sessions and I would like there to be a reference -- I would like you to explain, manager, how we assess costs for animal services to Travis county as well. As part of that presentation. That shouldn't be the bulk of the presentation, but I want an answer to that question during the presentation. >> Mayor Adler: Is that okay, manager? >> If I could make a correction. Staff has alerted me to a minor correction on item 11, exhibit a exhibit 6 to the Ila under addendum number two the funds should read the iconic venue fund not the iconic music venue fund which reflects the original resolution from December of 2020. It was just a typo that they had. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. So noted. And in the nature of late backup. [12:39:32 PM] Let's take a vote on the consent agenda? All those in favor say aye. Those opposed? It's unanimous on those voting councilmember kitchen,. >> Fuentes: And harper-madison off the dais. The others voting aye. We'll go to public communication now. Colleagues, it is 12:39. Do we have some music today? Not today? It will be a quiet day. Bummer. We sang happy birthday so at least there was some music. Let's hear from the public communication speakers. There's six people, seven people. So we should be done at approximately 1:00. We'll come back at 2:00 and we'll begin with afternoon speakers at 2:00. Councilmember Kelly. >> Kelly: I have a question. [12:40:32 PM] I don't know if staff can answer this, but I've gotten questions from people in my community -- I guess all over Austin how they can apply to do music here at city hall on council meeting days? I was wondering if somebody might be able to answer that. And if not maybe we could get a memo. Thank you. >> Hi, council member. Those emails will be addressed to Erica shamley in the music office we can get those coordinated and we can follow up with her specific email address. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you very much. Let's call public communications. Are all these folks in-person today? >> We have one remote. >> Chair: Okay. >> Mayor Adler:. >> Okay. >> Jesús Mendoza. >> Thank you. Thank you very much. Mayor, city officials, I respectfully request your office on ordinance to [12:41:35 PM] criminalize bullying as domestic terrorism. And direct the police department to investigate and refer for prosecution those who are provoking children to violence or to threats of violence on the ground that investigation and prosecution of bullying as domestic terrorism can be a strong deterrent to prevent more tragedies in schools. I have been home bond for more than 10 years which was caused by the microwave [indiscernible]. The symptoms and signs are similar to the symptoms and signs of this is illnesses including deadline life-threatening illnesses. Even low levels of ration. I'm sleep deprive and in pain all the time. This is a horrible way to day. It is recognized by federal and [indiscernible] As a physical medical condition and a disability because most doctors are in the dark and millions of children have been misdiagnosed and [12:42:35 PM] administered harmful drugs and procedures and painkillers because of the microwave and ration in school. The specific [indiscernible] Has proven that those in charge of educating and protecting our children committed fraud and that the chronic [indiscernible] Exposure to microwaves and ration in school are causing children catastrophic and irreversible disability to defeat the purpose of education. The government sponsors hate group bullying, which includes teachers, students, are provoking children and mentally disabled to commit [indiscernible]. The massive, powerful and harmful grade safety ration in schools, the workplace and even homes and to conceal under the fabricated excuses and national security that the future of our children and the future of the country and national security are being sold to big fa ma and medical [12:43:36 PM] cartels as detailed by the criminal complaint by the motion to recruise three federal judges and by request to protect the children submitted to Roland Gutierrez. [Indiscernible] Federal and state authority and even the mainstream media are considering these atrocities, investigation and prosecution of bullying as domestic terrorism can save immense pain and suffering and save children's lives. A copy was submitted to your office. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Respectfully, thank you again. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you. Is William Lee here? William Lee? >> William Lee is one of our board members who signed us up. >> Mayor Adler: We'll let it go this time. [12:44:38 PM] Our customary rule is you can't donate your time to someone else in this communication. So the person who signed up is supposed to be the person who speaks. But go ahead because I haven't said that out loud in a long time. So I want to say it out loud for people to know. Go ahead. You have three minutes. >> Thank you. Hello mayor and council members. Thank you for your time. I'm the executive director of Austin recovery and I'm here supported by our board members and students. Austin recovery has played a significant role in treating substance misuse in central Texas for over 50 years and has successfully treated thousands of men and women suffering from drug, alcohol and drug misuse. The mental health parity and addiction tract in 2010 required group health insurance coverage for substance abuse treatment services. Since then protest treatment centers have proliferated and drawn insured and self paid clients away from Austin recovery. As a result maintaining adult treatment services became unviable. Fortunately that was not the case for Austin recovery [12:45:40 PM] youth services. University high school and keystone Austin. These programs present an opportunity for us to have the best long-term impact. The high school provides students in recovery with a safe, sober high school experience. Students receive high quality academics, complimented by wraparound recovery support services including daily process and life skills groups, grief crisis interventions and individual emotional support that empowers them to fully engage in their recovery and education. Since opening in 2014uhs has served 234 students, 457 parents and 345 siblings. Uhs is one of seven accredited recovery high schools nationwide and we provide critical life saving services. No student has ever been turned away for financial reasons and uhs has received virtually no government support from the state or local government. Keystone Austin is Austin's largest youth recovery community and it engages [12:46:40 PM] teens in meaningful opportunities that promote healthy recovery and build social connections. Activities such as support groups, social outings and robust family programs are offered when teens are at highest risk for substance use. It provides lasting support to adolescents and their families. Keystone has served 131 families with 139 youth participating. So why is this important? Serving youth allows Austin recovery the best opportunity to address the substance use disorder epidemic by focusing on the disease of addiction in its early stages to impede its progression into adulthood. Between 2016 and 2020, drug use among eighth graders increased 61%. The rate of overdose deaths among U.S. Teenagers nearly doubled in 2020. The first year of the covid pandemic. It rose another 20% in the first half of 2021 compared [12:47:41 PM] with the 10 years prior to the pandemic. Providing youth recovery programming is a life saving service that needs broad based community support. Please help us. We ask the council to instruct the city manager and staff to work with us on funding mechanisms to sustain and build the capacity to make these critical services available to a larger portion of those in need. [Buzzer]. Thank you. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you. Thank you for the work you and your organization do. A lot of people wearing purple today in support of the mission. Thank you. Next speaker is Susan Spataro. >> Good afternoon mayor and council and thank you for your time. Public safety is a primary function of municipal government. Today I would like to speak regarding and an integrate part of public safety. I'm going to start with my con including first in case [12:48:41 PM] I run out of time. I want to convey my sincere thanks to our police officers that everyday do their very best to protect and serve all members of our community. Throughout covid, riots, camping, severe shortage and staff, excess overtime, the police officers were here. They are often in positions where they have to make split second decisions and it's easy to be a Sunday morning quarterback so to speak. Their staffing needs to be increased. The city government needs to provide them excellent training in all aspects of the work they do and enable them to engage in community policing, which makes our community safe for everyone. And council in the future, I hope you look to providing that type of funding. All too often I've heard one sided attacks on and as I've been down here and watch on television with no opportunity for other viewpoints or and to respond. So I would like to take this opportunity today to express my views and the views of [12:49:42 PM] many members of our community. Some activist groups like to preface their comments to you as the community demands. These groups certainly have the right to be heard. But to say that they are the community is a bit of an overstatement. The community, and I just for a number use the number that signed a petition for over sight. 33,000 out of 897,000 voters. That's 3.7%, so it's part of the community, but it is certainly not all the community. The police have been defunded. In 2019 we had 1959 sworn officers. In 2020, '21, '22 it was 1809. 150 cut that were touted by former councilmember Casar have not been reinstated. Furthermore we have 278 vacancies and those 150 positions that were cult in [12:50:44 PM] 2020 have not been restored. Specialized updates, patrol, D.W.I. Parks are gone. Several years ago a small group dominated the decision. Soon reimagining public safety emerged. In my opinion the strategy has been a failure. For this community 2021 murders increased 88%. That's the largest increase, I saw this on cable. If any town, any large town from the country, that's terrible. City accidents and other crimes, traffic fatalities have increased due to a lack of staffing. We are not more safe today. Response times are too long and sometimes there's no response on 911 and 311 calls. A good part of the community is dissatisfied with the response time. [Buzzer]. Thank you very much. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you. Is Ethan Smith here? Mr. Smith, you have three minutes. [12:51:46 PM] >> Hello. Yeah, so I wanted to talk about health south. I was hoping to talk about it earlier. I guess I didn't sign you. That's okay. Y'all did a good thing but not voting to execute it yet. I have a state legislative effort underway that would relate to this tract. I think it would ultimately have support of the lieutenant governor because it plays into preserving the lions municipal golf course which is a priority for him. I just want to say because aspen heights they won the rfp and we have to honor that process, and if our process is that things can drastically change from when you submit it to when it's finalized, that's our process and we have to stand by that. And I don't ever advocate for something that would -- if somebody is trying to make shun then I'm going to advocate on that topic they either have to make the same amount of money or more money. Those are the only two options. I do think that health south should move forward with aspen heights as a partner but I think that the university of Texas should [12:52:47 PM] also be in that conversation and that it's more than three minutes to go into it, but that is the biology lab, the biology field lab. And we have this kind of thing that we say about is district 10 paying their fair share, quote, unquote, and is more new affordable housing being developed over there. And this is a site that's ripe for redevelopment. I think that you could in a Brackenridge development agreement do a trade to say university of Texas, you're going to preserve this scientific place with longitudinal data that relates to climate change you will preserve it in its current state for its current function but we know you're not getting the full market value of that tract at that point but we'll trade you and give you some city of Austin land elsewhere. The first place you would look is health south. It's right next to the medical school. And if you do that you can do some strings attached. What are they going to build there? Obviously you have to work [12:53:48 PM] with aspen heights because they've already gone this far down the road in the process. And aspen heights I like that because now I have a tenant that will be a stable tenant for the lifetime of that development. So that kind of looks like a good deal to me. But I'll try and be in touch with you guys on this. This helps save the golf course and will make a lot of people happy. It gives Kevin he will t5 full value of the Brackenridge tract and put pressures on that part of down that does not have the infrastructure to do that. We talk about city central density and the point of that is for climate change in some ways. Can you go to the previous slide? I say to the Austin infill coalition, infill -- build something four times the size of Mueller around lake long. That's infill. People that are leaving Austin are moving to the suburbs. Is it better for climate change or if we have people living there or in Taylor or [12:54:50 PM] Lockhart. This should be the future. You have to have a place for all these private development market dollars to go to develop and that's where I think it should be along highway 130. Thank you. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you. Nina Diehl. Ms. Diehl? What about chadrique couture? Carolannrose Kennedy. Do you want to come on down? While Ms. Kennedy is coming down is anybody else signed [12:55:51 PM] up on public communications that is here that I have not called? Okay. Ms. Kennedy will be our last speaker. >> Thank y'all for having me. >> Mayor Adler: Can you move the microphone a little closer? >> I never can get this right. >> Mayor Adler: You're doing good. >> Is that okay? >> Mayor Adler: It's better, thank you. >> Does the mask get in the way? >> Mayor Adler: You're good. >> Right there? >> Mayor Adler: Perfect. >> Okay. ♪♪ I used to work at irs -- oh god. ♪♪ I used to work at irs among the best who served. ♪♪ And then my boss said Kennedy, you're getting on my nerve. ♪♪ In 1991 I looked through trucks of mail that came into the Texas shop through wind and fire and hail. [12:56:53 PM] ♪♪ By bird, by plane, by Superman or a foot so joyfully, by goat, by wrote or on bicycle and across the shining sea. ♪♪ I earmarked red marked tax returns with dog bites, pee and' wine, but the one from the papes and the presidents smelled very bad of swine ♪. ♪♪ But I wore my suit with hose and heels, my hair the latest style. And I walked real fine and I talked real straight, but I plastered on my smile. ♪♪ And then I got to move downtown on the hill near the capitol, how proud I was, but humbled when I faced the albino bull. ♪♪ Through the ok bomb and 9-11 I lived without a scratch, but soon I found [12:57:53 PM] that the one to fear was right behind my ass. She criticized by messy desk, the file piles on my floor. My overloaded voice mail box, my unread email chore. ♪♪ And then it was my tone of voice, the color of my eyes. ♪♪ And then my respiration rate [sigh] Could be I'm twice her size. ♪♪ The moral to her story is don't give your time in life to federal shenanigans unless you have a wife. ♪♪ I gave my time and life to y'all, my money and my fun, and now I have great news for y'all, from your uncle Sam I've run [12:58:54 PM] that's it! That's all she wrote. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you. >> Love y'all always. Don't forget to write. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you very much. Colleagues, those are all the speakers we have. We're going to take a recess until 2:00. We'll begin with afternoon speakers at that time. See you then. It is now 12:59. [1:59:42 PM] Test test [music] [2:11:39 PM] >> Mayor Adler: Gear this thing back up. All right. Good afternoon. Let's go ahead and reconvene the Austin city council meeting. It is 2:11. Just before we go to zoning [audio difficulties] [2:13:01 PM] . Affirmative to be able to make that motion, I make that motion seconded by council member pool. Any objections? Hearing no objections, we're going to reconsider those two. We'll take a vote on them before, but before we take a vote do you want to offer those changes? >> Pool: My expectation is it would come back . >> Mayor Adler: And those opposed? Off -- it's unanimous with folks on the dais. People off the dais are council members tovo, Fuentes, and harper-madison. Yes, council member Kelly? [2:14:01 PM] >> Kelly: I want to say with that change originally when the consent agenda was passed I indicated a no on 87 but I do feel more comfortable with it with that adjustment. So I'll be voting for that item. >> Mayor Adler: Sounds good. We understand that. Council member tovo, we're on reconsideration -- bringing items 58 and 87 back to vote. These are the -- with the change it's just to negotiate but not to execute. Do you vote in favor of that? It's unanimous on the dais. Everybody voting yes with only two council members gone -- Fuentes and harper-madison. All right. We're going to continue on. We're going to begin with the speakers that are here, but before we do that, do you want to take us through the ones being postponed. >> The postponement items for [2:15:01 PM] zoning are 73 and 74, Springdale commercial. Staff postponement. 76 is postponement to October 13th council meeting. 77 and 78 is neighborhood postponement request. 79 is Swanson's ranch to October 27th council meeting. 80 is town lake circling. 81 is villas at south Austin. Council member Fuentes postponement request. And lastly, number 84 is a neighborhood postponement request to October 13th. These are all consent postponements. >> Mayor Adler: Great. Thank you. Mayor pro tem? >> Alter: So just to note for the sdimer -- Zimmerman one [2:16:02 PM] we're going to try to go for October 13th but rather than push it to the 27th. There's still a chance we may not have it resolved by the 13th. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you. Let's go ahead and call the speakers. >> We'll start with in person. Item 76, Linda Bailey. We may need to recess. We don't have web access. >> Mayor Adler: Let's go ahead and recess. Did we have web access before with the initial action we took. >> I don't know if it was -- >> Mayor Adler: Okay. Thank you. >> Renteria: Mayor, can you repeat all the ones that got [2:17:04 PM] postponed? >> Mayor Adler: Yes. We'll start with that here in just a second. >> Are we in recess? >> Mayor Adler: We're in recess until we're told that we're back up. [2:25:41 PM] >> Mayor Adler: All right. We had a false start here because we tried to convene but we didn't perhaps have web coverage, so we're going to in essence start again and repeat what we did a couple of minutes ago. I'm going to reconvene the meeting at 2:25. It's still September 29, 2022. We had first thing that we did is I made a motion to reconsider items 58 and also 87. That was seconded by council member pool. I checked and there were no objections to that. I assume there's still no objections to reconsideration. That's the sentiment of the dais. Thank you for your head nods. Council member kitchen recommended and asked that we pass items 58 and 87 on reconsideration but only to authorize negotiation but to [2:26:44 PM] have the staff return for execution hopefully on October 13th. That motion was also seconded by council member pool, and let's go ahead and take the vote on that again. Those in favor of that, please raise your hand. Those opposed? It's unanimous with a couple of members off the dais. Off the dais are council member Fuentes and council member harper-madison. Council member Kelly, do you want to make a mention as you did before? >> Kelly: Yes. I want to reiterate I had voted against item number 87 during the original consent and that was because I was uncomfortable with both of the items. With council member kitchen's change and suggestion, I'm more comfortable with that. So thank you. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you. Then we move then to zoning. Before we call the speakers, we wanted the speakers to know the items being postponed. [2:27:44 PM] These were the following items on postponement that staff told us about. Items 73 and 74 are both being postponed by staff to 10/27. 76 and -- mayor pro tem postponement to the 13th. If it's ready on the 13th. If not, then later. But we'll put it on the 13th for now. Also postponed to the 13th by the neighborhood are items 77 and 78. Also the neighborhood post -- on the neighborhoods' request -- they can't postpone -- but on request number 79 being postponed to October 27. Number 80 is postponement to 10/13. Who was it that requested that? Staff requested that postponement. And then we also had a postponement of item number 8 -- did I say 81 being [2:28:45 PM] postponed to October 27th? Is that also a staff postponement? Council member Fuentes asking for 81 to be postponed to 10/27. Item 84 neighborhood requested to 10/13. All those items are consent postponements. Before we consider anything with respect to zoning, let's hear the speakers. We appreciate their patience because they have been waiting a half hour now. Please call the speakers. >> We'll begin with remote. First speaker on item 72, Collette barselon. >> Mayor Adler: Go ahead. You have two minutes. >> I'm here for gemny school of visual arts. I don't have anything to add to what is presented to you today but I wanted to be available if any of you have any questions for me. [2:29:50 PM] >> Mayor Adler: We appreciate the comment. We'll -- it looks as if that item is on consent to be approved on all three readings. I'm not sure there will be any questions. Next -- council member? >> That is in my district. We did a lot of research about that and we are okay with the consent for all three readings on the item. >> Mayor Adler: Great. Thank you. We'll vote on that in a moment. Call the next speaker, please. >> Garrett Nick speaking on ie 8 -- on item 82 and 83. >> Please honor the south central water front district planning process and years of volunteer and stakeholder contributed. They sat down and shook hands [2:30:51 PM] on details being disputed who apparently know everyone but can't answer details about the project. The number of acres per -- or parkland per citizen in Austin has been steadily declining since 1995 and the precedent this project only exacerbates that problem. If this developer has failed to imagine a scenario where they can make enough money for this project to be viable while building within existing guidelines they have the option to sell and move on. You yourselves voted in favor of this when you approved the south central water front district plan. Stop letting legal mercenaries hold this city hostage. [2:31:53 PM] Hold this to a higher standard or walk away from it. Thank you very much. >> Items 82 and 83, Wendy price Todd. >> Good afternoon. Citizens in the coalition of neighborhood associations oppose this pud in the south central pauter watt -- water front district for not meeting the [indiscernible] Affordable housing, parkland dedication that includes pedestrians and those with mobility challenges. The set backs have been abused and disregarded without studying the consequences. On the eastern edge of the site which is under consideration there's a reduction from 150 foot primary and 50 foot secondary set-back that's [2:32:54 PM] usually 200 feet to 90 feet, which is approximately 3600 square feet. Bear with me. Multiply that 3600 square feet times the proposed height in the primary set back, something in the order of 200 feet tall, you will see an unvalued gift of the housing and planning department water shed protection and those that recommend this of over a million square feet of construction in the primary set-back. This is just one of several unaccessible terms baked into the recommendation and the pud you're considering today. Please without a regulating plan and without a financial tool that's funded, this project is not accessible. >> Item 83, Megan meesenback. [2:33:58 PM] >> Hello. Can you hear me. >> Yes. Go ahead, speaker. >> Hello. >> Yes. Go ahead. Item 83, Karen Copp. >> Good afternoon. Thank you for your vote on first reading on the affordable housing portion of the south central pud. This percentage is 10 per cent below 60 per cent, five per cent affordable at # 80 per cent. These are set at levels that are actually happening with affordable housing corridor incentives and actually housing [2:35:00 PM] people need more affordable units. Yet in contrast the south congress pud developer suggests his development is a Christmas tree with affordable housing being the ornament that would topple the tree. Affordability is the number one issue facing this city today, something more fundamental than an optional holiday ornament. When the owners proposed to replace the height from the version the first speaker referred to with massively greater building heights they -- not the pud ordinance affordability expectations. Earlier today you approved health south. They share with the statesman pud being a place where many seriously doubted there was room for improvement. You kept coming back and kept improving south central. Similarly, this pud needs to be improved. The the idea that people from all walks of life should be able to live, work, and play [2:36:02 PM] throughout Austin is broadly valued and certainly on the shores of lake lady bird. I ask you to stick with the affordability and push for a way that recognizes the south central water front vision. Thank you. >> We'll switch to in-person speakers. Linda Bailey. On deck, Randy Lawson. Randy Lawson? On deck, will heathcot. Julia span. On deck, Leslie Mccullum. [2:37:08 PM] Bill meechum. Okay. Patricia Michael? Bill bunch. >> Good afternoon. Asking you to postpone this matter again as you were moving towards doing last time because it's not cooked. There's still too many questions that have not been addressed or answered. The first reading, as you know there was no ordinance so this is really first reading. [2:38:09 PM] My guess -- and I would ask -- has any one of you actually read the whole ordinance and all the exhibits? Didn't think so. Has a single one of you -- can you tell me what the town lake overlay variances and disappearances are? I didn't think so. There's been two or three decades of community efforts to establish and protect the shoreline along lady bird lake. This started with lady bird herself and others that were all blessed that they made those efforts. And now you're going to sweep out the door into the trash can the most important part in this. That was not even disclosed to the environmental commission or the planning commission. And that's the reduction of the set-back from the shoreline. Primary set- back from 150 feet to 90 feet. The back-up mentions that it's [2:39:12 PM] being reduced to 90 but it doesn't even say that it started at 150. Water shed protection didn't even mention it at all. They said it was a zoning matter. Now, set-backs from the shoreline are only zoning and have nothing to do with the environment? The primary set-back variance that increases impervious cover -- excuse me in the second set. Back? That's a doubling. 100 per cent increase. Not even mentioned in the environmental commission or the planning commission for that matter. Maybe planning commission discussed it. Y'all have -- there's about six or eight other variances from the overlay that y'all haven't even been told about or discussed or addressed. Please postpone this. It's not second reading. It's first reading, and it's not cooked. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you >> Tovo: Mr. Bunch, thank you for those [2:40:14 PM] points. I believe I submitted a question last time around asking for a list of any variances and I'm looking through the Q and a. That's an important question. Thank you for raising. I'll ask staff whether those issues were brought before the environmental commission. >> Thank you. >> We have remote speakers back on the line. Megan meesenback. >> Hello. Hello? Can you hear me. >> We can hear you. >> Good. Speaking on 82 and 83 item and I'd like to echo all the things that the previous speaker said. And I'd like to ask you to vote no and at least postpone it so you know what you're talking about. Thanks. Bye. >> Speaking on item 83, gair [2:41:18 PM] Gary babets. >> Let me start by wishing a happen by birthday to all who have had them. I'm a resident and homeowner in montopolis district 3, single family home. I speak to support the statesman pud, item 83. It's great to see the family wanting to replace the building with new structures. For austinites and visitors to enjoy and to increase non-car transit and overall ebbing comic activity and revenue for the city. I would like to voice my opposition to amendments that would require more subsidized affordable housing on this frankly luxury real estate. I understand the need to have affordable housing -- but the data are career. While they help a small number of individuals lucky enough to [2:42:18 PM] receive the subsidy the net effect is to restrict supply of market rate housing and drive up housing prices for everyone else. To address affordable housing in Austin I urge council to work on removing restrictions and requirements from property, not adding them. Thank you. >> Back to in person. Jay crossly, item 82 and 83. >> Hi. Thanks for your time. I work for a nonprofit. I live in d-4. I've spent my whole career working for Texas nonprofits and since 2005 for Texas nonprofits working to reduce future climate change, improve quality of life for the people of Texas and reduce land loss so I'm here today to strongly support the south central water [2:43:19 PM] front plan. This plan which the Austin city council passed a while ago is one of the most important climate measures this council has taken, given the growth of the human species on the planet. The Austin region isn't growing very fast and the most important thing we can do here for climate an is to provide for people 20 live healthy, low-carbon life style ins the existing urban places and to stop destroying land out to the west with single family homes sprawling across our region. And so I hope you will support project -- there are environmental concerns with this project. I think they have 4,000 planned parking spaces. That's ridiculous for a place like this. Of course you shouldn't have parking maximums. You should allow people to live in the city of Austin and not have to drive. Also the height limits -- things like this, aesthetic [2:44:20 PM] concepts that bar people from living and working in the dense parts of Austin are destroying our environment, and we should stop doing that. There are no public benefits to these things like height limits, and so finally I trust that you all and staff have thought about this quite a lot, and while I appreciate how fun it is to accuse you and staff of not knowing what you're doing, I think we know what we're doing. We're fighting climate change by allowing people to live low-carbon life styles living in the city of Austin. So thank you very much. >> Beth Gallagher. On deck grace dilldilliger. [2:45:23 PM] >> [Playing flute]. In the 35 years I've lived in Austin I've spent a lot of time on the river. I'd hate to see it become a Connon if we shrink the shoreline from 150 to less than 90 feet and doubled or more the allowable development within 200 feet from the shore. I would hate to see the plan cut to less than half and have even that small share of public park turned into private drainage and concessions controlled by the developable. I hate the tens and millions of subsidies in the formover tax re -- I'm a working musician and music teacher. [2:46:25 PM] I feel like I've given a lot to this community and I'm struck LG with all the other teachers and police and firefighters and nurses and so many others who are vitally important to this town who can no longer afford to live in the city they live and work in. Devote that money to affordable housing, healthcare, reduce our property taxes. There are so many ways to allocate those funds to those who truly need to continue making Austin the vibrant city we know and love. Vote no special deals and taxpayer give aways to the statesman pud. [Playing flute] . [Applause] . [2:47:26 PM] >> Grace gillker. On deck, Daniel kavlman. Virginia palmer is on deck. >> Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm a resident of district 3. I want to voice my very strong support for the project plan apart of the award winning south central water front plan. This is an incredible opportunity for council to move forward to a more sustainable and affordable future, both now and in the future. This project is exactly the kind of kwopment the city needs more of - - thoughtful, sustainable and forward looking. It would employ thousands of people. To oppose this project from an environmental perspective is bizarre and dishonest. [2:48:26 PM] The alternative to large, dense projects near transit and jobs is sprawl a. Sprawl is bad for the environment. It paves over undeveloped land. However, if we are serious about increasing the environmental and affordability impacts of this project, we could start with the 4,000 parking spaces which were mentioned before and the fact that it is height limited when it could be larger and less parking, allow more people to live there, increase the overall housing ply in the city and push prices down. This project is exciting and it's forward looking and I think that the way that we're throwing away developable give away doesn't make sense. And I hope we all know better than to believe that. So many austinites will benefit from the work of this project -- those who live there and visitors and anybody who wants to use this amazing new park for where a nondescript [2:49:29 PM] building currently stands. Please support this and work towards affordability, sustainability, affordability, et cetera. Thank you so much. >> Virginia palmer. On deck Fabiola baretto. >> Hello. Founder and director of resources unlimited human development foundation. And I urge you to slow down, don't push this through. There's many other alternative plans that can be developed. City and private partnerships in the historical value of lady bird, lady bird lake, the beauty and ecology of Austin, which so many people come to Austin for, and I'm part of the [2:50:30 PM] long-time austenite -- part of the creative community to -- that helped make Austin so unique and beautiful, which again is being chipped and chipped away by these puds. Why don't you think about the hot tax money that you have squirrelled away and maybe use some of that money to go in partnership and buy this land, have it a city-owned and private-owned unique development? Yes, we need affordable housing. We need a lot of things, but we don't need to give taxpayer money to billionaires who don't live here, who don't care about Austin or the environment or the beauty or the architecture or the art or the music. They care about the money. Thank you. Please take your time. We don't need to push this [2:51:31 PM] through for some legacy. Thank you. >> Fabiola baretto. On deck, John Fuentes. >> Good afternoon, mayor, mayor pro tem, and council. I'm the Austin policy coordinator at worker's defense. We are neutral on the item but wanted to provide an update. The applicant has verbally agreed to participate in the better builder program. We are looking forward to receiving their signed pledge and working collaboratively with them in the future. We're glad to hear they are committed to providing safeguards for construction workers on the project and we look forward to hold them accountable on those commitments. We thank you so much and have a good day. >> Also on item 83, John [2:52:33 PM] Fuentes. On deck, Denver Gonzalez. Denver Gonzalez. On deck, Paul mullen. >> Good day. I've been homeless in the city for over ten years and I am now housed. And I don't -- I see individuals who make assumptions that individuals experience homelessness and no income can't coexist with the middle class or lower upper class, and I don't really think that's true. I feel like you all should not make assumptions for individuals because we're also always kind of like same as -- [2:53:36 PM] or guilty first when we haven't even done anything yet. Give us a chance to prove ourselves that we can, like, coexist and maybe we will surprise y'all. >> Paul mullen. On deck, bill Oliver. >> For a well ball -- balanced city, affordable housing is essential. Growth brings unaffordability. Land prices rise with growth and that, again, will push housing prices up. While we are billing the housing for the high-paid tech people who work for Tesla and Facebook and apple and being [2:54:37 PM] successful at that, each of those high-tech jobs generates an additional five jobs in service industries. Most of those people are in retail or catering business -- are not well paid. Where are they going to live? You'll be finding your local restaurants closed down because they can't get any staff. If we don't have affordable housing, we won't have a viable city. It will be the rich people and the homeless -- a bit like San Francisco at the moment. You had a plan in 2017 that said you need an additional 60,000 units of affordable housing. Your progress reports are very, very slow to appear. Just last week you brought out the 2021 report and the reason it was so late is obvious -- because it records no progress. [2:55:40 PM] You are -- the situation is getting worse year by year. You have made some progress in the last year towards housing homeless people, but every one of those homeless people you housed is going into an existing apartment, and that means that some other low-income family cannot have the apartment they hoped to get. And how many of those are going to be homeless? Well, since the number of homeless people is increasing despite all those people being housed, obviously we're pushing more people on the streets. We need affordable housing. And the only people who can help you get achievable number Ares the developers who are profiting from the growth. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you. >> Bill Oliver. On deck, Andy pastor. >> Thank you. I want to thank you guys for [2:56:41 PM] letting us present this way. I'm aware that not every place lets that happen. That being said, I'd like to go back to 2007 when this site -- the site was up for another boon dog L. The Austin chronicle called it the mistake by the lake. That October cover was a discover here -- the scariest mask of the year, Richard subtle. Remind you of that. There he is now. [Laughter]. Phantom of the develop opera. Mistake by the lake. It's back, and it's almost Halloween again. Excuse me. [Playing guitar and singing] [2:58:47 PM] . >> Mayor Adler: Thank you. [applause/cheers]. >> The printer is screaming again. >> Andy pastor. On deck, Alvin Sanderson. >> Alvin Sanderson. Sandy Schwartz. Jennifer scaland. Paulette saltani. On deck is Doug. >> Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Paulette, and I'm a resident of district 9. [2:59:47 PM] I'm the director of organizing at the Texas harm reduction alliance. I organize with people experiencing homelessness every day, people who have little access to deeply affordable housing or resources like rental assistance to find housing. At our membership meetings, people have said I sleep on the ground and when I wake up, I see towers going up all around me. Why are these units so expensive? How would I ever have any chance of living there and why are some of them sitting empty while we're homeless? We're in a housing crisis. Our homelessness crisis has left thousands of people on the streets. Black and brown people have been impacted hardest. The key thing to understand is homelessness is connected to housing. Housing is the solution to homelessness. But we continue to treat these issues as separate in our city. Our housing department has little to say about our homelessness crisis, and our homeless strategy office is in our public health department. We wouldn't be having conversations -- we should not be having conversations about developments without [3:00:48 PM] understanding how this impacts our homelessness crisis, our affordability crisis. The homelessness strategy office should be at the table to understand and give input about how development and developments like this could actually relieve our homelessness crisis. Our city's development goals should be guided by the questions about how development will help people that need the most support in our city. But we should not be incentivizing -- we need to be developing more housing. We are not against developing housing, but we should not be incentivizing development if it promises to worsen the crisis and excludes unhoused and low-income people. Endeavor is a massive luxury developer. We don't buy they can't build more affordable housing and you shouldn't, either. We're calling on you to do more to rein in this development and demand that developers build truly affordable housing. We're calling on you to do more to use development in Austin as an opportunity to solve homelessness and our affordability crisis. [ Buzzer sounding ] >> Thank you. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you. [3:01:49 PM] [ Applause ] >> On deck, Roy wayley. Roy wayley. >> Howdy, y'all. My name is Roy and I'm the conservation chair for the austinnal regional group of the cr club, speaking about the statesman. You know, this is like, you know, Thanksgiving. We've got a half- baked Turkey, and it's not ready to serve. Let's stick it back in the oven. Let's tighten this up. I'm not opposed to developing this site. And I'm not going to thank the cox family for making a boondoggle of money out of it, either. But I'm all for the development [3:02:49 PM] of this site. It can be an outstanding development and an outstanding park, something that the whole state of Texas could be proud of. One thing I want to say is that we need to move at least one building to increase public access, including Ada, our friends in the Ada community. There's almost no access there. Also, on the trail Sierra club, who approves in part of relocating the trail, but not fully, and we're very glad to hear that the boardwalk is going to get tossed, because that was a red herring the whole time anyway, just something for Richard to throw in and say, "I'm going this for you -- doing this for you." As far as the affordable housing, this isn't an affordable housing site, even with the few units there. It wasn't going to be an affordable housing site. [3:03:49 PM] And moving it to the run tech site doesn't work either. That should be at least 60% mfi. 80% is slightly less rich people being able to live there. We don't want -- the Sierra club doesn't want to see waivers or subsidies to the lady bird lake ordinance and setback and impervious cover. We need that. [ Buzzer sounding ] >> And protect the existing trees, please. There's no reason to take down the trees that are there. We want to add to those trees. So, please do that. And thank you for two minutes. We're two-thirds of the way there. Thank you. [ Clapping ] >> Final speaker, Jeff Dickerson. That concludes our speakers. [3:04:52 PM] >> Mayor Adler: Thank you. Any other speakers that have signed up that we have not called? All right, colleagues. Let's see if we can go ahead and improve the consent zoning. When we approve that, we're then going to go to the nonconsent items, Austin housing finance corporation, the eminent domain item, those things that I think will be quick votes. And after we do that, we'll go back to the pulled items that we have yet to consider. And that will leave us just one thing left on the day, which will be the statesman P.U.D. And we'll consider that then. To help with that analysis, it's going to be my suggestion to the dais that we not take a vote on the statesman P.U.D. Today, but that we significantly advance deliberation of the issues. I handed out two things that are [3:05:55 PM] helpful to me and sent them to the clerk. One is the ordinance that was -- reflect the first reading draft that's color-coded so that you can see which things came from the planning commission and which things came from the amendments that we approved on first reading. That's how staff did it. With my eyes, I couldn't make out the contrast. But it also highlights the changes that were suggested in the vela amendment that's posted to the board. All that is color-coded so it's easy to see. And then I tried as best I could to extract the high-level issues that were presented. I think we could go through that draft and see, just confirm quickly that some of those things were amendments that were made. It doesn't appear there's any controversy on them and we can touch those and confirm that. But when it gets to the rest of [3:06:56 PM] it, maybe we frame a conversation today around these issues plus the other issues that have been raised by amendments that are just being posted now. But the goal is to maybe work until dinner, elevate all these issues. Let's really talk through these issues, ask questions of staff and the applicants. When we get there, staff will probably begin with the presentation that you have provided, so we'll start there but then go through those elements. So that would be my intent on how we proceed. Mayor pro tem. >> Alter: I'm just curious if the applicant had flown in people who are here especially to talk to us today, and if so if we could make sure that we make time so that we can hear from them so we can benefit from their knowledge. >> Mayor Adler: No question. And when we go through these issues -- >> Alter: I just want to make sure that we don't get so off [3:07:58 PM] track because they may be addressing -- >> Mayor Adler: Let's make sure -- >> Alter: They prepared something. >> Mayor Adler: Good point. Let's make sure that we don't do that and we will. Why don't you take us through the consent agenda. >> Joy with the housing and planning department. Your zoning agenda begins with item number 72. This item is being offered for consent on all three readings. Item 73, 2022-0070, offered for staff postponement to your October 27th council meeting. Item 74, 2022-0015 related to 73, offered for staff postponement to your October 27th council meeting. Item 75, c14-2022-0052, offered for consent on all three readings. Item 76, c14-2022-0044. This item is offered for postponement by mayor pro tem [3:09:00 PM] alter to October 13th. She spoke to that before. Could be longer, but right now we're offering it for the next council meeting. Item 77, npa-0023.01. Sh, offered for a neighborhood postponement request to your October 13th council meeting. The related rezoning is number 78, c14-2022-0018, neighborhood postponement request to your October 13th council meeting. Item 79 is c14-2022-0053. There's a neighborhood postponement request to your October 27th council meeting. Item 80 is c14-2022-0001. This item is being offered for a staff postponement to your October 13th council meeting. Item 81 is c14-2022-0067. This item is being offered for postponement by councilmember Fuentes to your October 27th council meeting. [3:10:01 PM] Item 82 is npa-2019-0022.02. This is the statesman P.U.D. This will be a discussion item. The related redone is item 83, 0003.02, this will be a discussion item. Item 84, c14-2022-0056, there's a neighborhood postponement request to your October 13th council meeting. Item 85 is c14-2022-0050. This item is being offered for consent on second and third readings and this concludes the reading of your zoning agenda. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you very much. Colleagues, the consent agenda on the zoning agenda is items 72-85. All of them are consent items except for items 82 and 83, which have been pulled. Those are the statesman P.U.D. Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda? Councilmember pool makes that motion, seconded by councilmember Ellis. Any discussion? [3:11:02 PM] Let's take a vote. Those in favor, please raise your hand. Those opposed? I'm showing it as being unanimous on the dais with councilmembers harper-madison and Fuentes off the dais. While we look at items that are being postponed at this point, colleagues, as we discussed on Tuesday, it looks like a lot of councilmembers are either not here on November 17th or expressed an interest in attending the national meeting of the league of cities. I'll be attending the 27 conference on the 17th. So unless anybody has an objection, I think we should be suggesting to staff that we don't have the council meeting that day and we ask staff to take a look at things you can bring to us the week before so that we're not looking at [3:12:03 PM] overrun meetings. And if it's necessary for us to have a special called, we should take a look at that, if it makes sense for us to have a special called after we've gone through the statesman P.U.D. So we can pull that out and act on that, that would be something we take a look at as well. But in terms of noticing zoning hearings and the like, I would suggest that we don't have the meeting on the 17th and let staff take that into account when they're giving notices. Yes, councilmember Kelly. >> Kelly: Thank you. I appreciate that suggestion. I will be at the national league of cities conference. I'm attending a meeting in my role as a committee member on the federal advocacy committee for public safety and crime prevention. That's a lot of words. I appreciate your suggestion so I can attend that and our other colleagues can attend their committee meetings as well. >> Mayor Adler: Manager, if you would help us with meeting management in term of settings and the like, I think some of the tools you have are to heavy up the meeting that is the week [3:13:06 PM] before or the first meeting before the 17th. And at the end when we go through the statesman P.U.D. Today, let's take a look at whether we think we need a special called on that. Councilmember pool? >> Pool: Should we also either repurpose or cancel the work session that's on the 15th, or might -- >> Mayor Adler: Yes. What? >> Mayor, are we sure that our colleagues will be gone? We do have multiple briefings, some of which have been moved to that day. We might also have an Austin energy work session on that day. >> Mayor Adler: Good idea. >> Tovo: Unless that's a scheduling conflict, I would suggest we have at least the briefings. >> Mayor Adler: Let's go ahead and check on that. I won't be there that day, but if it's just a briefing day you probably don't need me. But I'll be at k.u.p.27. >> Pool: We can repurpose it. >> Mayor Adler: Which eccwith council offices and see what kind of attendance we would have [3:14:07 PM] that day. >> In the past, where it's been more noncontroversial items in order to keep agendas moving forward, we've had a shorter meeting agenda. And if there was only some people or we move it to the work session we can take action on some things that would be consent, noncontroversial and get agreement from the dais before that. But as we hear what will be on that agenda, I will keep the council informed. >> Mayor Adler: That would be great, if you could come to us to help us with management, meeting management. If we can take advantage of days to get through briefings or through consent items that no one wants to discuss, I guess similar to how the Texas senate does where any one person can pull something off that kind of an agenda. Councilmember tovo. >> Tovo: Yeah, just to clarify, manager, you were saying at the moment, see whether it makes sense to continue to have a meeting on that day, just with some absences, as long as it's noncontroversial so the items can move forward? >> Possibly even for that work session, because at least for [3:15:08 PM] the 17th there wasn't a desire to hold that meeting, but maybe we could add action items for that 15th meeting. If staff needed to get things forward that wouldn't be controversial. I want to keep some of the options available. >> Tovo: Okay. Either of those things are fine with me. I would suggest if we move action items to Tuesday that we message that, because that's not usually a day where we take action. But that makes sense unless there's more than a quorum missing to get business done on that Thursday, or the Tuesday, whatever the decision is, unless -- if we have -- >> Mayor Adler: And my only concern would be to make sure that nothing actually appears on that agenda that any one of us would like to have handled on a day when we have a full council. All right. So let's get and proceed. Let's call up the nonconsent items. We have an eminent domain item [3:16:08 PM] for us to consider. With respect to item 67 being a non consent item, is there a motion to the effect that the city council authorizes the use of the power of eminent domain to acquire the property described in the agenda for the current meeting for the public uses described therein? Do I have such a motion? Councilmember Kelly makes the motion. Is there a second? Councilmember Renteria seconds. Any discussion? Let's take a vote. Those in favor, please raise your hand. Those opposed? I'm seeing it as unanimous on the dais with councilmembers Fuentes and harper-madison off. Let's go ahead and recess the Austin city council meeting here at 3:16, and let's go ahead and convene the Austin housing finance corporation meeting here on September 29th, 2022. It is 3:16. And we are in the -- 3:17 now, city council chambers here at [3:17:10 PM] city hall. Ms. Demayo, do you want to take us through the consent agenda? >> Sure, Austin housing finance corporation. We only have two things on the agenda today. The first is approving the meeting minutes from the September 1st ahfc meeting, and the second is authorizing staff to move forward with the negotiation and execution of contracts with 14 nonprofit organizations, nonprofits and partnerships, that were successful through our community-initiated solutions process. These will be funded with $20 million in project connect anti-displacement funding. And I do have here nefertitti jackmon, community displacement officer in the housing and planning department, if there are any questions on the specific agreements that are being recommended for funding. And I should note that they are part of backup. There's a memo in backup that lists all 14 organizations. [3:18:11 PM] >> Mayor Adler: Thank you. Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda, which is both items? Director Renteria makes that motion. Is there a second to that motion? Director vela seconds that motion. We have a motion and a second. I know this involved real extensive community involvement in this. Jackson, thank you very much for helping to see this through, the entire housing department. It is exciting to see these dollars spent this way. I know that the fact that we made this a line item in project connect is something that is reverberating around the country. The secretary of transportation was in town last week and mentioned it again himself. And he talks about it around the country in terms of commitments that would be great if we were seeing happening all over the country, so it's a great way to step forward. Thank you for that. We'll take a vote on the consent [3:19:12 PM] agenda. Those in favor, please raise your hand. Those opposed? I see it as being -- councilmember Kelly voting no -- >> Kelly: I'll be abstaining. >> Mayor Adler: Councilmember Kelly abstains, others voting aye, councilmembers harper-madison and Fuentes off the dais, directors. So, on a vote of 8-0-3, with three being one abstention and two off the dais, the consent agenda passes. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you for the work. That concludes the business for the Austin housing finance corporation meeting. That takes us then to -- we're going to adjourn that meeting at 3:19. We're going to now convene the meeting of the Austin housing public facility corporation. I think this is the very first board meeting that we have of that. We have a quorum of the [3:20:13 PM] directors present here on September 29th, 2022 at 3:20 in the city council chamber here at city hall. You want to take us through the consent agenda for the Austin housing public finance corporation? >> Yes, thank you, James may, housing community development officer. I will note that item 1 on the ahpfc agenda is the adoption of bylaws and selection of officers. If you'd like to take that first, and then I'll walk through the consent agenda. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. And let me correct the record. This is the Austin housing public facility corporation, not finance corporation. >> Yes, sir. >> Mayor Adler: First time out, I called it by the wrong name and I apologize to the folks that have worked on this so hard. The first item -- you want to call these things up individually, do you want that handled separately? >> Only the first item needs action, the rest can be on consent. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. Is there a motion to approve the [3:21:15 PM] bylaws and approve the officer selection processes set forth in the bylaws? Director Renteria and, director pool seconds that. >> Alter: I felt like there was some late backup for one of these meetings, did we read that? >> Mayor Adler: I remembered to do that when we called the public speakers, but thank you. Most occasions I'm going to need that reminder. It's been moved and seconded. Let's take a vote on item number 1. Please raise your hands. Those opposed? It's unanimous on the dais with directors harper- madison and Fuentes off the dais. With that now accomplished, do you want to take us through the rest of the consent agenda? >> Thank you, Mr. President. You have seven items on your consent agenda. These are seven inducement resolutions for private activity bonds. These applications include three Austin housing finance corporation partnerships, two [3:22:15 PM] potential Austin housing finance corporation partnerships that are still under negotiation, one rehabilitation property which is the last item, that's woodway, and one property that we've been trying to get private activity bonds for quite some time. It's the rbj development. We offer all seven of these applications on consent and I'd be happy to answer questions. >> Mayor Adler: Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda? Director alter makes that motion. Is there a second to that? Director vela seconds that. Director alter, do you want to speak to it first? >> Alter: Sure. Since this is the first time we're meeting for the public, can you just go through what an inducement resolution means? >> Yes. An inducement resolution is a resolution by the governing body and the issuer of the private activity bond to submit an application to the Texas bond review board for the issuance of private activity bonds. [3:23:16 PM] We are inducing the application to receive the bonds for the development. >> Alter: And we are taking no financial responsibility for backing those bonds, correct? >> Correct. There is no financial responsibility under ahpfc or under ahfc when they issue private activity bonds as well. >> Alter: Thank you. >> Mayor Adler: I do note in taking a look at these that six of the seven of these projects are in districts on the east side of our city. >> Yes, sir. >> Alter: And I just want -- >> Mayor Adler: And I just wanted to note that. Moved and seconded. Those in favor of the consent agenda, please raise your hand. Those opposed? It's unanimous on the dais. I'm sorry, councilmember Kelly, director Kelly voting no, others voting aye. Two councilmembers off -- two directors off the dais, director Fuentes and director harper-madison. So on a vote of 8-1-2, the consent agenda passes. [3:24:16 PM] Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Mayor Adler: With that, we'll adjourn the meeting of the Austin housing public facility corporation. >> Renteria: Mayor. >> Mayor Adler: Yes. >> Renteria: I just want to make a comment that I'm really glad that we were able -- we're going to be able to fund Johnson, our senior facility. That one is on item 7. And I just want to say thank you, because it's desperately needed, especially in my community. And by having these seniors there, most of them are my friends right now, so, thank you. [ Laughing ] >> Mayor Adler: Okay. With that, the meeting is adjourned here at 3:25. Let's go ahead and reconvene the Austin city council meeting at 3:25. We're continuing here on [3:25:16 PM] Thursday, September 29th, 2022. Colleagues, we have an item number 70 which is the water quality ordinance. Is there a motion to postpone that to October 13th? Mayor pro tem makes a motion, councilmember vela seconds. Any discussion? Those in favor, please raise your hand. Those opposed? Unanimous on the dais with councilmembers Fuentes and harper-madison off. It passes. Item number 71. This is the Austin energy psa charge. Is there a motion to postpone this item to October 13th? Councilmember pool make that motion, seconded by councilmember Kelly. Any discussion? Mayor pro tem? >> Alter: I hope that we're going to get a lot more information and material that will allow us to hone in on the magnitude of the challenge that [3:26:17 PM] we're trying to address the reasons for it and the options that we have for addressing it in a way that recognizes that we have to maintain the fiscal sustainability of Austin energy, and that energy prices have gone up, but recognizes the burden that this places on our community and that that information will also include a broader perspective on how the market has changed across Texas and the steps that we need to take accordingly. Thank you. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. We would reiterate that, manager, this is being postponed not because we wanted more time to think, but because we don't have answers to questions to be able to consider it. Let's take a vote on postponement. Let's take the vote on postponing. Those in favor of postponement, please raise your hand. Those opposed? Unanimous on the dais with councilmembers Fuentes and harper-madison off. [3:27:18 PM] Yes. >> I'm not sure, do we have an oversight meeting on the 11th already scheduled? >> Mayor Adler: Yes. >> Okay. So we will then have as part of that agenda a deeper dive into this item? >> Mayor Adler: Let's hope -- this is a meeting management question. We're either going to spend a lot of time talking about it on the 11th or 13th. I would be prepared, manager, if you could, to make sure that we're able to talk about it on the 11th if that makes sense and please don't wait until the 11th to get us the information and the answers to the kinds of questions that people were asking. >> Pool: To give a forecast, on the 11th and probably before, Austin energy is working with my staff and city staff generally to set up a series of work sessions and the public hearings on not just the psa, but also [3:28:19 PM] the tax rate. >> Mayor Adler: The rate increase. >> Pool: The rate increase. Yeah, those two issues that we need to resolve before the end of the year. We're trying to keep them separate, but they are woven together, so we're setting up a series of opportunities. And it will be -- I hope not too many new meetings. We're trying to put them on dates that are already encumbered, but there is a lot of work going around to have probably five maybe six additional meetings on these topics. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. Thank you. All right. With that, then, let's move then to item number 94. This is the bylaws change for the commission on seniors. Is there a motion to approve this? Councilmember kitchen makes that motion. Councilmember tovo seconds that motion. Is there any discussion? Let's take a vote. Those in favor, raise your hand. Those opposed? Councilmember Kelly abstains. Others voting aye. It passes with two councilmembers off the dais, [3:29:20 PM] councilmember harper-madison and councilmember Fuentes. So, on a vote of 8-0-3 with one abstention and two off the dais, that item passes. Those are all the nonconsent items. We have three pulled items we're going to call in order now and then we're going to do the statesman P.U.D. Discussion. Item number 53, 54, and 59. Councilmember tovo, you're recognized on 53 and 54. >> Tovo: Thanks. We had an opportunity to talk about these on Tuesday, but I need to circle back around with our police to get some more information. I think they may be on. Shall I just jump into my questions? >> We do have staff online. >> Tovo: Great. So, I think we need to just back up for a minute. Can you help me understand why we are being asked to engage in an interlocal agreement on this? [3:30:22 PM] I described a little bit earlier when we were talking on consent, it was my understanding that these kinds of overtime opportunity are usually handled outside of the city process. And my basis for that is having asked questions in the past when I've seen APD officers at whole foods or other places, how those arrangements are struck. It was my understanding from the answers I got back in those circumstances but also my work on the sobering center board that usually these are, again, arranged outside by one or two officers who recruit others to those kinds of positions. And so why are we doing an interlocal and what is the difference? So I know with the sobering center, when APD -- one of the officers was recruiting different APD officer who were interested in that overtime position, then it became [3:31:22 PM] challenging to do so because of some of the vacancies throughout our APD system. And so after it became a challenge to get those positions staffed, the sobering center in in conversations, assistant city manager Arellano is an ex officio member and attended a lot of those meetings and has been engaging in these conversations. The sobering center works with a private security firm instead of APD because of some of the capacity issues. So that's a lot of contextual information, but the up-shot is several of us asked questions in the q&a about whether this would impact APD staffing and were told it would not, but I'm not certain I understand why these are being handled through an interlocal. It would seem that that arrangement might make us responsible as a city for supplying those officers, whether or not officers have signed up to participate in the overtime opportunity. [3:32:29 PM] So, let me start with this question. Acm Arellano, am I accurate in that typically these kinds of overtime opportunities are arranged outside of city processes, they're not part of a city agreement, they are individual officers who are organizing either for themselves or for others their commitment to an outside private business? >> First of all, assistant city manager rey Arellano, it's my pleasure to respond to these questions. In answer to question, yes. It is typically arranged through either special events or through the supplementary off-duty hours program that APD can staff these kinds of assignments. In this particular case, these interlocals are on your agenda for consideration because the state of Texas in the case of university of Texas as well as the department of transportation is specifically requiring an interlocal agreement for these assignments. We are -- there is flexibility in the interlocal should we not have the resources to be able to [3:33:32 PM] provide the resources requested for security, but we believe there should be no impact to our staffing or our normal protocol on -- patrol operations in order to provide the services that are requested in the Ila. >> Tovo: Acm Arellano, it seems to me that there were conversations that I know you were engaged with when we were talking about the sobering center about whether there could be a more formal arrangement with the sobering center. And I thought the answer to that was no, in part because of some of the capacity issues, even though that is an entity that was created by the city of Austin and Travis county, and is I would argue a fundamental part of our public safety system. >> That is correct. And again, the police department is challenged and is working with the staffing. We're certainly making progress in terms of the academies that we're making progress through. The difference with -- between the sobering center staffing [3:34:34 PM] security requirements and those that are contemplated under the las that are for your consideration is the continuous long-term engagement that would be represented in the sobering center assignment as compared to in the case of the department of transportation once a month for a short period of time and/or specific events that are held at at the -- university of Texas. >> Tovo: You may have addressed this issue in your response just a minute ago, but I want to underscore it. How does the interlocal address a situation where there aren't officers who are interested or available for a particular weekend? Is the city on the hook to supply those officers? >> I believe the answer is we have flexibility to provide as much as we can, and I can certainly defer to the ac to see whether or not there is a specific instance where we wouldn't be able -- in total not [3:35:36 PM] able to provide the necessary security. Again, most of what we would do in this particular case is to provide security in terms of traffic management outside of the events. And I think it's tcs -- the Travis county sheriff's office that is really involved in security inside. >> Tovo: That's what was described the other day. I appreciated the explanation about why that's a benefit to the city to have APD on the outside managing the traffic, that it can alleviate issues that would impact beyond the immediate borders of the university. I'll ask your colleague in the police department to respond to the question. It does seem that with an interlocal it would be more challenging if the answer a particular weekend is we don't have the officers to be able to present because we've made this commitment to the state that we're going to work with them in those capacities. But what does the actual [3:36:36 PM] language allow in terms of flexibility? >> I'd ask Ms. Michelle Schmitt if she has the language. >> Good afternoon, I'm Michelle, assistant director for the Austin police department. Unfortunately, I don't have the exact language in front of me, but it certainly does speak to the fact that it is optional, flexible for APD to provide what we are able to. I believe law is there and may have that contract in front of them that can add additional specific language to clarify. >> Mayor Adler: You're correct. [ Laughing ] >> Good afternoon, mayor and city councilmembers, my name is robin, assistant city attorney working with the Austin police department on both of these interlocals. And I do happen to have the draft of one of the interlocals in front of me. And the language specifically states that, underlined, I [3:37:41 PM] anticipated this question, APD shall review each request and determine if APD can meet the needs of U.T. Austin for each individual request. For each request, APD shall notify the U.T. Austin liaison if APD can or cannot meet the needs of the individual request. And in the statement of services to be performed in section 2 of the draft interlocal, APD special events unit will provide to U.T. Austin on an as-needed basis also. So I hope that answers your question. >> Tovo: It does. Thank you very much. That was very helpful. And can someone among you please help me understand what the need is for APD officers at the txdot meetings? I understood the rationale, but [3:38:46 PM] as I reflected on it, I didn't come away with that meeting with a clear understanding of why officers would need to be present. >> It is two officers for each of the meetings for approximately the two to four hours, however long the meeting might last on a monthly basis. As to why, if that's the question you're asking -- >> Tovo: It was why given that they have their own public safety folks. >> I have not asked that question. I don't know necessarily that the chief might have that. >> Yeah, I believe the biggest reason is so we can have a cohesive method of conveying what we're doing and what our role is. It's more liaisons with the special event so there's really no gaps or questions about [3:39:48 PM] what's going on. >> Tovo: Thank you. So it's more of a collaboration? >> I believe that's what he said. >> Tovo: Okay. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Tovo: But those are overtime issues? Those are overtime officers? >> Yes. >> Tovo: And it might vary, not consistently the same as I would expect a liaison to be. They'll be different officers depending on who's signed up for that overtime? >> Perhaps Michele Schmitt can answer whether or not there's a set rate regardless of the rank. >> Tovo: That wasn't really my question. If my colleagues don't have questions, I think the best thing I'm going to do is just to not be able to support this today based on some lingering concerns, but thank you for the additional information. It is helpful to know that if they're not able to supply the [3:40:49 PM] need, officers won't be drawn from other areas. Thank you for that. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you. Is there a motion to approve items 53 and 54? I need a motion. Councilmember vela makes a motion. Is there a second to the motion? Councilmember Renteria seconds. Any discussion? Those in favor of this item, please raise your hand. Those opposed? Those abstaining? Councilmember tovo abstains. Councilmember Fuentes and harper-madison off the dais, the others voting aye on a vote 8-0-3, one abstention. Items 53 and 54. Councilmember kitchen is also off. So with a vote of 7-0-4, we add councilmember kitchen to those that are off the dais. Those items pass. This does bring up, manager, the recurring question about city staffing levels. I know you're working really hard to increase the number of cadet classes. [3:41:50 PM] We continue to hear the concern that even increasing the number of cadet classes will not get us enough officers to get back to the approved staffing levels quickly. And I think it would be really helpful if there was kind of a renewed effort to take a look at a plan or proposal, what do we do if we want to try to catch those numbers up more quickly as we see with vacancies and 911. Concerns will reach a tipping point and it will be that much harder to -- I'll follow one a note, but -- up with a note, but the community is asking for that at this point. >> Mayor, we approved a resolution for the public safety vacancy staffing plan which culminated everything that would need to be done to get to a point where we could add additional spaces so we could fill those vacancies. One of the biggest opportunities [3:42:51 PM] that we have is increasing training capacity. So it might just be a discussion about what locations we could utilize in order to do that, maybe with the city manager so we could increase that. >> Mayor Adler: That sounds good. Just trying to add my thoughts that I think timing is increasingly becoming an issue on this. Let's go to the next pulled item, item number -- councilmember? >> Tovo: I want to clarify. I may have heard it wrong, but I think the vote was 7-3-1 -- 7 supportive, 3 off the dais, and 1 off. >> Mayor Adler: Sounds good. >> Tovo: I think you may have said 4. >> Mayor Adler: I did say 4. There are not 12 of us. The correct vote tally is 7-1-3. Thank you. Let's go to item number 59. Councilmember vela. >> Vela: Yes, mayor, thank you. I pulled the item. [3:43:51 PM] I have an amendment which is in the backup and I've passed out to the dais. I've checked with staff as well, and they're fine with it. I'm very supportive of the item itself. It is to apply for a planning grant, reconnecting communities to help us essentially look at the I-35 corridor and try to reconnect Austin, see what we can do with the highway in the future and try to make it less of a division and make it a better corridor in general. My amendment, just in the staff recommendation there was a focus on the downtown, kind of, section, the downtown and just north section in terms of the caps and reconnecting the corridor. But my amendment would have staff look at what we can do along the entire corridor all the way from U.S. 290 in the [3:44:52 PM] north in district 4 down to 71 in the south. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. Councilmember kitchen. >> Kitchen: Just a comment. I mean, this is fine, because I think you intended to say -- to do the capital express, the central part of it. This doesn't include all of I-35. It doesn't include the southern portion, which is from Ben white all the way down to slaughter, so did you intend to just keep it? Is there any room to consider other portions? >> Vela: That's a great question, councilmember. Unfortunately, no. The northern section of I-35, I believe the contract was just issued maybe a month ago. I believe $600 million contract to do the improvements north of 290. Likewise, with the portion south of 71, the environmental analysis has already been done and I believe if it's -- the contract has already been let. [3:45:52 PM] Unfortunately, they're already done with those portions, but this last portion, which is really the heart of Austin -- and from my perspective, has so in opportunities to reconnect our community and undo so much damage that was done when we originally built I-35 -- I just want to -- I really appreciate what they're doing downtown with the idea of the caps. What's good there in downtown and reconnecting those communities is also very good in district 4, for example, if we could bury I-35 and reconnect the community there, that's the direction that I would like to go in. And I will be bringing an item before council on this -- along the same topic. It's just we have an opportunity. I know that txdot is reluctant to go as far as maybe in of us on -- many of us on the dais would like to go, but we have to push this as far as we can. [3:46:53 PM] >> Mayor Adler: Okay. Councilmember kitchen. >> Kitchen: Yes. I understand what you're saying and I support this, but, you know, I would just say we need to continue to look at east-west connections through the entire length of 35. There are problems in the south also. Now, I would say that the segment down to Ben white is the biggest problems, because what has been suggested is an elevated freeway there. So we're just pushing the elevated from where it is now to further south, which is going to create greater divisions. So I support this, I just would like our staff to continue to work on east-west connections across the entire length of 35. >> Vela: Yes. And I completely agree. Between 51st street in my district and 290, there's .7 miles without an east-west crossing and very densely populated, lots of commercial [3:47:54 PM] activity and no east-west crossing. Between U.S. 183 and rundberg, again, in my district, 1.5 miles without an east-west crossing in a major American city and that's just unacceptable for purposes of mobility. And txdot knows this. Txdot in that 51st through 290 section they're proposing a pedestrian bridge because of so in deaths that have happened of folks trying to walk across I-35. So again, even they in their current plan are acknowledging that there is this need for east-west connectivity. A small pedestrian bridge there is not a good solution. But I think this is a first step forward. And I've got to give a lot of credit, I know Mike is in the audience and I spoke with him and assistant city manager fiandaca yesterday, and they have been -- I appreciate their efforts in this regard. This is a little push to [3:48:54 PM] continue in those same efforts. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. Let's continue to talk. Let's move past this as quickly as we can so we can get into the longer time item. Mayor pro tem. >> Alter: Thank you, councilmember vela, I appreciate you bringing this up. And I wanted to ask if our mobility chair, if we could maybe have an agenda on one of our next mobility committee meetings or we talk about some of the ends of that central segment that we talked less about in terms of the caps and understand what the options are for east-west or what some of the constraints are for adding that in the future. I think we've spent a lot more time on the central part of the central section and I think it would be good to address some of these concerns directly. >> I agree wholeheartedly. I -- know the central corridor is where the focus is right now, [3:49:55 PM] but the north and south -- generally highways in Austin and other big Texas cities, with we we node need how to not -- understand how to not further divide communities. We need to figure out where we're at and what we can do to incentivize better decisions and more community engagement moving forward, but also to try to do something creative locally to try to bring communities physically back together. >> Vela: I would move passage with my amendment. >> Mayor Adler: Is there a second to this motion? Councilmember Renteria seconds. Those in favor, please raise your hand. Those opposed? Those abstaining? Councilmember Kelly abstains, the others voting aye. Two councilmembers off the dais, councilmembers Fuentes and harper-madison. So, on an 8-1-2 vote -- no, 8-0 -- did you abstain or vote against? [3:50:56 PM] 8-0-3 vote, the three being one abstention and two off the dais, this item passes. Colleagues, that gets us to the statesman P.U.D. I want to call staff up to orient us. And again, my recommendation is going to be that we not vote on this today, but we really substantially advance issues, try to figure out where we are. I handed out two documents that are in backup that I'm going to be using, and people are invited to use those if it helps them. >> Kitchen: Mayor, procedural quick question. So, are you thinking we'll go through this and have the opportunity to go through each of our amendments? >> Mayor Adler: Yes. >> Kitchen: Thank you. >> Mayor Adler: The list of [3:51:59 PM] identified issues was done before amendments, so it doesn't include my amendment. >> Kitchen: That's fine. >> Mayor Adler: But I want us to get through all those if we can. We have proclamations that are set at 5:30. That is an hour and a half away. We could hit that late or we could take a quick break and let people go to the restroom and the like and come back if we need to. But I think it's really important we make substantial progress on this item. Jerry? >> Mayor, real quick, we're doing item 82, npa-2019, the neighborhood plan amendment for the 305 south congress P.U.D., and the related item. As we spoke about Tuesday at the work session, if council recalls, the city of Austin staff hired economic and planning systems incorporated, eps, to help staff assist in analyzing the economic aspects [3:52:59 PM] of this P.U.D. We have had Darren from eps and Luke present to the council previously. The first phase of their study, which looked at the updating the cost estimates, the cost of the items that the applicant had agreed to, as well as the cost of some of the amendments the applicant had not agreed to. We have Darren Smith on the webex right now to walk us through the final phase of that report, which discusses the economics of the project, as well as a refresher on some of the amendment numbers. I think it would be best if we start with Darren walking us through that presentation. After that, I'll be available for any questions. The applicant is here as well. Thank you. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you. >> Good afternoon. Can everyone hear me? >> Mayor Adler: Yes, we can. >> Thank you very much. Again, I'm Darren Smith, managing principal with economic and planning systems. With my colleague Luke who presented some preliminary analysis to council in July. [3:54:01 PM] Eps has been working with and behalf of the city staff to understand the development economics of the statesman P.U.D. Proposal and suggested amendments. Next slide, please. The statesman P.U.D. At 305 south congress is proposed as a 3.5 million square foot mixed use development along the lake. At 19 acres represents 20% of the south central waterfront area. There have been two financial analyses done by consultants in previous years, one in 2016 and a followup in 2020, the most recent of which suggested a funding gap of $146 million, meaning that the cost to develop it including the various infrastructure requirements and exactions would exceed the project's value by about $146 million. Earlier this year, after conditional approval of the rezoning for the site, the [3:55:01 PM] number of amendment requests included the developer identify six of those amendment requests that they could not agree to on the basis that the project could not bear the additional cost of these items. Next slide, please. The purpose of eps' assignment is number to evaluate the bindings using current market economics and determine if that previously identified funding gap has changed; number 2 to estimate the cost of each of the six amendment request items that the developer did not agree to and to estimate the value of the benefits already included in the currently proposed P.U.D. Next slide, please. And these next few slides are a review of material presented in July, so I'm going to go quickly through them, but I invite the conversation following the slide, of course. So the first thing we did was [3:56:02 PM] take the findings of the eco northwest 2020 analysis and used market metrics to inflate the value and cost side of the equation to reflect market changes since that study was completed. We found that while value metrics have increased significantly in the interim, that is to say rents have gone up, property values have gone up significantly by 25% in just a couple of years, construction costs have increased even more, suggesting that the overall project economics have not improved in spite of the increase in value, and the funding gap remains and perhaps has even grown. Next slide, please. On this slide, we speak to the various items that the planning commission and city councilmembers had suggested as amendments. These are the six requests to which the developer has not [3:57:03 PM] agreed. And I want to point out that these requested amendments are not necessarily additive, as three of them -- planning commission 14, 21, and councilmember tovo's item 10 reflect different alternatives on the affordable housing. So, they're different takes on affordable housing. So in some of these cases, we've simply estimated these costs based on the capital cost of developing the requested features, such as $2.7 million for the pier and water steps under 16, and under PC 20, about $15.7 million for the construction of Barton springs extension and bike and pedestrian improvements. In the other cases we've estimated the impact on the project revenues or operating expenses such as providing for [3:58:06 PM] affordable units or deeper levels of affordability or requiring the development to fund park maintenance. The net operating income generated would go down, which has a negative impact on the value. And we've used market standard capitalization rates to estimate the cost impact of those requests. And as you see, they range significantly from over $2 million for the pier and water steps, to well over $200 million under one interpretation of the affordable housing. Next slide, please. In this side we've used a similar approach to estimate the costs associated with the superior benefits proposed in the pud. As shown we estimate the total cost to the project of these items to be in the range of $118 million. Now, these are a combination of affordable housing, [3:59:06 PM] affordable commercial space, underground parking as opposed to above ground parking and a significant cost premium associated with doing that. Some parkland dedication and improvement fees that exceed the standards for the city. The expectation that the developer would be maintaining the cost of the parkland easement, and finally land dedication, roughly two acres of land would be dedicated for the Barton springs extension and bike and ped facilities that would be otherwise developable. The sum of these items comes to about $118 million. Next slide, please. So what we presented thus far was similar to what actually the same as what was presented in July, and to that we've added some new information. We've conducted additional analysis to understand how the value of the proposed [4:00:08 PM] pud relates to the value of the property under its current development entitle many. The applicant is seeking to increase the allowable dense at this time from 660,000 square feet to 3.3 million and this density increase should have a positive impact on the value of the site, of course. And based on other downtown highrise land transactions in the past two years, we estimate that the land may be worth over $217 million once it's entitled and improved. However, the comparable transactions reflect small sites, each of them is under an acre that already have basic infrastructure to the site. And the property is a large site that needs a significant amount of on and off site infrastructure improvements. Those costs are estimated at roughly $102 million. We estimate the net value after the site is improved to be roughly $115 million before accounting for the pud -- that's the [4:01:09 PM] $217 million once it's improved, minus the $102 million of costs to make those improvements would net about 115 million. Now, this $115 million would represent a $41 million value increase compared to the existing property value, according to tcad, the property which includes both the land and existing 305,000 square foot building is worth roughly $74 million. So the 115 net value would exceed that current value by $41 million. But it's important to note that the $102 million of infrastructure costs do not include the cost of the affordable housing and the other superior benefits discussed on the previous slide. And as previously mentioned, that those items sum to about $118 million cost. So once those costs are [4:02:09 PM] netted out of the value gained from the increased density, we conclude as eco northwest previously did that the proposed project is not feasible under current market conditions. Meaning it would need some combination of market improvements and/or public subsidy to be feasible. And any additional exactions would require further market improvements and/or [inaudible]. Next slide, please. So this slide lays out the math I just described to you and I'll be happy to visit on any of these line items when the Q and a section comes, but I've already described how it works. The next slide shows an illustration of the -- sorry, next slide, please. Thank you. [4:03:11 PM] So this graphic illustrates the estimated gross value of the land once it's improved. That vertical green bar is the 218 million-dollar total value once improved. And then it compares that to the current property value, the lowest dark green on the right, $74 million, and the infrastructure costs of $102 million to improve the land. And so the top outlined in red is the 41 million-dollar net gain in value that would accrue prior to the cost of the pud exactionst next slide takes that same $41 million and lays it aside the costs associated with the various superior benefits associated with the pud as currently proposed. Which, again, is a combination of land dead indications, affordable [4:04:11 PM] housing, affordable commercial space, the underground parking, and so again that sums to about $118 million. So the different in height of these two bars is about $77 million, which is the scale of the market improvements and/or public subsidy that would be required for this project to proceed under the proposed pud. So in sum, on the next slide we have our conclusions, that changes to the market economics since the 2020 eco northwest analysis have increased the statesman feasibility challenges, but still developable land in downtown Austin should add land value. It's important to note the cost to improve the property must be netted out from its gross value to understand [4:05:12 PM] the value to the developer and we estimate that to be about $41 million over its current market value. And the cost of the benefits already agreed to exceed that $41 million by a fair margin and suggest that, again, market improvements or subsidy would be required for the project to, in fact, move forward into vertical development. And with that, I will pause and see what we want to discuss. >> Mayor Adler: Colleagues, anybody have any questions? Councilmember kitchen. >> Kitchen: I wanted to examine a little more, understand a little bit better the cost of the underground parking. This is something I don't remember us really diving into. >> Mayor Adler: As we go through this discussion, I'm [4:06:12 PM] looking at the clock. Before we ask this person a question, I also don't want to use up all our time going going to a level of detail. I want to make sure we still have time -- >> Kitchen: I can just identify the question. I'm happy to just identify the question. That's a lot of money for the underground parking and I would like a better understanding of why 4,000 -- I would just like a better understanding, you may be able to point me to the rationale somewhere that I just haven't seen. We're on a project connect line and it just seems like a lot of spaces given the fact that it costs so much. And so that's having a big impact on what we can there and what we can afford for other things, like affordable housing. I'll just put that as a placeholder and if someone can point me to where I can understand the rationale for that size of an underground [4:07:15 PM] parking that's so expensive, I would appreciate that. >> Mayor Adler: Good question. Please provide the underlying data or basis to support the cost number. >> Kitchen: Well, I also want to support why 4,000, why so many spaces. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. Councilmember tovo. >> Tovo: I have a lot of questions and I guess -- I think we need to take stock of what we want to do here. This is -- I mean the information we just got I think gets to the crux of the issues that we're going to be asking about a lot of these areas. And I'm not sure, councilmember kitchen, I think the question you've raised does have a dollar sign attached and also getting to some of the crux of the issue. So I'm not sure while I appreciate our interest in containing the conversation here today, we need to be able to know when we're going to have that conversation, when we're going to have a back and forth on this issue about the presentation that we just got -- got here today. I think this is, you know, [4:08:16 PM] as I see it, the issues that you've identified, mayor, where there are some real deverge he knows and affordable housing, what you've just identified, councilmember kitchen, is -- is a high amount and, you know, again, I don't know what we want to get into here today and what we don't want to get into, but these are just the issues we're going to have to sort through. How do you want to divide up our time because I do have questions about the report. I'm going to have more once I have time to review it. This is something would have been a great Tuesday presentation. Think about it and ask questions by Thursday, but -- I just don't even know where to start. >> Mayor Adler: This is a report we've got late so no one has a chance to develop questions. I think we should be trying to hit as many issues as a high level as we can. Where are we on affordability and I think we [4:09:17 PM] can go through those 12 and it may be that we say, you know, we really can't answer this question until we better understand the costs with respect to this. So it could be a lot of those committees will turn us back to that. If we do it that way we'll have a context to the cost questions. I would say really big high level questions on cost, let's go through the issues and then let's come back then to the costs. My guess is we're not going to be able to resolve a lot of these issues, but we'll be able to surface the kinds of information people need in order to be able to have a final opinion on some of those things. >> Tovo: So I would just suggest maybe the developer can speak to the question you ask because 70 million is a lot. If our priority is affordable housing, that might be a tradeoff we might want to talk about. >> Kitchen: I'm not informed as to to -- to the reasoning for the number of spaces for cars. [4:10:18 PM] Given that we're all looking at the dollar costs, I would just like to understand that. So mayor, we can have that conversation now or have it later. >> Mayor Adler: Well, see, the cost number arose because of which amendment? Above ground parking, added cost of constructing 39 spaces underground. Your question is where does 3981 come from. >> Kitchen: I want to know why so many spaces in an area where we have the blue line and Orange line crossing. I just need to understand the basis behind the -- >> Mayor Adler: Can you explain why 3981 comes from? >> The 3981 is rest than the code would -- less than the code would require she but it is a number the applicant proposed. I believe it's what they feel they need to make the property leasable, but I will prefer for them to answer that directly if you don't mind. >> Kitchen: If we could just speak to that. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. [4:11:20 PM] So Mr. Suttle, would you come up? Where does the 3981 number come from? >> Kitchen: That's the number of spaces, right? That's the number of spaces, right? >> That represents a number that is about 35% less than what code would require. It's also enough -- it's a number that we felt comfortable with in order to get the project financed and built. And then what we did was we looked at the -- the only way you can do that reduction is to have a monolithic garage, one garage where everybody is sharing, then you can reduce the number of spaces and get there. We went around the country and looked at what great waterfront properties look like and one of the key components you don't have parking garages above grade and buildings on top because you end up with a wall effect. It was a combination of design, reduction in parking and we got it down as low as we could. >> Mayor Adler: Was there an amendment offered by planning commission that said put the parking spaces [4:12:21 PM] underground? >> No. We've always proposed underground. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. >> There are some that have said we don't care about underground parking, but it above ground, save the money. And that gets back to whether or not the underground parking is a superiority item or not. We in the staff agreed it was much better to have underground parking with air and space between the buildings that's having walls of parking along the lake. >> Kitchen: Let me ask you just another question. So the 3981, is that -- can you tell me just a little bit more about what that is based on. Is the thinking that's needed for people who are going to live there or people who are coming to visit or is it a combination? >> It's a combination of the office space, the retail space, the hotel space, the condo space, and the apartments. >> Kitchen: Okay. And does it account for the fact that it's on, you know, confluence of rail lines? It it does. >> Kitchen: So there was a [4:13:23 PM] factor -- was that the 35% or was that something else? >> I would have to get with our parking guys to understand how they did that. They said if you have one garage that everybody gets to share, you can reduce it down below code. Then we also have the financial pressures of being able to finance the thing with parking. We're not quite to the point yet like in New York where you can finance a project that has no parking. >> Kitchen: I will think about that and dig into more detail. I may have more detail I want to ask. I get what you're saying. That's really -- 70 million is a lot of money for the superiority here, particularly when we're struggling trying to address some other priorities. >> Sure. And I think their next step would be don't do underground parking, take that 70 million and put it towards affordable housing. That's not how it would work. Now it would be forced to build above grade parking. We're not going to build above grade parking, but if we did you would have to net [4:14:24 PM] out the costs now of more parking because you can't share an above grade, which means you don't have 70 million. >> Kitchen: And the thinking is that you can't reduce the number of spaces enough to cut that cost? >> That's correct, because you're not able to share because now you have individual buildings with parking garages and you are not able to share them. >> Kitchen: Well, you could just cut out a floor of the underground parking but I don't know if that helps you much. We can talk about it. I know you don't want to get into the details right now, but I want to make sure we fully examine that cost because it's so high. >> Mayor Adler: Councilmember vela. >> Vela: With regards to parking, again for the build, the hotels, also for public parking, I'm assuming it would be paid public parking. >> Yes. >> Vela: Also with regard to the design, and I am completely supporting of -- I don't like the parking [inaudible] Downtown much less along the lake front in [4:15:24 PM] a very scenic and beautiful site that is going to hopefully host one of the premier parks. But I notice on the design of the buildings, you're essentially providing access from Barton springs through the property to the lake front. Is that the basic design? >> It's deceiving because you have grade that goes down to the river. We've got basically a shelf and the private roads come in and that's where you get into the garage. To get down to the park there's actually stairs and ramps. You don't drive down to the park. >> Vela: But in terms of the -- putting the parking underground also preserves the views essentially from Barton springs. >> It does. >> Vela: You know, you can see through the buildings and on to the water. >> It does. And it also provides the ability to put skinnier buildings with more space [4:16:25 PM] between them so now you are getting air and space between the buildings. >> Vela: I really appreciate the design element. It is a lot of money. I've had this coverings with other folks about how expensive and difficult it is, but I do really appreciate the design, the beneficial aspects of the design. >> Kitchen: Yes, and my question is not underground versus above ground. My question is why so many spaces on the confluence of two rail lines. That's really what my question is. I mean I can see you might need cars for folks -- hoping people that can live in a place like this can rely less on cars because of where they are -- because of the blue line and the Orange line. And I would certainly hope the people coming to visit the various attractions at this place could take advantage of the Orange line and the blue line. That's what I'm asking. >> Mayor Adler: That's a good question. What we want more information is -- >> How we got to the reduction project and reduced the parking. Just to correct the record [4:17:25 PM] to be clear, from this cost expert, the $70 million is not the cost of doing underground, it's the incremental cost of doing underground haves -- versus doing the cost of above ground. Is there other kind of large level questions to be asking the cost person? Before we get into issues? Councilmember tovo. >> Tovo: Yeah, if I could ask the eps consultant a couple quick things. >> Mayor Adler: Go ahead. >> Tovo: I want to make sure I'm understanding some of the information you laid out. So the property valuations you said you compared -- so you are valuing -- you're valuing the statesman tract based not on appraised value but on recent sales. Is that right? >> Yes, that is correct. We looked at about a half dozen different transactions in downtown Austin for [4:18:26 PM] highrise development over the past two years or 2020 and '21. Those six properties summed to just over 3 million combined square feet. And so we, you know, considered that to be comparable physical space as well as the comparable market. And used the values from those transactions to represent the future market value once improved. Again, those properties were typically under an acre, even under half an acre. >> Tovo: And the infrastructure. I don't mean to cut you off. I just know we're under a limit time. I just want to get to some of the other questions. Were any of those waterfront properties? Any of those. >> Sorry, one of them was on Rainey street. So not exactly waterfront, but all downtown highrises. >> Tovo: Do you know when that Rainey sale was? [4:19:28 PM] >> 2021. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. Go ahead. >> Tovo: One of your next bullets talks about -- talks about the 102 million in infrastructure costs. Are those infrastructure costs outside of the 70-plus million for parking or does that contain -- does that figure contain the 70 million in the differential? >> It's separate from the parking cost. >> Tovo: And how do you account for some of these being up front costs, but the valuation continuing over time? >> Well -- >> Tovo: Let me try to ask it a different way. Two parts of the question. One is in this study or any of the existing studies, can you remind me did you put a valuation on what the [4:20:30 PM] increased entitlements would bring in terms of land value increase? >> Yes -- >> Tovo: Not from what the vision plan, but the -- but from their existing entitlements. The 660 that you have in there is your existing pud entitlements, correct? Not what was described in the vision plan. >> That's correct. >> Tovo: Okay. And can you -- I'm not sure if I can even articulate this question, but how do you account for some of these upfront costs bringing value over time to the development and the value of the land? >> Well, it is certainly true that the investment that would be made in infrastructure and site preparation and that sort of thing would enhance the value of the land. The typical investment scenario, though, those first dollars you need a return on those first dollars, of course, and the [4:21:31 PM] expectation would be that you are putting those dollars in upfront so that you would get that rise in value in the future. So in this case what we've estimated is, again, it's something like $100 million. Of course, that would be -- this is a multi-phased project. There's several different buildings and a lot of square footage here so we would not expect all 102 million dollar of that cost would be borne prior to development, sort of in phases, I would imagine. But certainly those costs because it's phased would be going up over time as well and hopefully for the feasibility of the project the value would be increasing at least as the cost of those investments. So I'm not sure that fully answers your question, but that's my understanding of your question. >> Tovo: Okay. Thanks. I have some questions for staff in a bit but that's the last for the moment. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you. [4:22:31 PM] Thank you. Any other real high-level global questions? I appreciate this work and I think it's really important one for us to be able to ask questions and second for the community to be able to see it. Because I hear the community suggesting that what's being considered is a give-away to a developer, and I think more accurately described as we're trying to figure out what we need to do as a city to be able to ensure that we have parkland there and affordable housing and the things that we want. And that's what this is an exercise of. What does the city have to do in order to get for the community the things that the community wants. Because it's clear that, one, under law we're just not allowed demand they give us everything we want, and second that the economics are such that they can't give us everything that we want. Absent us participating in that somehow so as to increase the capacity for [4:23:32 PM] revenue to be raised. Can we go on? Do you want to say -- >> Tovo: Yeah, I also, though, want not to -- I want to make sure that we're also operating within a context of the ordinance and the fact that this is a planned unit development and it lays out certain requirements. And so yes, some of these are -- I guess I'm uncomfortable with some of the language about it being a want. It is the requirements of the pud ordinance, for example, that there be 10% of the units that represent 10% of the delta as affordable. 10% of the bonus area, sorry. >> Mayor Adler: I mean that's why we made the requirement. >> Tovo: But that is the existing planned unit development under which they are coming forward with their proposal. >> Mayor Adler: There's a certain amount they can do and certain amount they can't do. We're in this search now to try to hone that and make [4:24:33 PM] sure we can get the things we want and try to require through the tools available to us. All right, so let's move on. By way of structuring this, and I think we can get through that list and identify issues where people are quickly and that would give everybody a lot better idea. Colleagues, in the version of this that I've handed out that's color coded, you can see the things -- the item as it came from our staff. The sections that are color coded are the sections that are color coded by our staff in a version that they put into backup. All we've done here is changed the tint so it's maybe easier to read the underlying text. But the green are the things that were added, the PC amendments council added to first reading. The blue are councilmember tovo's amendments we added on first reading. The yellow is new language that we first saw in what [4:25:36 PM] councilmember vela filed. And that yellow either consists of things that are underlined which additional language, but sometimes there's language in the blue and the green that is stricken, that's strikeout that should be treated as if it were yellow. That is strikes to either a PC or to a tovo amendment that came in the chito vela resolution. We've gone through this to try to ascertain if there were amendments that were added by the planning commission or by councilmember tovo to which there does not appear to be any objection. Because there were no changes that were made to it. And the first one of those is page 10 of 22. And you can see on page 10 of 22 there was added [4:26:38 PM] language by councilmember tovo that said the design of the parkland shall take place through public process led and implemented by pard. Doesn't seem to be any challenge with that. It looks like that's something we're going to be able to adopt quickly. Do you have a question about that? You are looking curious. >> Tovo: Looking down the dais at councilmember pool because she's brought forward some amended language that may modify that. >> Mayor Adler: Okay, well, we'll get through all the amendments later. It adds greater specificity to the process. >> I had some amendments too. >> Mayor Adler: This does not include any of the amendments we've been handing out on the dais, all of which we need to work our way through too. The next thing that's in here that I think, barring an amendment from somebody, also represents something that looks like it's without agreement is -- without disagreement is a top of page 11 of 22, the annual [4:27:38 PM] programming plan. It looks like that is subject to additional amendment. On page 14 of 22 there was a change suggested by the planning commission. These are requirements for rental units and affordable owner-occupied units shall meet following requirements and there's a list a, B, C, then 5, 6, 7. Those things appear to be things that can be added without disagreement. And I think those might have been the last changes in what was handed out that looked like those are by agreement. So I think that's going to be the assumption absent somebody saying I have an amendment to that or I have a problem with that. The next thing that we've done here is we then have listed issues that basically track in order the changes that they are made. For example, if you look at page 3 of 22, the first [4:28:43 PM] changed language at the bottom of page 3 of 22 relates to landowner shall provide -- these are the Ada access point question. This looks like it's five Ada access points, required one on south congress right-of- way, and the suggested change to this was to make reference to an exhibit which showed where the access points were. I think that's the substance of the change of that section. Councilmember kitchen. >> Kitchen: Just I'm flagging it for you and we can talk about it when you're ready, but this is an area where I have an amendment. >> Mayor Adler: Let's talk about this. Let's go through this list of 15 things plus the amendments. The first one let's talk about is access point, and let's -- if staff is here or Mr. Suttle, if you are here to help us understand what's at issue here. The hope is when we stop tonight, everyone is going [4:29:43 PM] to understand what that issue is. >> Kitchen: Yes, and could I lay out my amendment for it? >> Mayor Adler: Uh-huh. >> Kitchen: Should I do that now? >> Mayor Adler: Go ahead. >> Kitchen: This is my understanding of this section. And to me it relates to -- from a broad picture how people access the lake, basically. So my amendments -- I've worked with the developer on identifying a way to access the lake along congress avenue so that there's an option to both go through the development and there's also an option to go along congress that doesn't require going through the development. And both of them involve Ada access, which is why my amendment goes to this section. And my amendment is my motion number 1. In working with a developer, they have provided an [4:30:44 PM] approach and a mechanism for -- for -- for accessing right next to congress. There's a -- I know they put together a schematic that I have referenced in my motion because it's kind of hard to explain without the schematic. I don't know if people want to see it now or later, but basically it allows you to, you know, right now there's the stairs to go down. What it would do is it would allow that walkway to be right next to congress so you could continue down it and then go downstairs and downstairs again so that you could get to the lake without ever walking through the development. >> Mayor Adler: Is there any dispute with respect to this? Let's ask Mr. Suttle that question and ask staff that question. I'm trying to figure out what the issue and controversy might be with respect to staff -- [4:31:45 PM] [multiple voices] >> The staff is agreeable to the amendment. As far as whether it's words or exhibit, we probably prefer the exhibit to nail the location down exactly. But this is one additional access point beyond what we've talked about about the plaza entrance and we're okay and actually happy with it. >> Mayor Adler: Mr. Suttle, have you seen the amendment? >> There is currently a stairway that cuts into the side of the embankment and you can walk to the stairs and to the trail. There's another route that goes around the driveway. As we went through the hearing process at the parks board, there was a lot of discussion about we want to have something along those lines to be able to access without having to go through the buildings. So with working with various folks in our design folks and Doug is going to show you how we solved that in working with councilmember kitchen on this, we've come [4:32:45 PM] up with an exhibit and a visual so you can see how it's going to work. And I think it solves the issue. But I think you probably ought to look at the diagram to see if everybody gets comfortable with that. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. So you're okay with the kitchen amendment. >> Yes. >> Mayor Adler: Because you think it resolves the question. Okay. So is that something we can pull up or hand out? >> Yes, it is and I want to first thank mayor pro tem alter for mentioning our architect from out of town. He did come in today and we appreciate the opportunity to talk to you about design stuff. He's the one that came up with this stuff. Doug, come on down. He's got slides and it's very brief. >> Mayor Adler: I would do this as briefly as you can. >> Before we do that, I missed the part, are we going to talk until 5:00 and then come back afterwards? >> Mayor Adler: We're going to go past 5:00. We're going to at least 5:30. We could go past that, and at that point let's see where we are. My hope is to be able to get [4:33:46 PM] through every one of these issues today. Absent that I don't think we have guidance to go to the next step. We're not going to decide any of the issue, but my hope is everybody understands what the -- >> And we appreciate finally getting to talk about this. Bill bunch and I don't agree about much, one he said today we didn't pay attention to first reading. We didn't and I agree with him on that. >> Mayor Adler: Let's go ahead then and start. >> Good afternoon. Thank you. We have three slides to share quickly. Since we last met we further looked into this issue and as you can see here -- full screen, please. Coming from the south from Barton springs, you can see that the elevation increases as you move north towards the congress avenue bridge. Our proposal is to actually expand that sidewalk so we're actually creating a much wider sidewalker up to a point we need to access [4:34:47 PM] down, the bat viewing area. Those steps are quite gracious and wide and provide continued access without going as was referred earlier through the project. If you can go to the next slide. Zooming in a little more closely, you can see that we were also able to make a connection directly from the bridge across those stairs. That's at elevation 472, which is the elevation of the bridge. This would bring you into upper terraces where you can access -- and then finally on the last slide, we took a very quick study of what is the scale, what is the quality of this public access that's being provided as an extension of congress avenue sidewalk down to the park and the waterfront. Thank you. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. I think that was great. Looks good to me. [4:35:48 PM] Councilmember Ellis. >> Ellis: Thank you. I appreciate those diagrams. I think that's really helpful to be able to envision it. And I'm supportive of making sure we have this as easily accessible to pedestrians or cyclists or other individuals using the trail. Could there be any opportunity for more of a dutch-style bicycle -- there's some staircases that actually have tracks next to them so cyclists don't have to be rerouted really far out of the way. Where you can actually walk down the stairs and have your bike right next to you. And I think it encourages dismounting as well so people are moving slower in a public space. I don't know if that needs to be in an ordinance, I can work with Mr. Suttle on that. Do I think that's possible? >> It's definitely possible because there's quite a bit of room there to incorporate something like that. >> Ellis: That would be great. Thank you. >> Mayor Adler: That's a good idea. Anybody else want to raise anything about Ada access [4:36:49 PM] points before we go on to question number 2? Mayor pro tem. >> Alter: I would love a copy of that diagram because I couldn't follow it perfectly. >> Kitchen: It will be attached to my motion sheet. But it's my motion sheet 1 that reference that. >> Alter: Do you have an extra one of the 1 and 2? I think the -- >> Mayor Adler: Could the clerk make sure those diagrams are posted also in backup for today's meeting. >> Alter: Is there any consequences with that trail and the bat viewing? >> No, the stairs land prior to the bat viewing area. So they don't interfere at all with the bat viewing area. They actually connect directly to it extending access -- >> Alter: My understanding there's two parts contiguous with the congress bridge. So there's the -- there's the top of the stairs tomorrow is contiguous with [4:37:50 PM] the sidewalk and there's a bridge that's contiguous as well. >> Up to a certain point. You're approaching congress avenue bridge. We do then need to step down. Those are stairs that lead you down to the lawn. Closer to the bridge there's an additional walkway coming straight off the bridge to these upper outdoor terraces that can bring to you an elevator and other ways of getting down to the park. >> Alter: Let me restate it using your terms. There's a walkway off the congress street bridge that goes straight from there and there would be another section that could be configure use with the sidewalk. >> Correct. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you. By the way, correct the record, colleagues, there was something on the bottom of page 14 of 22 that was also blocked in by red. Also a planning commission amendment that seems to not be in disagreement. And that was to have the landowner provide a minimum of 1,000 square feet of commercial space adjacent to the parkland or plaza at no [4:38:52 PM] cost for bat education and similar items. I just wanted to point that out. Councilmember pool and then councilmember tovo. >> Pool: I didn't really have a question, but just an appreciation. I know that building, that picture you had put up there, that building previously up until maybe a month ago had been a whole lot closer to congress avenue and that was creating the canyon effects that my colleagues on the dais pointed to specifically and a number of folks in the community talked about that. It just seemed unfriendly and potentially unsafe. So the building has now shifted to the east by 20-odd feet. >> It's a 30-foot setback. >> Pool: Instead of 10 it's now 30. That makes a whole lot of difference. And as that picture, hopefully it will be as beautiful as that picture shows. I think that's a really important point to make that a whole lot of people asked that that happen. And including the Ada access [4:39:54 PM] and the -- hopefully the elevator, having elevators there too, which I know my colleague councilmember kitchen was really looking forward to. I just wanted to emphasize that change and it has improved the project, I think, in a great way. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you for that. Before we get to bats, commit, did you have -- councilmember tovo? >> Tovo: I think this looks like a really interesting solution and I also appreciate it. I think one of the amendments this council passed on first reading that was contained within mine dealt with access and so councilmember kitchen, I assume your language is amendmenting one of the amendments we had put in on first reading. Is that accurate? >> Kitchen: My language goes wherever it should go. I haven't figured out where all these languages should go. >> Tovo: That's part of why I'm asking the question. Mayor, I know you kind of laid out this code and key and I just want to let you know, we're now working with -- I'm reserving the right to let you know there are issues in here for me [4:40:56 PM] because you're working with an ordinance that we didn't pass on first reading. And so we have -- you know, we have a set of changes councilmember vela has brought forward and we have amendments and the draft that reflects what we actually voted on so there's just -- there are a lot of amendments layered on one another here. And so I think that there are -- there may be some things -- I did not totally follow you when you kind of laid out where you see the points of agreement. >> Mayor Adler: Well, the points of agreement -- >> Tovo: But that is I think a point of agreement. The one we just talked about wherever it goes I think looks good. >> Mayor Adler: The points of agreement are things that are in red boxes so they are easy to find. >> Tovo: I just don't see any boxes. >> Mayor Adler: Do you have this thing with the color code in the corner? So if you. [Multiple voices] >> Mayor Adler: I understand. Look at the top of page 10 of 22. There's the language that's blue and a red box. [4:41:58 PM] There's also a red box at the top of 11 of 22. >> Tovo: Okay. Now I think we're all working -- yes, I think I'm with you here. What's confusing is that those may be red boxes here but we've got amendments that have different language. We'll sort it out as we go through. >> Mayor Adler: To me it didn't identify an issue we need to do spend time on at this point did not preclude in vending -- spending time in the future. >> Alter: It refers to exhibit P and exhibit R. Which exhibit P and which exhibit R because I'm not sure how you get that -- like how do you get what he just showed us in the pud when they are not giving us full diagrams? >> Kitchen: Those slides that were just shown to us are intended to be the attached exhibits. They were just put together in the last day or so so I [4:42:59 PM] didn't actually have them to attach. >> Mayor Adler: So the point of this exercise is not to come up with amendment language. >> Alter: I'm just trying to understand, like, we often agree to things in puds because we see a pretty picture and then it's not in the pud. I want to know where I would find that. >> Kitchen: You would find it attached to the amendment. The amendment language references -- it says, you know, it says these access points as depicted in this attachment. So yes, we don't want to just rely on language. We need the attachment which it references. >> Mayor Adler: So what I take from our conversation is not anybody that's approved any wording but people have seen pictures that look okay. If those pictures make it into this document, may very well do it, that would be great. But I think people have seen the pictures and say if it looks like that and we can make that happen, that generally seems good. >> Mayor, we understand [4:44:00 PM] the -- everybody is in agreement on it. We will find a way to make it happen. It may not take the form of a water color picture, but we'll find a way -- >> Kitchen: Jerry, my amendment, we carefully worked on the language of my amendment. So what I'm saying is put it in the right section, but I'm talking about the language that describes it with the attachment. >> Mayor Adler: If you want to recommend it in a different place or way bring that to us too. So in addition to councilmember kitchen's amendments, don't feel limited by that. Today we're in violent agreement people like the picture and this is the one we're in violent agreement on. I'm concerned about getting to the ones we're not in violent agreement on. But the next one is bats, so let's talk about bats. [Laughter] There's some concern about bats and there was a suggestion that there be like a 400 distance from residential to the bats. Where are we on bats? >> Yes, mayor, we love bats. >> Mayor Adler: We're in violent agreement on bats. [4:45:01 PM] >> This one had to do with concern expressed by a planning commission member regarding specifically nighttime lighting and the bats and the possibility that nighttime lighting may be detrimental to the bats. And the presumption made here was residential would be more likely to have lighting on at night than commercial. So this was a distance put in there to try to move the possible residential lighting at night further away from the bat colony. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. So Mr. Suttle do we need 400 feet to take care of the bats? Talk to us about bats and 400 feet. >> Mayor, it was an additional setback and it was additional constraint on the site. We went to all the bat people, was this necessary, they all said no so we do have a big problem. So everybody stays comfortable, I've got the bat letter signed by all three bat people that say [4:46:02 PM] it's okay that we don't do this. And we don't want to do it. >> Mayor Adler: Would you please make sure that gets to the clerk so that's in backup. Does anybody have any questions at this point recognizing we have not seen the bat letters? Have they been provided to people? >> [Inaudible - no mic on] >> Mayor Adler: Got a lot of letters from -- I think I understand the bat issue at this point. And if there's not a bat issue, then I'm comfortable not solving for a bat issue that doesn't exist. Yes. >> I think there were two bat issues that came out of planning commission. One was the 400-foot setback, the other an additional 10-foot setback along the bridge. Both unnecessary, both cleared by the bat folks and we don't want to do them. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. Thank you. So I understand those issues. Anything else on bats? Mayor pro tem. [4:47:05 PM] >> Alter: Doesn't councilmember kitchen's motion address the other ten feet from the bridge? >> Councilmember, it may well. We'll take a look at that. >> Alter: I know he's saying they don't care, but that was a request. >> Might be by moving the building might be the same. We'll take a look at that. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. Thank you. All right, let's talk about hotel use. >> Mayor, this issue was came up at the planning commission as part of their motion to make it a conditional use, if I believe correctly. And councilmember Fuentes had an amendment that was postponed. The staff does support hotel use on the property. I believe councilmember Fuentes, I would have to go back and look at her amendment, but I believe it prohibited it, and if I recall correctly, the planning commission recommendation was to make it a conditional use. >> Mayor Adler: Is there anybody here that wants to [4:48:06 PM] help explain what the policy is for not allowing hotel uses on the tract? Councilmember Fuentes is not here and we want to give her the opportunity to speak to that. Did anyone want to speak to it? Let's go on and we'll hold that until councilmember Fuentes is here with us. Lead versus ae3 star. >> This is just the difference between requiring a three star green builder or going with the Leed rating. Not green building. The Austin energy star rating is internal to the city and Leed is a national organization. We typically go with the city approach but we don't have a strong opinion about it. >> Mayor Adler: What's the substantive difference? Is there one? >> I would have to have the architect address that. >> Mayor Adler: Is there an architect here that can address any substantive difference between the two? [4:49:10 PM] >> Tovo: Mayor, can I ask a question while we're getting folks to weigh in on it? >> Mayor Adler: Yes. So as I'm following here, this is something that gives rise to the changes that were at the top of page 5 of 22. >> Tovo: Yeah. I'm trying to trace the chronology here. With the coloring. >> Mayor Adler: So the blue -- >> Tovo: The these were amendments that we passed on first reading. >> Mayor Adler: The blue is. The yellow is not. >> Tovo: And the yellow is councilmember that councilmember vela is bringing forward as an alternative. >> Mayor Adler: Correct. >> Tovo: And I think the question then is really for our green building staff or somebody else on staff about whether Leed gold is an appropriate equivalent to three star. >> Mayor Adler: That was the question I asked. >> Tovo: I'm trying to understand. Again because we're dealing -- all of this is being mapped on an ordinance we haven't passed. >> Mayor Adler: It's just [4:50:10 PM] a way to identify issues. >> Tovo: I understand, but I'm trying to lay out to make sure I'm understanding what the issue is here. >> Mayor Adler: The issue is should it be either a Leed or three star or greater rating or just be a three star or greater rating. The question was what's the difference between the two. >> Councilmember, I don't know. >> Tovo: In the past we've said two star is -- >> We have. We have done either in the past. We default to the city program. We can have the architect here from the applicant tell what his opinion is of the difference between the two. If you would like, I can follow up with Austin energy. >> Mayor Adler: If you could follow up with Austin energy. I would like to know if they think there's a substantive difference. >> Tovo: On the substance -- I'm perfectly comfort with that. That seems fine to me. >> Mayor Adler: Let's go on to the next one -- >> Tovo: Platinum would be [4:51:11 PM] great. If we have to bump back, gold is okay. >> Mayor Adler: The next one is page 6 of 22, the changes are actually at 7 of 22 and this seemed to hit trail realignment issues. What about the trail realignment issue? >> Mayor and council, I do have Scott from the parks department here and Liz from the watershed protection department. They can probably better address the issue. We talked about a little Tuesday, councilmember kitchen brought it up and this just has to do with the desire of the watershed department to make sure that the trail does not contribute to erosion. Councilmember kitchen, I believe you had issues with trees along the trail. I'll defer to Scott and Liz. >> Kitchen: I had two amendments. >> Mayor Adler: Correct me, councilmember kitchen, your -- to help ensure the aesthetics of the trail are not changed. >> Kitchen: Well, there's two parts. One of them is alignment is not changed. [4:52:12 PM] As much as possible, a little caveat there, but we keep the alignment. And then the second has to do with the -- >> Mayor Adler: Surrounding trees. >> Kitchen: Uh-huh, the vegetation. >> Mayor Adler: Watershed has an issue with that with respect to making sure we don't do anything that's going to lead to erosion. Please come up. There was a change that the applicant provided that had realignment closer to the shoreline and existing trail and no closer than 25 feet. Part of that was in there and part of the language has been taken out. Have you seen the changes proposed? >> Yes, I did look at those changes. >> Mayor Adler: What do you think about those? >> I think it's a compromise. I will say that the existing location of the trail is not code compliant. The way the land development code reads, a trail that close to the shoreline of lady bird lake would be limited to six feet in width. [4:53:12 PM] To be wider it would need to be 50 feet from the shoreline. So the request for a 25-foot setback is already a compromise to try to balance the needs of the trail and the environment. So I think we could accept the average that allows some flexibility, but it is a little bit less than what staff were originally asking for. >> Mayor Adler: Originally asking for 50, but obviously that changes the experience. If we're trying to grandfather it and we make it 25 feet, is staff okay with that? >> Yes. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. >> Kitchen: Can I ask a question. So the language -- the motion I've written in is what you are saying you're okay with, right? >> Yes. >> Kitchen: Thank you. >> Mayor Adler: Mr. Suttle, have you seen the motion from councilmember kitchen, are you okay with that? >> Mayor, yes, I am. And like we all said, the intent is keep the trail basically where it is with [4:54:12 PM] some minor improvements to keep it where it is. Now, in your color coded ordinance, there was some language struck, the words excluding trail sections built specifically to access water access points. These are trail points that come off the trail and go down to the water. Those obviously won't be less than 25 feet. We just need that language in there so we don't end up not being able to get down to the water in those on the exhibit. Staff is cool with that. >> Mayor Adler: That language we have to be added back in from the strike. Is staff okay with that? >> Yes. Shoreline access and also if necessary to connect to other portions of the trail on either side, so it would have to -- >> Mayor Adler: Could you take a look at the language in the meantime. We would be adding back in trail sections built specifically water access points. See if there's additional [4:55:13 PM] language. Our purpose today is not fine tune language, the intent is effect that compromise and allow for whatever exceptions appropriate. If you could work with Jerry to make sure that's what we were seeing going forward, that would be helpful. Look at the amendments and see if you could just use the amendment and see if it does that. >> Okay. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you. Councilmember tovo. >> Tovo: Councilmember kitchen, can you help me understand the removal of that last line of final relocation and trail subject to approval of the directors of the watershed and parks and recreation departments? >> Kitchen: The suggestion for removing that is because what we're expressing here is our intent and I didn't want our intent changed. And that language is very broad. So I think if we get -- if we -- as we just did with staff, if we get their understanding staff is okay, I don't want to put language in that would undo it. >> Mayor Adler: We've been [4:56:13 PM] talking about kitchen motion number 2. >> Kitchen: And number 3. >> Mayor Adler: And number 3. Great. All right, so then we move from trail alignment, it looks like the next thing is on 8 of 22, section T where we have water forward. >> Mayor, I don't believe that we have Austin water utilities staff here today, but I did receive an email from them this morning. The applicant has presented an exhibit, I believe it's termed exhibit -- exhibit back at my desk. So the applicant has -- there's an exhibit attached of the portions of water forward that the applicant does agree with. The Austin water utility responded this morning they would still like to see total compliance with the water forward plan. And Kevin is on the webex if you have any questions. >> Mayor Adler: It's the city's desire we use the [4:57:16 PM] city code. Richard if you would like to come up and highlight with the default being the city code, if you wanted to put anything at issue, why don't you do that. >> I'm going to let our engineer do this one because it's a little technical. >> Mayor Adler: That's fine. >> We didn't realize there was a difference until just now between us and the water department. So this one may be one that we might make better progress if we go back to awu and bring it back to you later. >> Mayor Adler: I would be fine if we're not prepared now. Let's hold off water forward. >> Let's do that. >> Mayor Adler: My sense is from looking at people's faces, the default is going to be the use the code. If there's a reason not to use the code, you're going to have to help us why we would be varying from that. >> I understand. >> Mayor Adler: As I read this further -- >> Tovo: Mayor, may I ask [4:58:19 PM] my colleagues, councilmember vela, think arose because you had proposed removing it. Did you have a rationale for doing that? >> Vela: This is regarding the water forward? >> Tovo: Yes. >> Vela: No, this was based on what the applicant had agreed to and again I would defer to them in terms of the distinctions and the rationale. >> Mayor Adler: So my understanding is your amendment did not contain the things you were proposing to do but helping this process move forward by helping us see where there were disagreements. >> Vela: That's correct. Honestly I could not speak to a lot of the details within the language of the amendment. My guidance to staff was to prepare the staff recommendation plus the proposed amendment from planning commission and otherwise that were acceptable to the applicant so that we had a document that was kind of this is universally okay. >> Mayor Adler: And that's good. That's helped us. I appreciate the [4:59:21 PM] facilitation as a tool. Let's see how far we can get in identifying and understanding issues. >> Making good progress, mayor. >> Mayor Adler: Councilmember pool. >> Pool: I think I want to echo something that you said on the water forward. I do want to make sure that we are going to be a aligning with the current city code at the time of the site plan as far as water forward. And I think that was what you had said, so that's what I'll be looking for. >> Mayor Adler: I said that's my default, but certainly they have an opportunity to explain to us why that's not the right thing to do. I was trying to put the burden on them to do that. >> Pool: What I'm saying is I do want to hear current code when the site plan is dropped with regard to water forward. >> Mayor Adler: I understand. >> Pool: Thank you. >> Mayor Adler: Let's keep moving. After water forward, the next issue as we go through these pages would be section V, irrigation. >> To keep the water theme going. This one is simple as far as [5:00:22 PM] understanding it. >> Mayor Adler: Is that something we should be talking about now, or defer the same way we just did water forward? >> It's a simple issue. The amendment said they had to use reclaimed water for irrigation. The applicant is proposing instead that they be allowed to go to the lcra to pull water out of the lake or to use reclaimed rainwater or ac condensate, storm water, etc. So there's a difference between whether it's reclaimed water or the option to use lake water or rainwater. >> Mayor Adler: Does our staff have an opinion on that? That's why I'm asking. Does our staff have an opinion on that? We don't know? >> I don't know if that would be the water utility or watershed protection, probably the water utility. I can check with Kevin. >> Mayor Adler: Kevin? >> Kevin, Austin water. Thank you, mayor. I think like the previous discussion we would like the opportunity to consider all of [5:01:23 PM] the proposed water forward-related amendments in their totality. I think we do have some concerns that we would like to see the development of on-site sources as a primary instead of relying on the core Colorado supply as a primary source. >> Mayor Adler: We're not going to discuss that now because we can't. Let's wait until you have a chance to work with the applicant and you can better narrow down for us the issues that council needs to wrestle with. Councilmember tovo then the mayor pro tem. >> Tovo: Mayor, thank you. I am in receipt of some information that our water utility, I believe, sent to you, councilmember vela, in response to some of these issues. And I think it is important that we make sure that we have a conversation about these elements, because it is my understanding that the use of raw water -- I'm just reading from this email, concerns that [5:02:24 PM] the proposed use of raw water would be in conflict with the goals of water forward. Storm water harvesting is proposed, does not meet the ropers -- requirements of water forward. This gets back to the point about current code, or let's hear why we're suggesting varying from it. And especially with water forward, which, you know, is a critical -- >> This one is not just water forward. We currently have a water rights permit. We currently use lady bird lake water to irrigate. We want to maintain that. We want to supplement it with condensate, reclaimed, and your environmental department doesn't wasn't us using reclaimed water to irrigate in the critical, but it's okay to use lady bird lake. We're not prepared to give up our water rights. >> Mayor Adler: I wasn't assuming anybody was right or wrong. We're not prepared to address that. Go to our water folks. [5:03:25 PM] Next time we need everybody to speak to that issue and hopefully differences will be narrowed down and if not, they'll come to us. Mayor pro tem. >> Alter: What's written here in the yellow does not match what Mr. Rusthoven said in terms of what it meant. It says they're going to use water rights and only the reclaimed if there's not enough water, which is not the same as we're going to use a mixture of these kind of things. That can be figured out when we address it but what they've agreed to is not what was explained. >> Mayor Adler: Got it. >> Alter: It's a subtle difference, the way . . . >> Mayor Adler: No pun intended. [ Laughing ] >> Mayor Adler: Okay. Let's note that and make sure that that's part of conversation y'all have while you're resolving that. Now, the next one after irrigation. It looks like the next one concerns the timing of the [5:04:28 PM] parkland dedication. >> To summarize it briefly at a high level, the parkland dedication, since we've been discussing this project, was contemplated to happen in phases. The important reason is to allow the contractor for the developer will need to be able to access the site from the entirety of the area around the building with cranes, trucks, etc., in order to do construction. And once that is dedicated, we're talking about a chapter 36 issue. Everyone agreed the parks department, the applicant all agreed it would be best to not dedicate the parkland until after the buildings are constructed to prevent the need for multiple chapter 26 hearings. >> Mayor Adler: Is that a standard practice? >> We have done what we can to avoid it if there's not a need to do it, find a way that doesn't need it. This would -- the amendment that was proposed would say that after nine years, irregardless of whether all buildings are [5:05:29 PM] constructed the entirety of the parkland would have to be dedicated to the city. That's the difference between the two. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. Thank you. >> Point of clarification. The chapter 26 is not necessary if a parkland improvement and maintenance agreement is in place. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. Why don't you go ahead and ask that question. >> Tovo: Mr. Grantham, would you mind then reflecting on what parks -- what is parks' recommendation, when do you want the land? If it makes no difference in terms of the chapter 26 hearing, would the parks department prefer to have the language as it was in that the parks are dedicated to the city earlier? >> Yes, ma'am. So the language as written with the northern-most phase of the -- of each -- the northern-most building of each [5:06:31 PM] phase and then the stopgap there is the first day of the 9th year just to make sure that -- in case this development takes a very long time that the parkland be dedicated at that time. And in such a case where the parkland was not constructed at that time, it's always possible to have a parkland improvement maintenance agreement that would allow the developer or pard, in this case the developer is going to be doing a lot of the developers, that the developer could do those improvements on dedicated parkland. >> Tovo: Thank you very much. >> Mayor Adler: Are you okay with the language in green? >> Yes, sir. >> Mayor Adler: Do you want to address -- [ multiple voices ] >> So I can clarify. Staff recommendation was the northern most buildings. Planning commission added on the nine-year deal. That's not your recommendation, correct? >> [ Off mic ] >> But you liked it, so now [5:07:32 PM] you've changed. >> Yes. >> So here -- >> Which is allowed. >> I'm telling you the point of what we came up here with was things we had agreed with staff, and what we couldn't agree with, and we couldn't agree with the nine-year deal. We're not going to do that. But as we build next to the park for that segment, that's when the parkland comes to you because that's when the requirement is triggered. We disagree with the planning commission recommendation. >> Mayor Adler: I understand that. Would you address why do you need the nine-year deal rather than just letting it trigger off the development of that parcel? >> The nine-year deal is really seen as an in case the development is going very slowly, that really the public would like this parkland as soon as possible and it to be [5:08:32 PM] dedicated to the city and in the hands of the city. >> Mayor Adler: We understand the issue. Mayor pro tem. >> Alter: So, I'm not sure if this is for Mr. Suttle or pard, but what protects us during this period of time for having access to the trail if construction is going on beyond the nine years or during that period? >> So, one aspect is that the -- the trail is currently parkland. It's a -- I believe it's 25 feet in width. And so that is currently parkland. The developer has given verbal assurance that there will be access throughout the development, throughout the time period of the development. [5:09:33 PM] >> That's not in the P.U.D. >> Correct. >> So I'm going to put a pin in that when we're talking about the timing that -- we need to make sure there's access. It needs to be in the pud. >> Mayor Adler: There's current access now. Could you disturb the access? >> What's out there now is a 12-foot-wide trail easement. It expands to a 15-foot trail easement. Under the terms, it can be moved 90 feet at the option of the owner and can be closed for 90 days at a time, option of the land owner. We're not proposing closing the trail unless there is a concrete pour or something that happens where a temporary safety issue comes up, we might detour the trail, but we have no intent to close the trail or do the access. I'm not sure where Scott comes from on his 25 feet, because I [5:10:33 PM] can show you it's 12 and 15 with the ability to detour and to close if necessary. But -- >> Alter: Is that written in the ordinance? >> No. That is what is written in the easement to the city when it was given by the cox family originally. >> Alter: But what happens to that when we adopt the amendment to the P.U.D.? >> It's not addressed. Maybe we should address it. >> Mayor Adler: It's an important thing, we would want to call it out. >> Sure. >> Alter: It sounds like it's your intention to address it, but as I'm understanding it, there's not -- I don't know if you shift -- we shift what's governing you and the P.U.D. Doesn't have it, then that can be problematic. I don't want to leave -- >> Mayor Adler: You've offered to go further than the easement provides, so let's think about putting that language in so as to include the additional stuff as well. >> I think what I hear is we [5:11:33 PM] want to do everything we can not to block access under any circumstances. That's the goal. >> Alter: Safety also matters. >> Safety matters. There may be certain instances where we reroute or close temporarily. >> Mayor Adler: The obligation to reroute is not part of the agreement. That's -- >> No, it's in the agreement. We can do detours. Remember, this trail easement was dedicated to the city at a time when it was not required. >> Mayor Adler: Let's pull it forward into the P.U.D. So no one has to wonder. >> We can work that out. >> Alter: I'm not -- in saying that, I'm not sure where I land on the nine-year part but I think the most important part of this park during this period of construction is going to be the trail access. So were it to take longer we want to make sure at the minimum that's happening, but I'm not sure where I land on the [5:12:36 PM] nine-year part. >> Mayor Adler: I understand. >> The trail -- not the trail, park dedication is not triggered until you have a use that triggers it. Until recently, it was residential or hotel. I'm not sure on the commercial thing. But we pay a fee for commercial, I guess. >> Mayor Adler: That goes to the nine-year -- >> The trail stays, maybe park is different. Maybe that's how we handle it. Let us think about it. >> Mayor Adler: I understand the nine-year thing is still an issue. We're not developing that argument here tonight. >> Vela: I wanted to confirm with regard to the parkland dedication fee, are we still looking at the $9 million or so parkland dedication fee originally envisioned as part of the P.U.D.? >> We are looking at the most recent fees would be [5:13:38 PM] approximately $5.2 million based on what council passed on September 15th. >> Mayor Adler: The question, Mr. Suttle, is because of what we just did it looks like there's a savings to the development of $4 million. Can you continue to just pay that? >> It depends on if the P.U.D. Passes and how it looks. >> Mayor Adler: I would think that because it was part of what the original proposal was you demonstrated an ability to do it and still have the economics of the plan work. >> We were trying to anticipate the fee increases that were coming up. And we factored that in, yes. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. >> This is one of those things that we're going to talk about eventually. You can't pass a P.U.D. Under one set of circumstances and have the unilateral right to then make it more infeasible by increasing fees. >> Mayor Adler: I understand that an element here is going to throw off the economics there. [5:14:39 PM] In my head while I'm counting my credits -- >> I'm -- >> Mayor Adler: I understand. I'm counting a $4 million credit in my ledger for that issue. Thank you for raising that issue. Let's go on to the next one. Go ahead. >> A point of clarification, I want to give Richard and team credit for what they would be giving to as part of the same ordinance. It would be from the commercial side of it, it would be roughly $1.9 million in addition to that 5.2. So they're going to be looking at $7.5 million. >> Vela: So the shortage, now that we've passed commercial parkland dedication, we're talking 1.5 to $2 million short shortage from the original premise to today. >> Mayor Adler: That's helpful. Thank you. Yes, mayor pro tem. >> Alter: Thank you. If you could get us the [5:15:39 PM] calculations based on what we passed, what it would be versus what they were promising and I'll just echo what my colleagues have said. I think there's been a demonstrated ability to pay the larger amount that was otherwise required under the anticipated amount. And as it is, I am concerned that we are not fully meeting the community's expectations with respect to the park and the park buildout. So that would be definitely important to me as well. >> Mayor Adler: Next section D looks like it's in agreement. That gets us to the annual programming plan. The first issue is with respect to timing. >> I'll let Scott address this. It is addressed by one of councilmember pool's amendments as well, so. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. Councilmember pool, do you want to talk about your amendment? >> Pool: Yeah. Essentially, if you look at my motion to amend part ten, that [5:16:40 PM] first E, it's the parks programming plan. And that's the language that I got from the parks and rec department. Essentially, E is shortened. And Mr. Grantham, Amelia is stuck in Florida because of hurricane Ian, so Scott is here to follow up. But could you explain the changes that were worked out between y'all, my staff, and the applicant? >> Yes, ma'am. >> Mayor Adler: So I know, have you read the pool amendment? >> Yes, sir. >> Mayor Adler: Are you okay with the pool amendment? >> Yes. >> Mayor Adler: Mr. Suttle, are you okay? >> Pool: I think the answer is yes all around. >> On the record, yes. >> Mayor Adler: We don't have to spend that much time. >> Pool: No. You don't have to spend any time, unless there are questions. But I wanted to give our staff an opportunity to lay it out to explain to the dais where the changes were. They were technical. >> Mayor Adler: Do that [5:17:42 PM] quickly. We need to get to the things we don't have agreement on. >> Quickly, from the get go, the applicant was concerned about the parkland with the idea that events and potentially policy changes, I.e. That would relate to people experiencing homelessness could happen very close to them and not have a seat at the table. Pard is threatic to those concerns -- sympathetic to those concerns and we have a process that deals with event planning that involves a public hearing that does involve approaching the landowner. So essentially, what we don't want to do is we don't want to have to have a new planning process every year, waste a lot of staff time, other stakeholders' time. We would rather use our existing progress and give assurance that these are key stakeholders, the landowner, we would not make any [5:18:45 PM] big policy changes without involving them. >> Mayor Adler: Sounds good. Okay. >> Tovo: Mr. Grantham, I didn't understand the connection to homelessness. Would you mind clarifying that point? >> Yes. This was a concern that was specifically raised by the applicant that they did not want a big policy change to occur regarding parkland that would essentially change rules about how it was -- how rules regarding camping were enforced. And so basically we explained to the applicant that the rules are the rules. However, we wouldn't treat them any differently from any other park space. [5:19:46 PM] And I think that really the idea of . . . It might be that this particular item is really looking at more event planning. However, as the department, we do -- are ready to work with our constituents on any policy changes. >> Pool: I think what Mr. Grantham is saying is our ordinances do not allow homeless encampments in our parks. And that would also be the case in this park. And that is the piece that we wanted to make sure was very clear. >> Mayor Adler: Got it. Mayor pro tem. >> Alter: Thank you, councilmember pool, to your and your staff for working on this. I just want to make sure that I'm understanding what this does and does not do. So, it basically says they're going to follow the same programming plan as they do for [5:20:48 PM] other of our conservancies, but then it says that they are going to pay 100% of the costs for a certain number of -- very specific elements of exhibit G. And that is above and beyond the $9 million plus that they're going to provide in parkland dedication fees for the fee in lieu of land portion. >> Pool: That's correct. >> Alter: Then there's going to be a planning process for those other funds to decide where to invest them among the in priorities there are for the parks, but it does not say that they are funding all of those or that all of those will be funded, is that correct? >> Pool: Yes. I identified and enumerated all of the items in part 10f that indicates the land owner has agreed to pay 100% of the cost for the following improvements and that's 1-7 on the front part of the page. We are adding a new section to [5:21:49 PM] part ten that accomplishes that the land owner shall fund a priorization process as follows, the seven enumerations on the back. >> Alter: Is there a list of the things that were left off from G so we can have a better idea of what's being prioritized and the estimated cost of that balance? >> Pool: Mr. Grantham, do you want to speak to that? >> Yes. So the -- going through really quickly, these items on your list are plaza areas, great steps, amentized water quality ponds, underwater rain water cistern hike and bottom line trail, environmental superior items, shoreline restoration, green wall. Your question as I understand it is what is left off of this list [5:22:50 PM] that is shown on the open space plan. Is that correct? >> Pool: That is the mayor pro tem's question. >> Alter: And how much do each of these items cost. If you can't say that now, you can provide it in a followup q&a or something. >> Of course. Those items would be the amphitheater and also known as the water steps and great lawn, and the irrigation that would go along with the great lawn. You might think of that as the bat- viewing area. Am I right so far? It's water steps. >> [ Off mic ] >> Yeah, okay. >> Alter: So if park can provide us with a clear list and the estimated cost, understanding those are rough, for those pieces that fall under the park prioritization process, [5:23:50 PM] assume that we would go forward with councilmember pool's amendment. >> Mhmm. >> Pool: And the intention of the new section, part ten, which is the prioritization process is to ask the community to come tell us which of the things that have not been included in here would you like to have included and we do have the parkland dedication fee monies available. And maybe Mr. Suttle can speak to that. It's not saying these things cannot happen, but it would be part of the prioritization that we'd ask the public to help us with. >> Alter: I understand that. I want to understand whether I want to prioritize some of those and suggest that they would be in abeyance. Mr. Suttle? >> This issue is two-fold. This will be a unique park because we're going to be [5:24:51 PM] neighbors to the park. We never have wanted to control the programming of the park, we just wanted a seat at the table so if a future council decides to have the monster truck exhibition, we want to have a seat at the table to say we'd rather you not. Or if a future council decides camping is okay, we want a seat at the table. That's the programming issue. The prioritization issue is there are certain things we can afford to do. And we are shouldering those. And the other things that are in the south central plan, the plan that's been approved, are things that I think under councilmember pool's amendment, those would have a more public discussion of how they get prioritized and funded and done. And I think what I hear mayor pro tem say is there may be some of those things that you want us to shoulder. >> Alter: Yes. It's important that we have transparency for the community, because the people that I'm hearing from on this are concerned about what the [5:25:52 PM] parkland looks like and making sure that they can enjoy and benefit from that. So as we move forward with any kind of P.U.D., it's going to be important to have that further clarity before I can say if there are any one of those things or a certain amount of money I need to understand what's left out from what councilmember pool, we just got this amendment today. I need to understand what we're estimating those costs are to understand how far the P.U.D. As currently proposed, assuming the $9 million plus is going to get us to it so that we can be transparent with the public about what this pud is going to provide or what it's not, or we can negotiate for more. But that seems, given this exercise, seems to be the appropriate next step, because I don't want to pull something out of a hat and say I want this, but if the prioritization process is not going to get us [5:26:53 PM] the great lawn without further subsidy, then we need to know that, for instance. >> Mayor Adler: So, Jerry, could you give us a list of things that are in or out of the plan so that council can see that? That would be helpful. Okay? Let's keep going. My goal here is to try to get us done by 6:00. There was no dinner ordered for us. We have some issues here. Let's spend five minutes on each one and see if we can get through them. Affordable housing is going to be the big one. We want to spend more time there. Let's continue to push through this if we can. Understanding these issues and hearing immediate reactions from people is helpful for everybody involved. Let's keep it going. Councilmember tovo. >> Tovo: I don't need to discuss it, but I want to highlight that I'm trying to understand how the change you're proposing, councilmember pool, fits in with our usual process of working with conservancies on public parks. We don't need to talk about it now, but I do notice that it's changing from being an annual programming plan to a parks [5:27:54 PM] programming plan, interactivity with the parks department seems to be shifting at least in the language. So between now and when we actually take a vote, I want to understand that difference. With republic square park and others we had a year or two where the council was involved in weighing in. >> Mayor Adler: Got it. >> Pool: I would say -- >> Tovo: The plan before -- >> Tovo: The language came -- >> Pool: The language came from the parks department. >> Tovo: I haven't had an opportunity to understand why they're comfortable with that and how that compares. >> Mayor Adler: It's a good issue to identify. >> Pool: It's not Mr. Rusthoven who can answer the question. >> Mayor Adler: We're not going to resolve that today but we identified the issue in the request for more information to understand it. >> Tovo: Agreed. I would ask that as -- I understand we're trying to move quickly. This is a very complex thing. We have a lot of questions. If we could make an effort not it cut each other -- to cut each other off. >> Mayor Adler: There are three things with issues, first, the construction of the great [5:28:55 PM] lawn pier and water steps. The second one was developer maintenance of at least a level one standard. Is there an issue associated with that? I don't know that that's covered in councilmember pool's issue. Was that language, Mr. Suttle, that you took out, standard one, level one standard? >> I think the issue was the maintenance of citywide park was being put on the developer and we prefer the maintenance stay with the city. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. Does staff want to address the question of who maintains the park in this context? That seems to be the issue. >> Certainly. In brief, it's a superiority item. It's something that we've asked for from early stages. [5:29:56 PM] And it's something that helps the parks department that essentially we are -- we have parks everywhere. We do our best to maintain them. >> Mayor Adler: I understand the issue. You'd like them to maintain it. They're saying they want you to maintain it. It's going to be one of those ledger cost issues. I understand the issue. Mayor pro tem. >> Alter: I don't know that I can speak fully to this, but there is a third way that involves the trail foundation and contributions from the developer to the trail foundation. I would like to see where that might lead as well so that they're not actually doing the work, but they are contributing financially in a substantial way to the trail foundation. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. That's a good idea. Thank you. >> Staff has had a few discussions. >> Mayor Adler: Got it. Pursue that. And then the third? >> Tovo: If we could get an estimate of cost, if the city [5:30:58 PM] does take on the operation of maintenance, not right now, but if we could get that information. >> Mayor Adler: Not right now, but so we can put it on the ledger later. Last, the vegetative buffer. Is that handled by the kitchen amendment? >> Kitchen: I think it might be. I'm not sure what this means. >> This is closer to the water. >> This is bats. The bat guys say we don't need it. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. >> This was closer to the water. >> Mayor Adler: Got it. The next one is bike/pedestrian safety. >> This is easy, I believe. In the negotiations with the staff, they agreed to construct a protected bike lane going to the south. The applicant would pay for that, would construct it themselves. The planning commission recommendation included an additional $200,000 from the applicant in case the staff couldn't think of anything beyond that, it wasn't clear. [5:32:00 PM] The transportation staff doesn't really understand the need for the amendment since they've agreed to build the bike lane. We would have to keep in mind the arcade on the property, the rough proportionality to make sure this amount did not exceed the allowable by law. To be honest, from the staff perspective, it's redundant. We already have them on the hook for constructing the bike lane. >> Mayor Adler: I see staff shaking their head. If you learn differently that something specific was asked, and please air that. >> Kitchen: Question. Sorry. Constructing the bike lane, what kind of bike lane? What kind of safety? >> It says a six-foot protected bike lane with a two-foot curb buffer along the east curb between congress and east Riverside. >> Kitchen: Curb buffer? Did you say curb buffer? >> Yes. >> Mayor Adler: Good. The next item is affordable housing. Let's get into that one, guys. Best as I can tell, I think what [5:33:03 PM] was in one plan was 4% on-site at 80% mfi, which is 55 units. The council approved 10% on-site. >> 60%. >> Mayor Adler: 60% mfi. This is a question of cost. I understand the difference. The applicant said they couldn't do the 10% at 60% mfi. At this point, the economics being the same, that seems to be supported by the economic people, that you had take a look at that. >> That was one of the items they identified the cost of in the powerpoint. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. The applicant, do you want to propose any alternatives? >> As a recap, the 4% that we [5:34:04 PM] proposed came out of the south central plan, 55 on-site units at 80% mfi. As we started going through the process, we realized some people thought that wasn't enough. That has a dollar figure attached to it of $23.2 million and one of the councilmembers said why don't we take that money as a fee in lieu and build a lot more units somewhere close by. We would be fine with that. The third thing we came up with is we were able and now control 422 on the lake, a currently built apartment complex, a very nice one. We ran the numbers. We're able to do more than 55 units at 80% and it gets more units a lot faster. And we have proposed that recently to the city as yet another option. So in the applicant's minds, those are the three options that we can do and still make all the numbers work and the project work. >> Mayor Adler: One of the questions that we have for us on the dais is do we want to have it in the project, or are we [5:35:07 PM] amenable to having affordable units outside. If they're outside in 422 building, can you give us more units than you would have in on-site? >> Yes. The numbers, it's 55 units on-site, somewhere ten years maybe down the road, or it could be up to 70 units currently with appropriate protections for us so that we don't give you the affordable housing now and then we don't get site plans and all that. >> Mayor Adler: I understand that. I have a question for staff in housing. I don't know if housing staff is here. If we got the 23.2 and took that cash or that money and we wanted to invest, could we get more units if we invested it, say, with Walter on his project that's three quarter miles away? >> One thing we've been talking about internally is the commitment to keep the affordable housing, whether it's on-site or off-site, within the south central waterfront area. >> Mayor Adler: Let's come [5:36:07 PM] back to that. My question was could we get more units if we took the $23.2 million and invested in Moro's project? >> I'm not familiar with the project that you are speaking of, but I will say that one of the reasons for the $23.2 million equating to 55 units or 70 now, we're hearing between 55 and 70 is we're looking at steel construction. If we look at alternate projects in a less desirable area that are stick-built, there could be some economies of scale, but we are losing out on the proximity to the lake, and the south central waterfront vision plan. >> Mayor Adler: I understand. That would ultimately be the policy question for the council to make. There's a forced choice. Everybody would love to have 100 units on the lake in this area, [5:37:09 PM] all other things being equal. But I'm trying just to figure out what the choices are for the council. And I understand 55 units on-site, the units in 422 apparently less expensive for whatever reason. >> A little bit less expensive, a little bit more units, I heard 70. >> Mayor Adler: I will lock on that, that's 25% more -- actually, 27% more. I just ran it here. One of the options is $23 million in a project -- rather than putting it into an account where it just sits there, no one knows how it's going to be used or where it's going to be used, one thing I would appreciate the housing department to take a look at is what are the nearest projects to this that look like they're real, or could be real if there was investment. And I said Walter Moro foundation communities just because I've heard he may have [5:38:10 PM] one that's three-quarter miles away. I don't know that for sure. There could be other developers that are equally approximate. I recognize it's probably a different kind of construction, not as desirable as being at the lake, but I don't know if I'm trying to decide do I make those sacrifices to get 75 units or would I be making them to get 150 units. And I'm just trying to figure out what the tradeoffs are. >> We are happy to go back and take a look, but I can tell you off the cuff that there are no affordable housing developments within the boundaries of the south central waterfront plan, within the boundaries, other than 1 Texas center, contemplated and part of -- we're committed to having affordable housing on-site in 1 Texas center. But when I hear 70 units at 422 on the lake, I think it's a bird [5:39:11 PM] in the hand. >> Mayor Adler: I hear that. There's going to be plenty of time for you to express your preference. We will all express our preferences. I understand that. I want to know what all the choices are. You've identified another one, 1 Texas center. What would be the impact of taking the 23.2 and putting that immediately into 1 Texas center? Could you please take a look at what those other options are, recognizing that they might not even be an option that is supported by housing, which I understand is trying really hard to get something in the district. I understand the benefits of that. But to develop the choices, can you develop the alternatives so council can at least see what the alternatives are? >> We can develop some alternative scenarios. We would never recommend or I can't contemplate a scenario in which we would recommend identifying a specific project to put those funds into if in fact we were to accept a fee in [5:40:13 PM] lieu. We would want those funds to go into the housing trust fund and then determine from there the highest priorities based on that. Rather than predetermining a developer or a project or a site. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. >> With the exception of 1 Texas center because it is city-owned. >> Mayor Adler: Help me, then. I have constituents that are saying to me I would consider it going there if I felt for sure that it wasn't just going to sit there, if it was going to be deployed. And so I guess the issue would be if we're not going to identify one in particular, how quickly do we think we could deploy it? How real can we make the deployment of the funds quickly? That's a question. Help in that area would be appreciated, too. >> I feel confident in our track record at the housing and planning department on deploying our funds. We have the 2018 affordable housing bonds, $250 million. [5:41:16 PM] Our rental housing development and ownership housing development which would be the subsidy that these funds would flow through. >> Mayor Adler: And -- >> $20 million left out of 100 plus million. >> Mayor Adler: Got that. I don't know what the chances are of deploying it quickly in this downtown area would be within a mile, say, of the property. That I don't know. You guys are doing an incredible job of deploying funds. Now I'm adding a geographic constraint and I don't know whether that throws that off or not. Councilmember kitchen. >> Kitchen: I have a question that probably needs to be offline. I want to raise it. Part of what I'm trying to do is because we're working within dollar constraints, is I'm rethinking all the dollars. So I'm going to want to ask how important and why we're putting money into extending the road, [5:42:18 PM] because it would seem to me that there's some dollars there. But again, there's a lot I don't know about that. But my question would be if we chose not to extend the road would that make more money available for affordable housing? >> Mayor Adler: Which road? >> Kitchen: It's Barton springs road. >> Mayor Adler: Jerry, do you want to comment? >> Councilmember, the applicant is proposing to dedicate the right-of-way, but they're leaving the funding for the road up to somebody else. That construction cost will have to be accounted for by somebody. But keep in mind this is a 3.5 million square foot development, there is a need for the road as well as the new transit station. So staff stands by the need for the road. The issue is at this point who pays for the construction of the road. >> Kitchen: So you're saying the value we saw on the earlier [5:43:18 PM] analysis for the road comes from dedicating the land. >> Yes. >> Kitchen: Okay. I can't remember what that value was. I thought it was significant. Was it 17? >> I'd have to go back, I'm sorry. >> Kitchen: That was the first presentation that we saw. Well, to my mind, I think it's important for us -- sure we'd like to have the road and that would be helpful, but we're struggling with the affordable housing. We need to think about the extent to which that's necessary and the extent to which that's counted towards the value that we're getting from this P.U.D. I will just leave that as a placeholder. >> Mayor Adler: That's a really good question. I'd be interested in that, too. It could be if we don't build the road we get even less affordable housing because the project that it supports isn't as great. I don't know the answer to that, but I think that's a really [5:44:18 PM] important question to ask. >> Kitchen: My understanding -- I didn't mean to interrupt. >> Mayor Adler: How much or how important is that road to creating the value that we're then trying to harvest to do the affordable housing. >> Kitchen: I'd like to ask the developer that. It was my understanding that the road was not something that you all felt was necessary, but maybe I misunderstood that. >> The access is necessary. The road is actually a district road. It's going to serve as a connector all the way to Riverside from the rest of the district. >> Kitchen: Okay. >> If you put it on us, would we build the lanes and the sidewalks? Would we do the right-of-way for that? Probably not. >> Kitchen: Okay. So my fundamental question really is if that was a piece that we took out of the P.U.D. -- It's the mayor's question -- would that make a difference in the amount of dollars that might be available to play with in terms of affordable housing? Could it add to that 23.2? [5:45:25 PM] >> We have to do a land plan to see with less right-of-way, could we get more development on this and more square feet. It would be a math equation. We'd have to look at that. >> Mayor Adler: I think the corresponding question, because I think it's a really good question. I'd like to tease this out. Jerry, for atd, what's at did going to think about if we do a project that doesn't have the Barton springs connection in the district? They're a stakeholder in this, too. >> Mayor, I will get back with him. We did talk about this a lot. >> Mayor Adler: So I think the council needs to understand whatever that conversation is. >> It has to do with the surrounding development. We'll be prepared to talk about that next time. >> Tovo: Councilmember kitchen, I appreciate the way you're zeroing in on these additional costs, because I want to preserve as much of that Val value as possible for affordable [5:46:29 PM] housing. Mr. Suttle, I think I heard you say the 70 units would be your offer at 422 on the lake, would be at 80%. How many units could you do were it at 60%? >> I'm going to ask sander. We looked at that. I believe it was 36. Pardon me? All 60% mfi it would be 36 units, mas O menos. >> Tovo: Okay. Thank you. >> Mayor Adler: I'll tell you if your colleagues are gauging where people are, if there's a way for us to get to 60% mfi for the rental units, I would prefer to do that because we're getting 60% for rental units. I'd really like for us to figure out how to get there with rental [5:47:30 PM] units. >> Tovo: I would, too. >> Mayor Adler: I recognize the reduction in the number of units at 60 versus 80% goes to the ledger sheet. I will say whatever that number, I would take 25% more units in 422 than to put the units on-site. So whatever the equivalent is at 60% is what I am most focused on than if I get 25% more at 422. I would probably make that trade. And I am open to the discussion about taking the 23.2 and seeing how many 60% units we could get within a mile of this tract. I am open to the conversation about what happens on 1 American center, how many units could we get, how much more quickly if we were to take the money and put it there. So I don't know the answer because we don't have enough information, but I'm open to learning about those things. >> There's also a strategy -- [5:48:32 PM] we'll be happy to sit down with the housing folks. You can have a graduated scale and get more units, some at 60, some at 80, some at 100, some at 120. It's still less than sometimes the market, but you can move those number units around. We'll be happy to have a conversation with housing about that. >> Mayor Adler: I would be amenable to hearing what the options are. Kathi and then mayor pro tem. >> Tovo: Thank you, mayor. I am interested in seeing these units be within the south central waterfront. Of course I want to see 1 Texas center redeveloped for affordable housing. That's certainly part of the vision I support. One disadvantage of shifting them there, of course, is that they're not going to happen quickly and that's -- to me, that's a disadvantage. The other is if we're going to meet our goal of 20% of the total residential units being [5:49:34 PM] affordable, we need units on more than just 1 Texas center. We need them within some of those developments as well as on our city-owned tract. That's just a concern I would air. I would also say Mr. Suttle, thank you for providing us with that number. I would ask that you take a look at some of what we are talking about here with regard to the parking, with regard to the easement, any other things that you've identified as superior where we could get increased value. As I look at the numbers that the staff have provided us with, if we used your existing P.U.D. As the baseline as we do with P.U.D.S, the staff have provided what the number of units would be that would be required under that and it was substantially higher than the 55 under the 4%. In fact, I'll invite Mr. Rusthoven just to encapsulate that for us. It's in the q&a, but I don't [5:50:35 PM] have it in front of me right now. It was I think about 194, is that right? >> Well, about 293,000 square feet. I took the $3.5 million of proposed entitlement, 600,000 of existing entitlement, 2.9 million, 10% of that, would be about $293,000. How many units that equates to depends on the sizes. >> Tovo: You said it was about a thousand square feet per unit, you get -- >> Yes. >> Tovo: 4% of that even if we went with the 4% number we're looking at more than a hundred units, 116, something like that. >> I'm sorry? >> Tovo: I had asked in the q&a that you do 4% and 10%. You only did 10%. [ Multiple voices ] >> We have the 4%, the applicant proposal, staff recommendation, 55. We have the your amendment on first reading, 10% of the total units, 1500 units, 150. And then the tier three what [5:51:36 PM] you're talking about right now would be approximately 300. >> Mayor Adler: Would you talk about those so that I can better understand those? >> Sure. >> Mayor Adler: Is this P.U.D. Falling under tier three? >> Mayor, in 2007, the city council amended the P.U.D. Ordinance. P.U.D.S require superior development to standard code. The developer gets to make modifications to the code. The city gets community benefits we normally could not otherwise legally require. In 2007, there was some restructuring done to the ordinance. It created tier one situation that everyone has to comply with. Tier two, the general superiority we talk about, we're talking about here. Tier three, I think it's called the bonus in there, that talks about affordable housing requirements. It requires 10% of the bonus area, it defines that as being above the baseline, which is the existing entitlement. This is an amendment to an [5:52:38 PM] existing P.U.D. And we have never required amendments to existing P.U.D.S to go through the tier three process. We do amendments to other P.U.D.S all the time. Some are administrative, some we brought before the council depending on the criteria. And we have not applied retroactively tier three to any P.U.D. That came in prior to 2007. >> Mayor Adler: So that I understand the three numbers, then I'll go back to you, the tier three, the 10% of total units in that bonus situation is not something that the city applies to a property in this situation. >> That's correct. >> Mayor Adler: The 10% was what the district said they wanted to have across the entire -- >> 20%. >> Mayor Adler: 20% across the entire district, right? >> Yes. >> Mayor Adler: But then did it call out specific numbers for specific parcels as part of the 20%? >> It did. That's the reason why the number is 4% and not 20 on this tract. What the plan -- the vision plan [5:53:38 PM] contemplated was certain tracts -- it created a vision, if you will, for district-wide improvements -- plaza here, real nice lakefront here, bat viewing area here, etc. This tract because of its physical location bears the brunt of in of those desired things that the city wants to see -- the parkland, the Barton springs road extension, etc. Knowing that to be the case, the recommended affordable housing was 4%. That's the staff recommendation. >> Mayor Adler: That's what the vision plan had for this property. >> It's discounted to account for the fact that they're obligated to do things such as the snoopy tract out your window did not have to do because they're not on a lake, didn't need the road extended, etc. Some had to do more affordable housing. Some contemplated less depending on the total contribution to the district effort. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you. Councilmember tovo. >> Tovo: I don't think we're going to be able to resolve these issues today. I would ask that we talk in [5:54:39 PM] executive session about just that very issue. I think there are differing opinions about whether this is an amendment to an existing P.U.D. Or a very substantial amendment, which is subject under our code, a substantial amendment is subject to current code requirements. I'm not sure that there is agreement on that point. If it becomes a relevant issue, and it seems to keep coming up, we need to have an executive session about it. I would say I understand what you're saying about the 4% but the vision plan set a different set of entitlements for that tract which are less that would than being proposed. That's a different point. At the end of the day the council has the discretion of considering different things for a planned unit development. I guess I would underscore all of this by saying if we went with the P.U.D. Requirements, even with the baseline being set at the south central, the [5:55:39 PM] housing requirement would be greater. If we use their existing entitlements, we'd be looking at many more units. We want to get as many as possible there and I think given our P.U.D. Ordinance and some of the other things in place we have good reason to make that request. I understand the applicant's points about the economics that have to work out for them, clearly. So I'm simply asking would you take a look as you have been, take another look at some of the other elements you're identifying as superior to see how we could get to 60% mfi with a higher number of units. And I'm willing to contemplate having them at 422 rather than on-site if that gets us more units. So you've already begun that discussion, which is great. If we could continue it and see how much closer we could get to that 10%. >> Mayor Adler: Mayor pro tem, [5:56:40 PM] then a lightning round on some issues. >> Alter: Jerry, are there other things, not with respect to the housing, where they have received more in benefits or entitlements than was in the south central >> I would say roughly the only other pud that we have done is the snoopy pud, and I think that is the only other pud that we have done and it closely tracks the south central plan -- >> Alter: No, my question was that I thought that there was additional height above and beyond what the south central -- >> Besides height -- >> Alter: I'm asking. So the south central waterfront plan only had to do 4% -- and they got entitlements above the south central waterfront plan, so how would we measure those? Because that 4% doesn't apply to -- I mean, even if you want to make that argument, they're getting more of something, I [5:57:43 PM] believe -- so this is kind of a confusing process. But I think that there's other stuff that is above and beyond. >> Mayor pro tem, there are -- and the thing is that there's a lot of moving piece. So, for example, you're correct -- the maximum height for a portion of the track was 400 feet, you know what I mean, in the south central plan, they're proposing 520, 540. However, the south central plan also contemplated Barton springs road extension to be on the adjoining Crockett property and because Crockett is already doing anything right now and for those reasons it's going entirely on the statesman side. And so, yes, there's -- there's portions where they're getting more than the south central plan and there's also portions where they are even taking out more than the south central plan originally contemplated. So I would say that both are true. >> Alter: Sure, and both can be true, and they can also -- need to do more. >> Mayor Adler: Okay, does anybody else want to weigh in on there, because affordable housing is the big issue here I think with respect -- in terms of what you might be looking [5:58:44 PM] for, yes. >> Vela: You know, I was the one that had the original suggestion to use it for homelessness, there's so much money, we visited north bridge the other day and, um, you know, that $23 million, and we take that $23 million and buy another hotel with approximately a hundred units at $200,000. And they're saying it's $200,000 a door they are paying now. That is still think that's a good solid option. That said, even that plan will take some time to implement whereas putting the affordable housing right across the street, that's -- I think a very attractive option, especially since we get the housing essentially immediately. Whereas, under every other scenario we're looking at housing, affordable housing, you know, months out. You know, at the very least -- months, and more like years out. And so it's a really a [5:59:45 PM] compelling proposal from that -- >> Mayor Adler: Okay. Thank you. I'm trying -- so quick answers on stuff so we can move to the proclamations. Yes, councilmember -- >> Kitchen: I'm intrigued by the 422, and one of my questions is for how long? Is that 99 years for those 70 units would be available? >> [Indiscernible]. >> 40 years, councilmember. >> Kitchen: Well, then part of my question would be, could we extend it beyond 40 years? >> We'll discuss it with the applicant. >> Kitchen: One of the things -- >> Mayor Adler: Good question. Let's move on, and other people want to weigh in, councilmember Renteria? >> Renteria: I'm comfortable with the 70 units at 422. I just want to say -- >> Mayor Adler: Okay, anybody else want to weigh in on that? It sounds like people are generally okay with that option. All right, real fast here, we're going to do a lightning round on remaining issues. Including amendments that people have brought, so that we can [6:00:46 PM] highlight those. The bedroom mix of affordable housing, the question is whether there's an emphasis on multi-bedroom or an equal mix of multi-bedroom? >> Yes, mayor, it's seplantins semantics but it makes a difference. With emphasis on multi-generational housing, with the -- the ordinance that councilmember vela lays out that requires an equal mix. From a staff perspective, we prefer equal mix because it would be a definable number, whereas, emphasize seems to have a little bit more of a judgement call on it. >> Mayor Adler: Feedback. And the next item is affordable commercial rate. >> This just has to do, mayor, with how much the -- what affordable means. The, um, the original ordinance or the amendment, says that that rate would be determined basically what percentage it would be to make it affordable. Would be up to the development department, and councilmember vela proposed alternative, [6:01:47 PM] defines it as 60% of class a. >> Mayor Adler: Okay, suttle, did you want to add something on that? >> Yes, we prefer the 60% of class-a in the area. And it's important to note that it's the ground floor retail, not the office. It was the ability to get local businesses in on the ground floor retail. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. >> What we would do is go up and down congress -- >> Mayor Adler: You like that better because why? >> We like the 60% of class-a better because that is an objective number. >> Mayor Adler: Okay, I understand the issue. Reflectivity of the building? >> Yes, it was brought in rldz are relation to -- relation to birds and diminishing the amount of bird strikes and whether it's 15% of reflectivity, and then 35% for other. >> Mayor Adler: The staff have a view on that? [6:02:48 PM] >> I don't believe that we do. I have not -- I think that [indiscernible] Does. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. >> Good afternoon, Liz Johnston. This was a condition of recommendation for superiority from watershed protection staff, the 15% reflectivity was a recommendation from the Travis county auto bond society and they could do it for the first 40 feet that would benefit the local birds along the tree line and not necessarily help the migratory birds. >> Mayor Adler: Do we know where the audobon is on the proposal? >> I don't believe that we have reached out to them. Suttle? >> We get caught, because the lower your reflectivity, the higher your heat load. So above the tree line we do the energy efficient glass and below [6:03:50 PM] the tree line we do the bird friendly gas. >> Mayor Adler: Can you check with the audubon. >> It came from not this specifically, so I don't think that the previous staff have reached out to them so it may be a new question for them, but I will. >> Mayor Adler: Gotcha. >> Can we favor the local birds or the out-of-town birds? >> Mayor Adler: Where are those out-of-town birds come from? College Station. >> We like the free birds. >> Mayor Adler: All right, sorry about that, I didn't mean that. Did I say that out loud? >> The last item is better builder. And this is pretty simple as far as what the difference is. The amendment requires compliance with the better builder program. And they are comp pliant but they do not want to use the [6:04:50 PM] worker defense project and they want to use a monitor that they would propose themselves. >> Mayor -- mayor? >> Mayor Adler: All right, I think that there were some conversations that occurred? Where are you with -- where is the applicant right now -- >> This one is easy, we have signed the pledge, workers defense, on better builder and we made one change, they wanted eight months notice and it went to two months notice and we signed up with workers defense. It's all signed. >> Mayor Adler: Okay, would you get that out to everybody or post that in backup or something like that? All right, colleagues, let's go to amendments. I'm sorry? >> Kitchen: Okay. >> Mayor adler:lightning round on amendments. Mayor pro tem. >> Alter: I don't have an amendment but I just want to flag that I'm concerned about some of the things that we heard about the setback issues today. I don't have an answer or proposal but I think we need to understand better the variances that are embedded in here vis-a-vis at overlay for the setbacks. [6:05:51 PM] And I have not talked to the applicant specifically about that. Because I was not aware of that large of a shift. And I'm still interested in more investments in the parks but I want to see the chart that I asked for earlier. And then, you know, I just want to be really clear that we have no regulating plan and we have no tirz, and I don't understand how that fits in with moving this forward on a lot of levels. >> Mayor Adler: Understand. Councilmember kitchen, amendments? >> Kitchen: I have two amendments. Just quickly they are number four and five. Number four relates to art in public places. Preference for local artists. And I believe that's been accepted. And then the fifth one is also I believe been accepted and that just has to do with using a mix of native, natural stone material. [6:06:51 PM] So that's number five and number six. >> Mayor Adler: What has the applicant agreed -- has the applicant agreed to a million and a half number? >> Kitchen: Yes, that's the number that has been agreed to. My changes were -- >> Mayor Adler: Yes, okay, thanks. And then the second one was what? >> Kitchen: The second one is to allow a mix of native, natural stone material -- >> Mayor Adler: Okay, is the applicant okay with that? >> Kitchen: Yes. >> Mayor Adler: Let's get him to say it out loud here on TV. >> Kitchen: I can speak for him, right? >> Mayor Adler: All right, thank you. Other amendments? I think that we have the -- the pud amendment -- I had handed out a motion sheet, colleagues. The first one is related to the number of affordable housing units and it was just asking staff -- I orally asked Ms. Demayor to do that, that's what this amendment was about, and if we could get that before we approve on second reading, that would be helpful. [6:07:51 PM] And then, colleagues, this is a different one and it relates to the conversation that we had about the regulating plan. It seems to me that -- that if we're thinking about bringing greater density to this district in exchange for greater affordability, if we're going to start with a lower base entitlement and give entitlements in exchange for affordability, I would want staff to take a look at something that said they've requested 3.5 million square feet and there's a deal that we're cutting for 3.5 million square feet as part of the pud. I would like us to also include some kind of bonus that says that you can go above 3.5 million feet, but only if you're providing affordability. Now, I don't know how to measure that limit on how much you go above that, and I don't know what the bonus would be, but I would be interested in [6:08:53 PM] considering something that provided a bonus for this development in case market conditions change or they can find an extra pad site or whatever, and I'd like to build in a bonus that gives no entitlement by right, but additional entitlement above the 3.5 in exchange for affordability. I'm asking staff, if staff could take a look at that and maybe give us some ideas before we come back on second reading that would be helpful in terms of language that we could put into a second reading approval. Does anybody else want to daylight any amendments or things? Councilmember pool? >> Pool: I just wanted to give a little additional information, and I think staff is going to provide a list of the items that were not included in part 10f, but basically it's a play area, the great lawn and the water steps. The pier and the boardwalk. And we had received concerns from environmental folks around the pier and the boardwalk and I [6:09:54 PM] think that staff spoke to that earlier today. So those are the items that are not to be paid 100% by the applicant as far as this agreement, but they could be prioritized during the parks programming prioritization process. So those items are not necessarily off the table, they're just not included in the 100% agreement that we have in front of us. >> Mayor Adler: Got it. Anybody want to bring any additional amendments? Okay. And I think that is our discussion on this today. Yes, councilmember tovo. >> Tovo: I have a existing amendment that I distributed today and I plan to bring that one. >> Mayor Adler: You want to lay it out or talk about it at all? >> Tovo: Um, I don't need to, but I'll give an overview. I did ask a question in the q&a and asking for a list of any other fee waivers or any other kinds of subsidies used to pay the requirements. I need staff at some point to [6:10:55 PM] clarify the response to that. And this is really getting at the question that we keep getting from the public about, you know, are there other fees that are being waived, any other kind of public money in this site? I think that just getting a really clear response would help to answer that question from the public. My amendment in the absence of that clarity, my amendment just codifies that there are not going to be -- other than the parks' fees in lieu, there are not going to be other kinds of fees waived or reinvested in the site. >> Mayor Adler: Other than those called out as part of the pud? >> Tovo: At the only one called out as the pud are the parks fees. >> Mayor Adler: The applicant have an issue on this? You understand this issue? >> We do, and there's -- there's a difference in fee in lieu and fee waivers, and I will tell you that there are two fee waivers that I'm aware of right now, [6:11:56 PM] that they are waivers and they're not. One is that we have been asked to do green infrastructure in Barton springs road. We don't want to have to take our land, dedicate it to the city, and then do a license fee back to do the green infrastructure in the road. So that's one. The other is we don't want to give Barton springs road to the city and then have to rent it back from the city to use a lane for construction. So those are the two fee waivers that we have. And then the third one is that if the value of the land were given up for right-of-way, exceeds rp or the street impact fee, we want to talk to the city about a credit for that. Those are the ones that we're talking about. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. >> Tovo: So, mayor, if I could ask the staff then -- in the question that I submitted that says please identify any part or sub-section where the applicant is requesting a fee waiver or other public subsidy -- manager, would you please make sure that all of your staff across all of the different departments are involved? Please answer that question, because we did not get back the [6:12:57 PM] information that Mr. Suttle just addressed so I didn't call those out as exceptions because I wasn't aware of that. >> Mayor Adler: It's good toy get a definitive list so we're not surprised later. >> Tovo: I had submitted a question that got to the question that he was raising and I think that I'm wrong, I don't think that I have done about that about listing and I think that, mayor pro tem you talked about this too -- the list of variances to the waterfront overlay, so I think that is something that we need to get from staff and I'll try to remember to submit a question. >> Mayor Adler: That's good. And I understood the mayor pro tem to have asked for that. Mayor pro tem? >> Alter: So on the variances, the first two sound like they make a lot of sense, but if -- I mean, I think that it's going to have to be measured by rough proportionality, because we set our street impact fees to be quite below rough proportionality in general. This may be different in this case because of what you're giving. But were it to be true that the street impact fees are below [6:13:58 PM] rough proportionality, I don't know that we should be getting a credit back for that other part. But I don't think that you should have to rent back your land for your building, or to do the green infrastructure that we're requiring. But I'm not sure that all three of those are equivalent in my view. >> That's fair. And also I want to make sure just to have clear transparency. There are some in the community that are saying what we're expecting the tirz to pay for is a fee waiver and it's not. We're expecting to give the right-of-way for Barton springs and we're conditioning tirz to pay for Barton spring road construction in parts of the park. Some are saying that's a fee waiver and a subsidy and we're just thinking that is an investment. >> Mayor Adler: Okay, that was my understanding as well. >> Without the tirz, the whole thing -- >> Mayor Adler: The tirz pay for the infrastructure, I understand that. All right, colleagues, um, associated with the question of November 17th and then the meeting management. And manager, when you are [6:14:58 PM] talking let's take and look to see if it makes sense to pull a special call to plow through this. I'm actually - - I actually feel that we're closer than we were when we started this morning and part of that is I just didn't know what the things at issue were. And I know that we didn't necessarily identify them all today, but we identified the ones that were in front of us now. And I think that we can actually get through this. All right, so I think we're done with this item. Go ahead. >> Postpone it -- >> Mayor Adler: So is there a motion to postpone this to the 13th, and we'll pick it back up? Councilmember pool makes that motion and councilmember Renteria seconds it. >> Are we going to get all of this information in time for the 13th? It's two weeks from now and we just asked for a whole lot of information if we can get all of the information in time for us to review it, fine. But I think that we're pretty clear about the information that we need. >> Mayor Adler: Let's see what we get back in the three days that we'll be able to process some of it. >> Mayor pro tem, I'm not sure [6:15:59 PM] that we'd be ready for the 13th but we need to postpone to a date certain, so -- >> Mayor Adler: So let's postpone to the 13th and see how many issues we can knock out on that day. >> Okay. >> Okay, I would be prepared though -- just, you know, that we may not -- I mean, we may not vote to do second reading until -- I mean, I think that we made progress today and I am glad to see that, but I -- if we don't have answers to the questions, I don't think that we should be expected to vote even on second reading, because this is a very complicated pud and I want us at third reading to actually have a real ordinance that we are reviewing and able to -- to vote on clearly. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. Thank you. All right, there's been a request that we reconsider our vote this morning on the -- on the healthsouth. I'll take a vote. Those in favor of postponing to the 13th, please raise your hand. Those opposed? I'm seeing everybody voting aye with -- two councilmembers off [6:17:00 PM] the dais. Councilmember Fuentes off the dais. I see, everybody else is here on the phone. So the vote was 10-0-1 with councilmember Fuentes off the dais, postponed to the 13th. There's been a request that we reconsider the vote on healthsouth, which is item number 12, so that councilmember harper- madison can participate in the vote. Any objection to reconsideration? Hearing none, we're going to reconsider. We're going to now -- we now have in front of us the healthsouth. We are ready to take a vote? All right, those in favor of health south, please raise your hand. Those opposed? Okay. >> Mayor, just to clarify that is the final vote that we are reconsidering. >> Mayor Adler: The final vote as amended, it's the final vote. It's the only vote that we're reconsidering. And on a vote of 10-1, councilmember Kelly voting -- [6:18:00 PM] sorry -- 9-1-1, with councilmember Kelly voting no and councilmember Fuentes off the dais, the healthsouth is passed 9-1-1. That is all of the items that we have. Council, we have some great proclamations today in front of us and I apologize to everyone for the tardiness in getting to you, but really good work done today in today's meeting. So congratulations, everybody, on healthsouth and for advancing this other one. With that, this meeting of city council is adjourned here at 6:18 P.M. Thank you.