City Council Regular Meeting Transcript – 10/27/2022 Title: ATXN-1 (24hr) Channel: 1 - ATXN-1 Recorded On: 10/27/2022 6:00:00 AM Original Air Date: 10/27/2022 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. [10:18:38 AM] >> Mayor Adler: It is 10:18 on Thursday, October 27th, 2022. We are in city council chambers for the Austin city council meeting. We have a quorum present. Colleagues, councilmember vela had a funeral this morning. He is now headed back, anticipates to get back here sometime after 11:30. He's asked us to pull the tenant items so that he's able here to discuss them. So we'll pull 23 and 25. And now I have on green, too. [ Applause ] >> Mayor Adler: I'm going to read in the changes and [10:19:39 AM] corrections into the record. Item number 1 is withdrawn. Item number 2 on October 18th, 2022, recommended by the resource management commission on a 6 vote, with six votes, with commissioners harman, Brenneman absent and one vacancy. Items 3 and 18 on October 17th recommended by the electric utility commission, 8-0, commissioner Hayden absent, two vacancies. Item number 8 has been withdrawn and replaced by agenda item 64. Item 24 postponed to November 3rd, 2022. Item 29 postponed to December 8th, 2022. Item number 40 withdrawn and replaced by item 66. Item 63 is withdrawn. Item 69, 70, 71, and 72 -- when those public hearings are taken up, these will be postponed to [10:20:42 AM] November 3rd, 2022. We have three items that have been pulled, item 23 and 25 are the two tenant items we discussed just a moment ago. Item number 41, which is councilmember tovo's ifc on real estate. I have posted a message board post on that this morning. I'll hand it out on the dais in just a second. We have some additional time issues. Councilmember tovo's going to be off the dais today for about 30 minutes about 3:10 today. Councilmember harper-madison off the dais from 6:30 to 7:30. My mope is that -- hope is that we're done before then. We have in executive session this afternoon, but that executive session cannot begin [10:21:42 AM] before 2:00 P.M. Those become the constraints we have. We were beginning to approach the 60 speaker mark this morning, so we're going to start off with speakers, one minute each. We're going to then try to take care of the consent agenda. I think that there are probably some amendments that are not going to be controversial that we can read into items and then still have them stay on consent. If they involve discussions, then we'll pull them. And then we'll move through the agenda today. It looks like there's probably two discussion items on zoning. Yes. It's my intent to do speakers at 2:00 P.M. And do the consent zoning and then come back and do the executive session at that point. Councilmember pool. >> Pool: Thanks, mayor. I wanted to draw everybody's attention to the yellow sheet, the motion sheet that I had distributed this morning on the dais for item 45 on change to [10:22:46 AM] landscape code. The reason it was delayed, we tried to post yesterday, but our internet was down, as you recall. We were having some trouble with the message board and email. So we weren't able to get it in to staff for it to be distributed yesterday afternoon, but we got it first thing this morning. Thank you. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. Thank you. Councilmember kitchen. >> Kitchen: I have direction for items 30, 31, and 32. I'm happy for it to stay on consent, I just need to move my direction. So you can do it any way you want. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. We can do that when we get to that item. >> Kitchen: Okay. >> Mayor Adler: Is staff on board with the direction that you're proposing? >> Kitchen: Yes. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. Thank you. Okay. >> Mayor, I also wanted to point out for item 39, there is a version two that I uploaded a [10:23:47 AM] link to on the message board post earlier this week. Just wanted to point out there is a version two on the item. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. And that was item 39? 39 is v2. Got it. Colleagues, at work session I handed out a motion sheet on item 45. It was pointed out by councilmember pool that we needed to make a change on motion sheet 2 to that. And I appreciate that heads-up. We made that change. I'm handing out the item 45 motion sheet, and would offer those. On item number 42, there's been [10:24:49 AM] one additional change from what was handed out on Tuesday and posted at work session. Thank you, mayor pro tem, for the comment you raised at work session. We've made a change. It's shown here I think on page 3 of what I'm handing out right now and this version 5 has also been posted, but it deals with the issue the mayor pro tem raised. All right. >> Mayor, I just wanted to add that I have a motion for item 34 for the disparity study, which I posted, which I'll contribute before we do consent. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. Hopefully that can stay on consent as well. With all those notices and where we are, are we ready to hear from speakers? Let's go ahead and launch that. Clerk, why don't you take us through speakers. One minute each this morning. By the way, just to articulate, it hasn't been handed out, we will short. On the item with respect to [10:25:51 AM] tenant right to cure, I'm going to be handing out a document that proposes those changes I discussed on Tuesday, makes it seven days to be able to bring it. Makes it apply to all units above four units and requires a look-back at the end of six months to see if any of the feared unintended consequences have in fact arisen so that that can be analyzed. And there's some question about how we define criminal activity that can be a basis to terminate a lease without opportunity to cure. We're coming up with language, I'm uncomfortable leaving that broad because I don't want it to pick up the really lower-level crimes as we've been talking about before. We have treated marijuana differently, we've treated [10:26:52 AM] someone seeking sexual reproductive right relief, not speaking about anything in particular. I'm going to propose that be part of that six-month review coming back to council to look at that issue. We'll be handing out that draft as quickly as that's ready. >> The first speaker is bill bunch speaking on several items. >> Hello. This is bill bunch, save our springs alliance. My main request to you is please postpone item 15 and 17, which is about $150 million for rehabbing the south Austin regional wastewater treatment plant so that you can engage with the community to integrate into that project upgrades to the treatment so that the wastewater is much cleaner. Currently, it is based on 1980 [10:27:54 AM] standards, the permit. Current technology can achieve much cleaner, cleaner wastewater. And Austin needs to take a lead on this. This is coming up last-minute. I apologize for that. But it had slipped through. It's 75 million gallons a day of discharge. It's a huge discharge. Austin is the biggest discharger include to the river. We need to take a lead on cleaning up discharges, especially with so many new ones coming online with the Tesla boom. I want to object to the time limit. The state -- you're violating state law very clearly. [ Buzzer sounding ] >> You can only limit per item, not per person. When somebody is speaking and signed up for multiple items -- >> Thank you, your time that has expired. >> You're actually -- >> Sam Kerr speaking on several items. >> Hi. My names Sam, I'm a resident [10:28:56 AM] of district 5 speaking in support today particularly of items 23 and 25, the tenants rights. I just wanted to tell a quick story from two years ago. After the police shot me and I was recovering, my apartment complex was a nightmare scenario where I had rats and cockroaches, but the final straw was when we had a gas leak in December 2020. That was the year of the winter freeze, or the winter freeze, I should say. And the property management did not do anything. And we had to fight back and we had to form a tenants union. That was the only way that anything happened. It was the only reason why they hired a legitimate plumber to actually find the problem. We were waiting, every night they told us we think the gas will come back tomorrow. We couldn't heat our apartments or cook. We couldn't use hot water. It was horrible. It took about the whole month. And the only reason why anything good happened was because we [10:29:57 AM] fought back. [ Buzzer sounding ] >> We organized. And with the help of Basta we formed a tenants union and got $25 a day in back pay. >> Your time has expired. >> For every day we did not have gas. >> For item 23, Korey Rogers. >> Good morning, gentlemen and ladies. I'm speaking against items 23 and 25. Frany,y, both of these items severely infringe upon the Texas constitution. Article 1, section 16 provides that no ex post facto law or any other law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be made. That is exactly what items 23 and 25 are doing. They impair existing contractual obligations and rights. Additionally, article 1, section 29 of the constitution, [10:30:58 AM] the bill of rights of which are the section -- are accepted of the general powers of government and all contrary laws. The ordinances that the city is looking at passing related to items 23 and 25 both violate both these provisions of the Texas constitution and they're going to lead to endless litigation and challenges. They're clearly -- [ buzzer sounding ] >> Illegal and should not be permitted. And the city of Austin's law department should look at this very carefully and not allow these ordinances to be passed. >> Thank you. Your time has expired. >> I hope you will listen to me. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Item 23, Kendra Garrett. >> Good morning, hi, my name is Kendra, I live in district 1 and I urge you to support items 23 and 25. Both right to organize and -- [10:31:59 AM] tenant rights, the relationship between landlord and tenant. It is imperative that housing stability remain our top priority, supporting a full 21 days of notice, life happens. The right to organize ensures -- rights -- must have rights as well. Please support items 23 and 25. Thank you. >> Item 23, Daniel Tedrow. Daniel Tedrow, please unmute. Bethany hart for item 23. >> Hi. My name is Bethany hart. [10:33:00 AM] I live in district 4. I wanted to start by saying I do support the underlying concept of the ordinance by expanding eviction for 21 days, but I wanted to provide perspective as a small-time landlord, because housing prices are so high and property taxes are going up, there's a lot of landlords out there, who I will call small-time, who rent out part of their primary residence to afford mortgage and taxes. I became a landlord about less than a year ago. My husband and I decided to rent out a bedroom to a friend who turned out to be targeting small-time tenants in order to take advantage of people who were more trusting. And so that led me into the process of eviction. I wanted to point out a few different things about item 23 that will disadvantage people like me. The first point is that as of right now there's a lot of confusion about whether or not the C.A.R.E.S. Act requirement for 30 days notice to vacate is [10:34:01 AM] in effect. There's disagreement between the jc court and the Austin tenants council. [ Buzzer sounding ] >> Your time has expired. >> In enacting this without giving any -- thank you. >> Frank nester for 23 and 25. >> Hi. My name is frank, I'm a homeowner in district 1 and a member of dsa and a volunteer with Basta. I will tell you the people that would like to organize are for the most part low-income, undocumented, or they are people that are elderly. These are the people that need to pay their rent and are being intimidated by their landlords. The majority of austinites are renters, not small-time landlords. And I will mention that I have a friend who paid his rent and [10:35:03 AM] even though he was served an eviction notice and they evicted him anyway. He no longer lives in Austin. He was an actor of color in Austin. Austin is supposed to be a city of creatives, not of the land-owning class. Thank you very much for your time. I hope you have a great day. >> Daniel Tedrow, item 23. Daniel Tedrow, are you there? Please unmute. Sarah Summers on item 23 and 25. >> Good morning. I'm a renter in district 9, speaking in favor of items 23 and 25, at the right to nize and cure are essential tools for allowing renters to stay in their homes and offering an [10:36:04 AM] opportunity for tenants to advocate. A community that cares take care. What landlord would not want that? Only someone trying to take advantage of renters. Allowing tenants to organize will help improve housing conditions and build stronger, morenected neighborhoods. The right to cure would allow time to fix rental issues before eviction, reducing homelessness. Children displaced from their homes have to change schools. And the cycles of renting to predatory housing situations caused by eviction wreak havoc on their lives. Allowing tenants more time to get up to date will help families stay rooted. Thank you for your service to the city council and attending to the needs of the majority of austinites who do not have the privilege of owning homes and have to rent. [ Buzzer sounding ] >> Liz Clawson, 23 and 25. [10:37:05 AM] >> Good morning. My name is Liz, I'm in district 5, speaking in support of agenda items three and 25 -- 23. Renters need help. The cost of living skyrocketed and people are struggling to get buy. That's why I urge you to support the proposed right to cure. Giving people extra time to catch up on payments and prevent evictions is the least we can do. It's the type of policy that prevents homelessness and benefits everyone in our community. I support item 25 because Texas doesn't have the broad tenants rights protections that plenty of other states offer. It's time to change this. Everyone deserves safe living conditions. Offering tenants more organizing protections will empower members of our community by giving them the chance to push back against substandard living conditions with lease fear of displacement. Because most of the time tenants are mobilizing it's due to severe problems. The city is full of renters, including most of the people I know and love here and they [10:38:07 AM] deserve the chance to thrive. The proposed ordinances are absolutely a step in the rhtht direction. Thank you for your time. >> Monica Guzman for several items. >> Good morning. [ Coughing ] Excuse me, mayor and council. I am policy director at go Austin, vamos Austin. Gava supports items 23, 25, and 39 and also recommends expanding 39 to include multilingual notifications. There are families living in motels, too, parents with children in aid title one schools. Item 42, thanks to mayor pro tem alter's post and councilmember pool's amendment, resolution draft four is a million times better and won't -- our very important regulations. However, there is still the question and recommendation, what does it mean to offset? We urge the city to ensure the [10:39:09 AM] community, especially Austin's eastern crescent community, are centered and included in a language- accessible stakeholder process. Item 45 -- there have been multiple amendments which unfortunately I haven't had time to thoroughly analyze, so I will reiterate what was stated previously. Opposition of the proposed waiver of the planning commission review and public process, notifications of public hearings, opposition of proposed deletion of neighborhood plans, and proposing notifications be in both English and Spanish with an extra page stating how to request notification in their language, done before city correspondence. >> Your time has expired. >> Gava supports -- >> Mayor Adler: Thank you. >> Carmen Yanez for several items. >> Hey, y'all. As you can see, once again we don't have enough time to address each item. We should be getting at least a minute per item so we can say something. Since I don't have that time, [10:40:11 AM] I'm going to say on item 42, happy to see the revisions by the mayor, councilmember pool, and others protecting our existing environmental and community benefit regulations. These regulations are in place for a reason and they're critically important, especially as people are developing Austin so rapidly for profit, y'all. Just because you save money on regulations doesn't mean our housing is going to become more affordable unless you have those protections in placed we need time to get it right. I very much support the version three and four and want to make sure that those regulations are not undermining. Please give us our time back to speak. Thank you. >> David foster, item 45. >> Thank you, mayor and city council. This is David foster speaking today as a volunteer for clean water action. I'm here to speak in favor of item 45 and urge you to pass as much of it as you can today. [10:41:14 AM] Item 45 is, of course, the green stormwater infrastructure and functional green package that's been under consideration for a number of years now, considerable time from staff, council offices, and the community. This is not a new thing. And one of the reasons I'd like to see you pass it today is because come January, new councilmembers and the mayor and we'll lose institutional knowledges around these issues and the unintended consequence of that may be that this gets delayed, if it ever happens at all. On the matter of functional green, I understand that's not likely to pass today. I would like you to borrow a leaf from water forward and stipulate it be passed or go into effect in December 2023 as water forward directs the dual plumbing obligations of large new developments go into effect. That ought to give staff and stakeholders time to do their job. [ Buzzer sounding ] >> Absent a timeline like that, I am afraid this may never come about. So that's it. [10:42:15 AM] Please move forward with this. I thank you for your service, and it's been a pleasure working with you. >> Becky Smith for item 45. >> Good morning, mayor, counselor, for the opportunity to speak. My name is Becky Smith. I represent our nearly 9,000 members of clean water action in the Austin area and have taken the position from my colleague David foster. I will reiterate his and our support for item 45 with an urgency to consider and pass each of the pieces, including functional green. There are plenty of reasons to do this. But as a resident of Houston, I don't fall in -- but we envy Austin and innovative water-forward thinking that you have been able to preserve your green and natural spaces in the face of such development is a >> Mayor. >> Mayor Adler: And for all the work done. Yes. Go ahead -- >> I didn't mean to interrupt you. >> Mayor Adler: That's okay. Which meeting do you want to speak in? >> In the council meeting. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. With that meeting adjourned, let's go back then and reconvene the Austin city council meeting. [10:54:31 AM] It is 10:54. It continues to be October 27th. Mayor pro tem. >> Alter: Thank you. I just wanted to put a pin in the notion of one minute each, but if they're speaking on multiple items and legitimately speaking on multiple items, I think they should be allowed to speak on each item. I don't know if we can legitimately change that today since we started one way, but that would be my preference, to the extent that we can. >> Mayor Adler: We'll bring that up at the next work session when we are together as a council. All right. We're now back in the city council meeting. We're continuing to call on speakers. Yes, councilmember Kelly. >> Kelly: I want to echo what mayor pro tem said. I've always felt that it's a little disingenuous just to hear from speakers on the day of the council meeting. Oftentimes they say something I want to look more into or that [10:55:31 AM] might add to consideration of how I would vote. So I would enjoy bringing that up in work session again. Thank you. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. And obviously the council works to try to find that happy medium. And over the course of the last eight years, we've moved through different possibilities. It's disingenuous to have meetings that last past 10:00 or 11:00 or late because then we're purporting to give people a chance to participate but in practicality we're not. There are no really good answers. I wish we could get a 48-hour day. It just doesn't work that way. So we will always struggle to find that right balance. But certainly the next work session, let's talk about it, at least the remainder of the meetings this year if we want to make changes. The will of the dais should be done. And certainly the next council empowered after the 1st of the year I'm sure will visit the [10:56:33 AM] topic again. All right. Let's continue on with speakers. >> First inspeaker person is Roy wayley speaking on several items, followed by Ben sudobe. >> Howdy, y'all, I'm Roy wayley, here for the Austin regional group of the Sierra club. And I sent all of y'all an email not long ago talking about the open meetings act and the Texas attorney general's ruling, the [10:57:36 AM] rules you are supposed to be going by that you don't -- you're not required to have a state mandated amount of time, but for each item you are supposed to get that amount of time. So I'm not here on multiple issues. I should be here on individual issues. But, that said, I ask y'all to support and pass item number 45. I know watershed has worked on this for a long time. And these are regulations we can't afford to delay any more. Also, on items 15 and 17 -- [ buzzer sounding ] >> That needs to be put back in the oven, too. We need to have more time to upgrade those standards from 1980. We can be a leader not only in water conservation, but what we put back into the water stream. Thank you. And I know y'all worry about the [10:58:37 AM] state coming down on y'all all the time, but y'all don't seem to worry about it when it comes to citizen input. And that's a crying shame. Not only is it a shame, it's also illegal. >> Mayor Adler: Mr. Wayley, thank you very >> Ben sudobe and Gus peña. >> Good morning, my name is Ben sudobe. I'm not here representing any organization that I sit on the board of, my employer or anyone else. I'm here as a citizen. Although I'm no longer a renter in the city, I was for a long time and many of my friends are. We are a majority renter city. I would like to encourage all of you to support these measures that help renters, very reasonable things like giving them time to cure, time to get it right and proper notice in English and in Spanish. We know that we're facing [10:59:38 AM] housing crises, and as a homeowner, as a house owner who pays taxes, I see this as a measure that will help save money. An ounce of prevention beats a pound of cure. Keeping these people housed will save us money so we're not having to find them and get them rehomed. So again, very reasonable measures. Please pass them. This is one thing that you can do right now to help people stay housed. Thank you. [Buzzer sounding] >> My time? Okay. Good morning, again. On number 20, services to household not to exceed $400,000 is a great expenditure. Our expenditure. 32 is agreement with sunrise community church. I stop at the bus stop over there on slaughter and manchaca and they do a great [11:00:39 AM] job of housing and finding housing for the people and also food. Number 39, approve a resolution relating to mobile homes, et cetera. Please pass that one. And number 40, approve resolution directing the city manager to draft an ordinance that authorizes the property located at 2400 south congress avenue, et cetera. And I will tell you this much, even under Bruce Todd's administration, we were talking about affordable housing. We had a lot of people being booted out of their homes, their rental homes. So please [speaking in Spanish] That means use your brain housing group. [Buzzer sounding] And help the people out. Thank you very much. >> On item 23, Sidney Betty followed by Emily Blair. >> Hi there. My name is situatedy Baity. [11:01:39 AM] I'm a researchers with Texas [inaudible]. Physical and mental health, employment and financial stability and housing stability. These impacts can be long lasting. Research has shown children in ejected households experience financial outcomes later in life. Evictions to stabilize communities, rehousing for residents facing evictions. Evictions are also a racial justice issue. Black renters face a 6.2 national filing rate versus 3.4% for white renters. Right to cure is increasingly common approach to eviction protection. New York state and the cities of Chicago, Minneapolis and San Francisco have all passed right to cure ordinances in the last few years. A key feature of right to cure it prevents eviction filings. Can result in housing destabilization. [11:02:39 AM] [Buzzer sounding] The proposal housing helps Austin renters avoid the harms of eviction and remain Stabley housed. Thank you. >> Item 23, Emily Blair. And jaopaulo Connally. >> Good morning, mayor and councilmembers. Thank you for your time. My name is Emily Blair and I represent the rental housing providers affiliated with the Austin apartment association. I'm speaking today on item 23, the notice of proposed eviction. The Austin apartment association is unable to support an ordinance mandating additional days notice. But what we can support is alternatives and specifically the recommended notice of tenants rights ordinance that was proposed in lieu of this ordinance. Or a narrow application of this morning's. For example, to those properties receiving city benefits or city incentives such as density bonus participants. We understand that there's [11:03:40 AM] some amements being discussed and I just want to speak in support of those including an amendment that would put a maximum number of curing per lease period. For lease violations during a lease term. I will look forward to working with you on housing items. Thank you for your time. [Buzzer sounding] >> Mayor Adler: Thank you. >> Item 23, jaopaulo Connally. >> Thank you, mayor and council,ood morning. I'm here to speak in favor of item 23 and 25. I want to quickly note that additional days to zero is zero days. I just want to make that clear. I also want to state that Austin right now has over 1,000 active eviction cases right now. So when we talk about preventing homelessness in our community and when we talk about addressing homelessness, the most effective thing we can do long term to address homelessness is create solutions that will keep [11:04:40 AM] people stablely housed for the long term. Right to cure is one of those solutions. We need to pass it. We need 21-day cure period. And that is more than reasonable. As has been noted, other states and cities around the country have 21 days for cure and so I would like to show my strong support for 21-day period to cure. I alsoant to know that austinites, 55% of austinites are renters, and yet all too often we do not show up, we do not participate in these conversations, we're not invited. So I'm excited to see. [Buzzer sounding] All of the renters who have showed up and calling in and adding their voices to this conversation. Thank you. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you. >> Item 23, Lindsay Haynes followed by Erica Johnson. >> Hello, my name is Lindsay hays, a general partner on 321 apartments in districts 1, 4 and 9. Though I own apartments, I'm a very small company and I provide quality workforce housing because it is my passion. [11:05:40 AM] The mortgage on my properties is 210,000 duels. The income potential is $294,00. To pay the mortgage on time and avoid being in default of the loan, 71% of the rent payments would have to be made on or before the 1st. In workforce housing, that is impossible. We learned in the pandemic that time does not cure rent delinquency. Adding an unproven notice to cure will give residents that regularly pay date the illusion that the rent date has changed. Jeopardizing the availability of quality, affordable housing in housing by 321 homes. It is also unnecessary, the Travis county justices of the peace have prove even they are fair and reasonable in dealings with residents and housing providers. I ask that you trust our elected jps to use their knowledge of the law and discernment in eviction matters. [Buzzer sounding] There's already a natural timing to cure with the courts. Thank you, mayor and council. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you. [11:06:40 AM] >> Item 23, Erica Johnson. And then Raul ubedes. >> My name is air I can't Johnson. I'm a representative of Austin apartment association. We would like to speak to the specifics of an alternative policy to have offered which is working well in other cities such as San Antonio whose council passed a similar policy in 2020. This requires rental housing providers to provide defaulting renters a notice of tenants rights along with a notice to vacate. The notice of tenants rights documents explains a notice to vacate is what the eviction process is. What the renter's rights are and provides resources for rental and legal assistance. In other words, it actually points them to real help when they need it most rather than leaving them in the unknown. Waiting for three more weeks to pass or seven weeks. [11:07:41 AM] We're hoping for some solution. None of us want anyone to be evicted, but what it becomes necessary it should be handled in a way that provides meaningful support and resources within the law. [Buzzer sounding] >> Mayor Adler: Thank you. >> Raul ubedes and katya Watson. Item 23. Katya Watson. >> Good morning and thank you, mayor and councilmembers. My name is katya and I represent the rental communities in Austin. I'm here to speak on item 23. I want to speak to the late fee statute under Texas law and bring attention to what is currently practice. Late fees can the no be [11:08:41 AM] charged until the fourth day of the month. If rent is do on the first, late rent cannot be charged until the 4th. There is an opportunity to cure. Some property managers give more time and most don't send notices to vacate. All prior to delivering illegal notice. This includes eviction holdoff agreements which outlines rental payment plans. Extenting the opportunity to cure will result in notice to vacate being sent during the cure period creating unintended consequences because residents think they have to vacate their homes increasing the risk of not meeting rental criteria and increasing housing concern. The pandemic showed extending this time has proven to mitigate the concerns. [Buzzer sounding] It has exacerbated it. Thank you for your time. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you. >> [Inaudible] Brewster followed by Sadie forum. [11:09:52 AM] >> I am speaking in favor of items 23 and 25. As a renter in Austin who faced eviction and displacement last year, these things are very important to renters. The right to organize, if we didn't have that right to organize, meeting with Natasha harper-madison last year, working with Basta, being able to talk to the owners of our complex, we would have been homeless. So it's very important to us and to everyone that's renting in Austin that 23 aen 25 be approved. Thank you. >> Mayor Adler? >> Mayor Adler: Yes. >> May I? >> Ms. Brewster, I want to also extend my deep gratitude and thanks to you for not letting me make it in the beginning. For making sure that I really thoroughly felt the frustration of you and your [11:10:53 AM] neighbors and making it my own. You made me take it on. So don't thank me for doing it because I don't think you all were going to let me get away without doing it. I want to say to Mr. Connally's point, he pointed out oftentimes certain people get left out of conversations. I think more often than not it's by design, but I also think, you know, we've done it for so long that we just keep doing it. And it's one of those things that has to change and I'm so inspired to see the 02 crew, 78702 represented at city hall in the chambers this morning. I think everybody is better for your participation today. So thank you. >> Sadie forum on 23 and 25. And then Steven frishmuth. Sadie? Or Sade, sorry if I'm saying [11:11:55 AM] that wrong. Steven frishmuth. >> Yes, good morning. My name is Steven frishmuth. I live at creek's edge apartments. That property has been on the repeat offender list for the decade I have lived there. I'm afraid that's kind of on you all. I want to encourage you to add the cure as well as the other protections that we need that we're asking for today. You know what it is, you know why it is. I'm just asking you to do it. Thank you very much. [11:12:56 AM] >> Conner Kinney, 23 and 25. And then jian litrell. >> Good morning, council. I am a ground-up builder development so I will admit some bias. I wanted to talk about the dominant form of real estate he investment, it is value add real estate investing. In Austin -- a market like Austin's supply and demand is imbalance. There's a constant effort to find -- value-add investors know what rents are currently achievable. Look for apartments whose rent is below that, buy them, paint them, sometimes put Miller in their name and raise the rent. The rise in interest rates is going to push this further as new supply slows down, as new projects are put on hold and current investors are getting in trouble with short-term debt [11:13:57 AM] and need a raise to justify their refinance. Evicting tenants to turn those over faster is absolutely part of the toolbox. Their turn of a surplus of units to make Austin a tenants market where landlords have to compete to build. [Buzzer sounding] Thank you. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you. >> Jian litrel, and Joyce Mcgee. >> My name is Jeannie litrel, I live at Arbors at creekside and a member of the association. I support the right to cure because people are struggling to get by and stay in their housing. I would have been evicted during the pandemic if I had not had extra time to pay my rent. I've been in and out of the hospital many times over the last two years which have made it hard to pay the rent [11:14:57 AM] on time. Extra time to pay rent is really important for seniors and people with chronic health conditions like me. Knowing that I will be safe from eviction for a few weeks if I get sick when rent is due will give me the peace of mind to get better. If I get evicted because I can't pay rent when I'm sick I will end up on the streets. Keeping me and others like me housed is important to staying healthy. This ordinance will help people maintain a quality of life which is extremely important. Thank you. >> Joyce Mcgee on 23 and 25. Followed by Steve Rhoades. >> Hello. I'm sorry. Hello, my name is Joyce [11:15:58 AM] mcgee.I'm a member of the Arbors resident association. I am here to speak in support of the tenants right to organize. The right to organize is important because we need a voice in what's being done where we live. It's important for neighbors to be able to communicate with each other and have the right to speak up for ourselves. At Arbors of creek, we organized for the right for our voices to be heard, for better living conditions, repairs, security, and healthy apartments. For a long time we had managers that didn't make repairs, treated us disrespectful, bullied and threatened us with evictions. We organized for new management and won. We now have a management who respects us and listens to what is being said and working with all residents as a whole. We are glad about the change and how far we've come. This is results of organizing a tenants association. I think our renters should be able to organize like we have and all time have respect for one another. [11:16:59 AM] [Buzzer sounding] Thank you. God bless and have a blessed day. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you. >> Item 23 and 25, Steve Rhoades, followed by Bob Thompson. Steve Rhoades? Bob Thompson. >> Mayor and council, good morning. My name is Bob Thompson. My wife and I are small mom and pop landlords of smaller, older properties and we oppose items 23 and 25 because we think these [11:17:59 AM] ordinances are likely to drive small mom and pop landlords to exit the rental business unless smaller properties are exempted, which I understand you may be considering. Also I would ask you to read the handout that should be on the dais in front of you that I passed out. The elephant in the room on these two ordinances is that they ignore, override and seek to revoke the right of an owner to non-renew a lease upon its expiration following timely notice to the resident and demand repossession of one's properties. The repossession demand is effectively a notice to vacate at the end of the lease, but it is not an eviction. Non-renewal post-repossession is the most fundamental property right there is. [Buzzer sounding] It is absolute, unrestricted. You can non-renew for no reason or any reason. There is no entitlement to perpetual renewal, no opportunity to cure, and it [11:19:01 AM] is not interference even if organizing activities have already begun. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you. >> Thank you. >> For 23, 25 and 39, show Shoshana Kreiger. >> Good morning, mayor and councilmembers. My name is Shoshana Kreiger and I'm the project director of Basta, here today to speak on items 23, 35 39. We work with tenants every day who are struggling to stay housed in this city. As I speak right now, two tenants from the congress mobile home park are at eviction hearings because their investor backed landlord base in California is trying to evict them so he can create a luxury rv community. They only got 60 days' notice to vacate, and the relocation ordinance as it [11:20:02 AM] currently is written did not prevent their landlord from doing this. Over the past five years, landlords have interfered with tenant organizing activities, call APD on tenants and Basta staff, removing flyers and calling APD on us when we were distributing water and food after winter storm rio the current property code protections do not prevent this. [Buzzer sounding] They tell us landlords refused to accept rent after a notice to vacate. Currently law does not protect this. This includes small landlords. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you. >> [Inaudible] For 23, 39, 42 and Ryan nil. >> Mayor, mayor pro tem, councilmembers. I'm speaking here today as an advocate and affordable housing advocate. [11:21:02 AM] I want to speak in favor of items 23, 48, 49 and 42. I want to start by thanking councilmember vela and the mayor and staff by working with property owners to come up with a right to organize ordinance that supports tenants and allows people to stay in their homes while addressing any other issues. I also want to support the ordinance that allows tenants to cure any concerns that might arise and continue being housed in their properties. Lastly I want to thank councilmember Fuentes for her work on item 39 which addresses some issues with our relocation ordinance to align it with its different intent that has H happened from this council over the last few years. Lastly, I want to thank councilmember tovo for her work on items for all of those years and former councilmember Greg Casar for his effort to make sure these items got across the finish line. [Buzzer sounding] Thank you so much. And hopefully we can protect our tenants. >> Mayor adler:nk you. [11:22:02 AM] >> Ryan nil or item 39. And then Laurie Renteria. >> Hello, councilmembers. Ryan nil. I'm an independent consultant and today I'm representing the Texas manufactured housing association. We want to support item 39, actually we do support item 39, closing the loophole which some mobile home communities have used to avoid tenant relocation and putting mobile homes more on an even footing with other housing types. In a hud case study they found that the cost of a single-family mobile home was five times as much as a neighboring mobile home community. The impact is immense for these communities. More needs to be done to support mobile home owners. At the last housing and planning committee, staff reported many mobile home owners that were eligible for tenant relocation assistance cannot get it because they cannot find any space to move to in the city of Austin. So displaced mobile home [11:23:02 AM] owners have to make a difficult choice, WHE they abandon their home or their city. Displaced mobile home owners should be allowed to move their homes into a friend's backyards as an accessory dwelling unit -- [buzzer sounding] -- Should be allowed to place their homes in residential zoned properties and the city should convert some of its land to support displadd homeowners. Thank you. >> Laurie Renteria, item 41. >> Good morning. My name is Laurie Renteria. I am the first first lady of district 3 and I'm here to speak on item 41. Item -- I generally support item 41 and I'm here as a community agitator speaking for myself about the inter intergenerational resource and activity center that has been in the works since [11:24:03 AM] 2012. Some of you, Ann kitchen was part of this way back when. A group of academics and every major senior serving non-profit and other evenly at this time, central health, community care, you name it. If they serve seniors, they've been together as an advisory group, pushing for the use of the Nash Hernandez building on lady bird lake. And the parks department misled us by taking -- and many of the reports -- [buzzer sounding] -- >> Carry on. >> Many of the reports caught -- >> I would like to hear the rest of this. >> Mayor Adler: Go ahead and finish your thought. >> Thank you, because we only have two meetings left for this council to designate the city manager to create and get pard to work with us on a letter of [11:25:04 AM] intent to use the Nash building. This center will be the first in Texas. It's going to be a model that we're going to replicate everywhere. Dove springs being the first place we'll go after this is successful. We've raised -- we will raise all the money, 1.8 million annually and 5 to $8 million in a capital campaign to make the building usable to serve very low-income seniors, 30 toddlers of your first responders, and involve martin middle school children to provide, you know, activities and help the seniors. I sent you as backup a one and a half pages say about why you need to do this now -- essay. And we can not trust pard under item 41, I was [11:26:07 AM] concerned that you might not be aware that this item could allow pard to use the Nash building for admin offices. It is ridiculous for a city department to have admin offices on the hike and bike trail. The holly shores master plan called for 100% community use. And we were misled. Pard took us on tours, three tours of the building so we could come up with our cost estimates and do schematics. So I appreciate in item 41 that there's going to be more transparency than what our advisory group has been going through with pard. Thank you. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you very much. Next speaker. >> Kitchen: Mayor? >> Excellent citizen input. >> Mayor Adler: Please, plea. Go ahead, councilmember kitchen. >> Renteria: I know that particular item is not in -- [11:27:09 AM] >> Kitchen: I know that particular item is not in front of us and I understand the concerns, but I would like to city manager to let us know what the status is of using that property and then I'll ask my colleague about that also. It is some that intergenerational facility is something that we started working on a long time ago, but I would like to understand the status. >> Pool: Mayor? >> Mayor Adler: Thank on a second. >> Pool: It's not item 41, so what is T number of this item? >> Mayor Adler: It's related to real estate, I think. >> [Inaudible - no mic on] >> Mayor Adler: Okay. Imagine you will provide an update to that information. >> Mayor and council, there's a memo so I'll recirculate that but obviously further conversation is warranted as well. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you. Next speaker. >> Ethan Smith for item 42, [11:28:12 AM] followed by Richard Bramer. >> Shame on you for not allowing them three minutes. Three minutes. >> Good morning. So I signed up tore neutral on 42 because we don't really have have a good definition of what affordability is because we've been talking about it so long. The devil is in the details. You have to get down to the actual metrics. I wanted to pull up as a case study, this is from the winning rfp for health south, and these were the top community benefits that aspen heights listed. 100 units of rental housing at%% mfi, and 16 units of things people can buy if you are 80% income restricted. Slide please. These all kind of blur together, I best, but here's [11:29:12 AM] the deal. If you are living in those, I would argue that the two and three-bedrooms are form and the one-bedrooms are not. The one-bedrooms are 65% of the rental housing diversity. I don't like these opportunities for ownership. I think these 16 would be better if you put them with the other 100 units and put them in that pool. Every single unit if you want affordable housing should be two or three- bedroom. [Buzzer sounding] Why not have it be one bathroom, two bedrooms? Look at the price. 1050 or 500 per month. And you get a lot more people helped that way. Thank you. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you. >> Richard Bramer followed by Dale glover. >> Good morning, mayor Adler, mayor pro tem and councilmembers. I'm a member of the Austin [11:30:14 AM] environmental commission. I'm speaking on support of environmental commission's October 5 recommendations to improve the updates of title 25, the land development code. The charter the environmental commission states it is our response it to and I quote advise city council, city manager and the appropriate city departments in their efforts oversee the protection and integrity of the natural environment, unquote. Our recommendations are the best advice to the council and appropriate city departments on how to protect the integrity of Austin's natural environment for all of its citizens. I've carefully reviewed the city -- the response of the city staff to our recommendations. My comments are as follows. The makeup of tomorrow's council is uncertain. Today's council known for its commitment to environmental equity, climate action, forward-looking perspective, has the opportunity of the environmental committee recommendations to make a need impact on the future of climate and environmental equity in Austin. [Buzzer sounding] I would encourage each of you to seize the opportunity today to include the environmental commission's [11:31:15 AM] recommendations in your final product and make a bold, permanent and lasting mark on the city of Austin future. Climate change is coming to Austin very quickly. Thank you for your time. >> Dale glover for item 45. Followed by Joan Harvard. Mr. Glover? Joan Harvard for item 45. Michael Kleinman. Item 45. After Michael will be Patrick mccargill. >> Good morning, mayor and councilmembers. My name is Michael Klein man, I live on east Cesar Chavez and own the property next door which is the home [11:32:15 AM] of planet K. I'm founder and chief cook and bottle washer of planet K. In March of 2018 ever I sued the city in federal court for violation of the clean water act, I was handed a hollow victory by the court. While winning the lawsuit, the city of Austin was guilty of violating the clean water act, the judge gave himself $25,000. All I wanted was a seat at the table to fix the problem that the city has ignored and have not fixed after four years. This issue is not about an ugly sand bar. This is about the degradation and choking of the Colorado river and wasting of millions of taxpayer dollars. Item 45 has been brought up. I'm a property owner, I've never been notified about any of this. There's a lack of transparency and lack of community involvement. [Buzzer sounding] This has been going on 2018, you've done nothing to fix the problem. You are choking the Colorado [11:33:16 AM] river. All this pandering to environmental stuff doesn't mean anything for a lack of action. The city staff is responsible for this. I appreciate your time. I hope you would get to fixing the Colorado river before I have to sue you all again. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Oh, hallow night look up at the stars, 9:30, big fireworks. Thank you very much. >> Patrick mccargill, 45. And then John Noel. Either Patrick or John here? Mayor, that concludes all the speakers that I have registered. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. Do we have any other speakers that think that they signed up wishing to speak? All right, good. Thank you very much. Colleagues, the consent agenda is items 1 through 42 and 63 through 68. I'm showing the pulled items [11:34:19 AM] are 23 and 25. And also 41. I'm showing that the item in front of us on 42 is version 5, which has been handed out and posted. I think there's a direction from councilmember kitchen and councilmember alter on 31 and 34 respectively. I want to present those. >> Kitchen: My direction is for 30, 31 and 32. It applies to all of them. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. And that's been posted in backup? >> Kitchen: Yes. It was sent around in backup. I haven't double checked that, but it was also sent around by Katy. >> Mayor Adler: And staff is okay with this? >> Just to correct the [11:35:20 AM] record, it's -- >> Kitchen: Isn't it 30. I think it's 30, 31, 32. Let me double-check. It is 30, 31, 32 and 33. Is that right. >> Kitchen: Just -- >> Mayor Adler: So on consent is those items 30, 31, 32 with the kitchen direction associated with them. Mayor pro tem on item number 34, you also handed out a direction. Is that posted? Do you know? Yes, it isosted as well. On consent is number 34 with the alter direction. Mayor pro tem? >> Alter: I would like to make this motion, but I'm just wondering if Zenobia Joseph is still on line. I just got an email she is trying to get in to speak. [11:36:22 AM] >> Mayor Adler: That would be over the phone. Is the clerk here? >> I don't see anyone in the cue. >> Mayor Adler: Our clerk is not seeing anyone in the phone cue. Is there an alternate way or instruction we can get to Ms. Joseph to be able to participate? All right. You work on that. Please interrupt us if you are able to make that contact. >> Alter: Thank you. Then I would like to make a motion for item 34. I would like to explain my amendment, if I might. >> Mayor Adler: Go ahead. >> Alter: So my direction is to further council's ongoing commitment to support the women and minority owned program for [11:37:23 AM] procurement, city manager instructed to ex floor additional complimentary programs that will promote further contracting opportunities for small businesses including but not limited to minority and women owned businesses. Such programs should consider a local preference feature and presented to council for axe action 10 council can align to the disparity studies for mbe. As part of the stakeholder process for developing updated WBE goals and the programs, the city manager is directed to work the local chamber of commerces to renew the 2022 disparity studying and identify ways to support small businesses offered by past legal assessments. As we move forward with the process with respect to mwe, given the disparity study we're likely going to see a reduction in goals. So this is providing direction that when we see [11:38:24 AM] those goals come back, that we fully explore other opportunities and ways that we can support our small and local businesses, including our mwbe but not exclusively in ways that other cities around Texas are doing. It is possible for us to do a small local business preference that would be focused on prime contracts and that is one of the key ways that I want -- key things that I want to be explored. I'm not limiting my direction to that. If there are other ways that we can do that, and I want that program to be coming back to us either before or at the same time as the new goals would be presented to us. And then I believe this is probably something that our staff are already doing with respect to working with the chambers, but just really underscoring the need to work with our chambers to identify wayshat the city can further support our small local businesses in [11:39:24 AM] accordance with the law. Thank you. >> Mayor Adler: I appreciate and up city positive amendment. Appreciate incorpong it it in fast the he shall I raised on Tuesday and I think the other chambers that reached out as well as reaching out to others of us on the council. Mayor pro tem, thank you for picking it up and doing the drafting. And direction is included in that item. Any other further additions to the consent agenda? Ms. Morgan, do you have something on one of the items? >> Thank you, mayor. Item 22 is a settlement. I'm here today to recommend you approve payment of $1,750,000 to settle the Jose Herrera versus city of Austin lawsuit. As you know this lawsuit arises out of the may 2020 [11:40:27 AM] protests involving the police department. He seeks -- in exchange for the payment, the plaintiff will release all claims against the city and APD officers for any claims arising out of the incident and dismiss with prejudice his lawsuit. We recommend that you pay that settlement. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you. That amount is filled in on the agenda with respect to item 21. It stays on the consent. >> Mayor? >> Mayor Adler: Item 22, sorry. That stays on the consent agenda. Yes. >> Item 39, which is the update to the tenant relocation ordinance, we are working on a quick amendment to that item. So I'm going to pull it off consent for now. >> Mayor Adler: Which one? >> Item 39. >> Mayor Adler: Item 39 is [11:41:28 AM] being pulled at this point. Consent agenda items 1 through 42, 63 to 68. Pued items are 23, 25, and 39 and 41. Anything else? Councilmember tovo. >> Tovo: Yeah, just a couple quick votes I want to register, but also I want to note on number 8, I'm going to vote no. This is the aerial encroachment resulting in evaluation of about 21,000, I think 21,500 for downtown real estate. That is substantially lower than is really a fair valuation. We have raised this -- these kinds of valuations multiple times over the years and have asked the manager to look into it. We did get back a very useful memo yesterday dated yesterday. My apologies, on the 25t, two days ago. And I just want to call my [11:42:29 AM] colleagues' attention to it. It talks about the city code prevents -- does not allow deviation from the computation process so staff cannot negotiate amount nor can council direction supersede that item of code. It asks that -- it says under the current code methodology, deployed encroachment agreements, violations typically yield compensation amounts relatively small fractions of the fee simple and that to make any changes we would need to adjust the code. This is something that has come up multiple, multiple times on this council. The first time I heard this conversation happen, I was serving on the planning commission as volunteer, and manager we have asked for this to be looked at multiple times. But this is the first time we've clearly gotten back an explanation why we can't get proper valuation. I'm going to vote against this today. I'm also going to highlight, colleagues, the public land resolution that I have [11:43:30 AM] brought forward with my colleagues does direct, among other things, does direct that staff take the action that they've identified here of going forward and providing the council with some alternative methodologies they can consider so that we are actually realizing the value for our encroachments. And I would like to register my abstention on items 40 and 42, please. >> Pool: I want to register a no vote on the aerial encroachment as well. I think it is item 64 as 8 had been withdrawn. Is that correct? >> Mayor Adler: That's correct. >> Pool: And for the same reasons that were explained by councilmember tovo. >> Mayor Adler: Anything else on the consent agenda? Councilmember Kelly. >> Kelly: Thank you. I would also like to register a no vote for item 2, item 64, and I would like to abstain from item 42. [11:44:32 AM] >> Mayor Adler: Okay. Thank you. So noted. Mayor pro tem? >> Alter: Thank you. I think item 8 was withdrawn and it's 64 for the aerial encroachment and I would also like to be seen voting no, and I think 40 was withdrawn and replaced by 66, for your reference, councilmember tovo. Councilmember tovo, if you are going to be working on those changes that have to happen to code for that, for the aerial encroachment, we would like to work with you on it. If not, then we'll take it up for future reference. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. >> Tovo: Mayor -- >> Mayor Adler: Wait. >> Alter: I want to speak to item 42 and I want to first of all say I appreciate the extra time, appreciate the work and the effort of my colleagues, to the mayor and councilmember [11:45:32 AM] pool to address the concerns that I raised. I think it is a much stronger resolution than what it started. I am going to abstain today because I -- while I appreciate all the changes and I think it is much better, I'm still having trouble how I would explain this to my constituents exactly what we can expect from this item. And the time line for the framework seems nebulous. It's also not clear to me from the language that the framework -- this framework would ever come back to council for formal approval before it begins to be applied by our staff. And so rather than spend time debating an item that so many of my colleagues were comfortable with passing last week, I'm going to abstain on that item today rather than keep us here debating something where I know I don't have the votes. But I do very much appreciate the work that went into improving it and I think it will be a much [11:46:33 AM] stronger contribution for that extra conversation. So thank you for that. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. Councilmember Kelly. >> Kelly: Thank you. Real quickly, I want to speak about an item that I authored, item 65. It has not been pulled and I thank you all for that support. It helps fill a critical need regarding text messages to 911 communications and directs our city manager to initiate a procurement process concerning translation technology for 911. I learned about this need from a recent visit to the public safety communication center, and when I visited, I learned that if an individual is experiencing an emergency and for some reason is not able to call 911, they have the ability to text 911. In Austin, if a text message comes into our 911 call center, call takers oftentimes have to translate the information they receive manually. As you are aware in an emergency every second counts. Among many of the benefits of this resolution, the procurement of the technology will ought mate [11:47:33 AM] the translation of texts accurately and give speakers other than English the potential to access emergency services faster and again more accurately. It also amends our legislative agenda to support legislation regarding a national standard for text to 911 translation which currently does not exist anywhere in the country. Additionally this text translation technology will allow for our mental health counselors to have the ability to assist those with limited English proficiency during non-emergency mental health situations. I want to take a moment and thank my co-sponsors councilmember villa, Renteria, harper-madison and kitchen for their support on this item, but I want to take a molt to thank aerocele communities. The work you do on behalf of the communities, you all are a calming influen, you are the quiet calming voices that provide sanity and safety when there's kayos on the other end of the line. You are expected to gather information from agitated individuals who oftentimes don't remember where they [11:48:34 AM] are, what their name is or what to do facing an emergency. Then you all calmly provide that information to the officers, firefighters or paramedics to respond without error the first time and every time. On behalf of the city of Austin, thank you for what you do. It's my hope that this tool will give you additional assistance when helping others facing an emergency. >> Mayor Adler: Any further conversation on the consent agenda? Councilmember harper-madison. >> Harper-madison: Thank you, mayor. I just wanted to make certain I didn't miss something. Item 34 stayed on the consent agenda, correct? >> Mayor Adler: Correct. >> Harper-madison: I did have comments on item 34. I wanted to thank our staff for the work they've done on the program and bringing forward these badly needed updates. It's something I've been hearing about since I took office. It was in addition to -- well, it was something I've been hearing about since I took office so I'm glad it's finally happening. Looking through them I did have concerns about how the [11:49:35 AM] disparity study might affect our minority and women owned businesses. I'm grateful to mayor pro tem for bringing forward her amendments. I also believe it will be posh for the small businesses and retention department to work with the purchasing office to develop a local preference program. So I'm also grateful to see that come forward. And to at the very least work with our offices and the deca chambers to pursue similar goals. I really appreciate the folks involved with all the deca chambers being candid and bringing concerns to us. Oftentimes it's the kind of siloed information if you don't bring it we don't have it. Thank you for allowing us to be more thoughtful with our deliberations. I'm also interested to see staff to continue to collaborate with the local chambers on how an analysis will steak stakeholders as the program's goals are readjusted. I look forward to future updates on the effort and [11:50:36 AM] here and along the way from our small businesses affected by the updates whether or not they are seeing things change. That was maybe what I recognized the most was consistently small businesses were saying, you know, that they haven't seen any change, that they had been programsed change for years and hadn't seen any change. I look forward to having them feel like their concerns have been addressed. Thank you. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you. Councilmember kitchen. >> Kitchen: Yes, I just wanted to briefly comment on the direction that I have on item 30, 31 and 32. I want to thank everyone involved that we were able to work out some language that is very helpful, I think. This item speaks to working with sunrise on their navigation services and their outreach services, excuse me, in the behavioral [11:51:38 AM] health services. This is a -- this service is very important for our homeless population. It is located in an area that has caused some difficulties with regard -- some challenges arched the surrounding space, but everyone has come together with the city to work towards some solutions in the short term and long term. So I'm very pleased to be able to move forward with assisting sunrise in the services that they provide and funding additional services. I think that will be very helpful. I want to thank them for their interest in working with the school that's right across the street from them and also in working with the community to collaboratively come up with solutions to address some of the impacts that have occurred surrounding that property. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you. Colleagues, I want to [11:52:40 AM] address the [inaudible] Question because several folks have talked about it. And I thank the manager as weigh talked about last time this is an issue that needs to be pulled back to the council. But I would cast it differently. And I also think it's important in the memo that was sent out on the 25th, the staff wro that based on the conversation, the council desires to realize more revenue from encroachment. I don't think you can accurately say that. I think what you can say is some of the members of council expressed that desire. Just because a councilmember expresses a desire does not mean that's the council expressing that desire. I think all too often staff trying to be responsive assumes that silence is acquiesce he knows and I think that's not an appropriate assumption. We do know at least some councilmembers do. I think that this is a [11:53:41 AM] complicated policy issue that is presented and it deserves, quite frankly, more conversation. The definition of market value in Texas, in fact pretty universally around the country, is that market value is the price that would be paid in the marketplace between a willing buyer and a willing seller. Both having armed with all the information that would be relevant and neither under duress to sell or compulsion to buy. That last phrase is pretty significant. When we as a city try to acquire property, and let's say we're trying to get access down to the running trail and let's say there's only one place to get access down to the running trail, and we go to condemn five feet off the back of somebody's property, they could come to us and say, well, five feet off the back of all these properties is [11:54:41 AM] worth this amount, but I know how badly you need this because this is the only place that you can access it so I want to charge ten times that or 100 times that. And if you don't want to buy it from me, that's okay, you don't have to. Go buy it from somebody else, which, of course, you can't because that's the only piece of property that is available. So the law over market value, and there have been hundreds if not thousands of cases on this trying to figure out what that means, is that the appraisers then are asked to do as best they can as experts in valuation of real estate to try to ascertain what the price of that would be absent the fact that there's only one seller possible to sell that. And the courts don't let property owners charge that holdup price to the city [11:55:41 AM] when the city is trying to acquire property. So the question that's Teed up in front of us is when we are selling our own property or leasing our own property, should the city maximize what it can get even if it's more than market value, as defined by our constitution and the courts that have evaluated that. Because it's not a forced transaction, I think we could do that legally. I think we could say the city doesn't sell property at market value especially when we know the person trying to buy it from us has to buy it from us and can't buy it from anybody else, so we want our staff to go negotiate hard and get however much you can get from that because we have the controlling position here. And that would be an appropriate policy -- that would be a justify final [11:56:42 AM] policy for a public entity like a city to make. Or a cityld say we're going to apply the same rules when we sell property as we're -- we enjoy when we buy property in a forced sale from someone who can't say they don't want to sell it because we can always condemn it. That's a really important it's a longer conversation. But it's a very clear policy choice. And I think that what we were asking for when this came up was staff to come ck and T that question upor us. Because I think that is an appropriate question, because we keep running into this situation repeatedly. It's not going to be something that goes away and it's not going to have a very satisfying answer to anybody until we have that policy conversation. I don't think you have heard yet what this council would [11:57:43 AM] do in that policy conversation, but I think you should tee it up before you bring any of these back, and hopefully not in the context of bringing more back, but tee up that conversation for the council to be able to have. Councilmember tovo. >> Tovo: Mayor, I agree with all you said even if we might ultimately agree on what that looks like, but I want to point out that that is one of the elements, indeed, that is in the public land resolution that's on our agenda today that I intend to postpone but there is a section called right-of-way vaccination and license agreements that is designed to direct the manager to look at an alternatives and to come back to do just what you've described, tee up that policy conversation for the council to have so they can evaluate different options with regard to that question. After all these years of having it arise and arise and arise, this would tee up that conversation, which is a timely one because as I [11:58:44 AM] understand there are four or five encroachments behind this one. >> Tovo: Thank you. Any other conversation on the consent agenda? The consent agenda is items 1 through 42, 62 to 68. Items being pulled are items 23, 25, 39 and 41. Notations have been made, objections noted. Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda? Councilmember pool makes the commotion. Commotion. Councilmember Ellis seconds that. All those in favor? Those opposed? It's unanimous on the dais and we are all here. Councilmember tovo. >> Tovo: Mayor, I apologize, I meant to clarify for the clerk I had registered some different votes and mayor pro tem updated those numbers. Hopefully that all got recordedurately. Thank you. >> Tovo: Got it. And it is now noon, so [11:59:44 AM] colleagues, let's go ahead and call speakers and then we have speakers and then we have some music today. I urge everybody to be thinking about. And I would propose that -- let's see how long speakers take and then we'll make a guess how long music will take. Let's go ahead and call up the speakers that have signed up. >> The first speaker is Sean Katz: >> Is the presentation up. >> Mayor Adler: Do you have Mr. Katz' presentation? [12:00:46 PM] >> Okay. Good afternoon everyone. I'm here to ask the city of Austin to invest in adaptive signal technology. Adaptive signal technology is technology that's been out for several decades in different forms of evolution. It's basically a technology which enable the traffic lights to be interrupted by other cars, which are coming in to the intersection by sensors. And it's been around since the '80s. It's been evolved over time and in this century systems have been developed to make is more sophisticated with cameras and basically measure the traffic in each intersection to -- is it [12:01:47 PM] working? Different intersections to change the lights accordingly. The problems that we have right now in intersections in Austin is that the increasing infrastructure cost, traffic congestion, traffic lights are not in sync. There are some dead green lights which cars are waiting but there's no traffic in the intersection. The municipalities are not using, for example, along 620. And the traffic lights themselves are having synced only in -- and calibrate only once in three years in average. Every power outage is causing massive traffic jams. The benefits of this technology is to savings a lot of cost in infrastructure, it is saving a lot of fuel. Traffic lights are maintained more efficiently. The CO2 reduction and traffic can be prioritized [12:02:47 PM] also to expedite 911 traffic and public traffic. There has been some examples, recent examples of implementation of this technology in the past years. Most notably is in Seattle. They have the [indiscernible] Corridor there which they were able to improve the traffic by 20% there, and also another example is in Colorado which you could compare that to the 620 traffic, pretty much same profile of traffic, also 20% of improvement. From financial planning perspective, the return on investment is it's -- it's a great one. I mean, it depends on how you look at the return on investment. From maintenance costs, it's going to take a few years to cover it, but if you add only -- only if you add the [12:03:47 PM] gas costs, that it costs the citizens, that creates a return on investment of two months. [Buzzer]. That was my cue. From an implementation perspective it's easy to implement. You can only implement a subset of a region and you can measure -- you can run a pilot and take it from there. Thank you. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you very much. >> Kevin fiercey. >> Hi guys. My name is Kevin, but they call me Kevin fierce. The Y is silent. Listen, I'm here because in June I got out of a really long relationship with my boyfriend Gustavo. And we broke up because he was an anti-vaxer and he [12:04:48 PM] refused to get vaccinated for monkeypox. So hi to kick him to the curb because I don't date science deniers and I don't mess with trump supporters! But ever since we broke up I've been really having a hard time. I haven't been able to find anybody. And listen, like you know, me and Enrique, we used to go to rain together, we used to go to oil can Harries, we used to make so many friends. You have no idea how many people we met at gold in the steam room. Oh my god. But I haven't been able to do any of that since the monkeypox virus. You know, every time I meet a cute boy and I ask if they're vaccinated, either they're not vaccinated because they're trump supporters, or they refuse to show me their vax card. And I'm sexually free, I'm very liberated. You know, we did a lot of stuff with a lot of different guys in a lot of different positions in a lot [12:05:50 PM] of really cool places, but you have to be safe. And if you're not vaccinated for monkeypox, I wanting for to do with you. But I am so lonely. Like you have no idea, guys. You know, and every time I meet a cute boy they never show me their vax card and they always walk away from me. Listen, I have been celibate for four months. I have not had group sex since June 10th! Aahhhh. You have no idea how lonely I am. Steve, you have no idea what it feels like to sit on the toilet and not be in any pain because the pain is here. The pain is in my heart. And you know, we need better monkeypox vaccine distribution. And like we need to make these vaccines mandatory. [12:06:53 PM] Because I shouldn't be shut out of having an emotionally inti relationship with a man or five at the same time, okay? I'm sorry, I'm emotional, okay? I haven't had any loving human contact since Jorge and I split up. So I'm sorry if I'm a little bit hysterical. Not only that, but also they're making a newer version of monkeypox that's even deadlier in Maryland. We need to make these monkeypox vaccines mandatory. [Buzzer]. [Off mic]. >> The next speaker is mark Overstreet. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you. Mr. Overstreet. [12:08:07 PM] >> Mr. Mayor, members of the council. I'm mark Overstreet and I live in district 3. With your permission I can get this done in just under four minutes. >> Mayor Adler: You have three minutes. >> If you will please refer to the handout, you have the printed handout. Is that affirmed that you do. >> Mayor Adler: I think it's been handed out. >> I'm here to call your attention to unauthorized damage along the southern walnut creek trail. Page 1 of the handout shows that the trail begins on the left and heads east undeth 183 and goes north. The red circle indicates the damaged area. Page 2 shows a trail from mile two to mile 3.5 with the same area schedule. Page 3 illustrates that this portion of the trail runs through a large wooded area that has deer and other wildlife. Page 4 illustrates that it also has hiking trails. Page 5, which you will have to rotate, sooms in he damaged area. The trail is the lightly [12:09:09 PM] colored line running through the top left side of the triangular wooded area. Here's the problem. Several weeks ago I saw a fellow using a lawn mower to cut bicycle paths from the trail alongside and into the woods indicated by the redlines on the left and right of the map. A few days later I observed perhaps the same guy with a weed whacker and a saw in the wooded area. He said he had permission to cut a bicycle path, but that was not truelove the following day I returned to see what he had done. Within the wooded area between the redlines he had weed whacked, cut down live trees and sawed off live tree limbs for a serpentine bike path. My gps measured it at 1400 yards. Pages six, seven and eight show where the weed whacking and tree cutting begins on the right and examples of the dozens of trees that have been cut. I notified the city manager, Austin water, parks and rec and public works. Everyone has been very professional and responsive. [12:10:09 PM] The area in question is under Austin water. Parks has the concrete trowel. Public works has maintenance along th trail. Two weeks ago I met water and parks on the trail. In addition to where the trees have been cut I showed them page 9 in the handout where a bicycler then placed a ramp to convert a trail into a tra of a motocross. I suggested signs near the trails two mile and three and a half mile marker, the last bicycle access boths below and above this portion of the trail prohibiting alterations to the natural habitat and man-made contraptions off trail. I used to be a bicycle racer and I know how some bicyclers can be. Without such signs they will use lawn mowers, weed whackers and saws to cut another bicycle path and not just along the southern walnut creek trail. It was discussed whether people should be prohibited from going off the concrete trail altogether, however I think that would be excessive because lots of [12:11:10 PM] people use the hiking trails without a problem. To paraphrase the supreme court chief justice, when it's not nose do more, it's not necessary to do more. In conclusion, they agreed to prohibit alterations to the natural habitat and contraptions off trail but not prohibit people from using the hiking trails otherwise. I encourage the council to have the city manager to construct Austin water to adhere to that plan. Thank you. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any other speakers? >> Sorry, mayor, that's all the speakers we have. >> Mayor Adler: Okay, thank you. Appreciate everybody participating. All right. We get to now listen to some music from gabby got it. Looking forward to that. The time is 12:12. I would suggest that we try to reconvene here at 1:30 [12:12:11 PM] and maybe we can get a little work done and we can take up maybe 23, 25 and get those resolved before we take speakers at 2:00. Again, we'll do the consent agenda, we'll do quick items if we can perhaps instead, I'll go through the agenda and see, but let's take as many things off the agenda as we can by 2:00. 2:00 we'll do the speakers, we'll do zoning consent and then we'll do the executive session. Yes. >> Ellis: Yes. Just wanted to see if our colleagues would be interested in taking a photo in front of the dais when we break to celebrate our third match that we'll be having with Austin fc, our hometown team advancing in the playoffs. We'll be playing Los Angeles on Sunday, which I'm super excited to see. And just wanted to give a shout-out to Austin fc, our team and how grateful and excited we are about all of their achievements thus far. >> Mayor Adler: I think that would be great. And if my staff is listening to this and can wrap some [12:13:13 PM] additional ones of these off my rack in my office, if there are more out there why don't you grab them and bring them down for this photo. Anything else before we recess? Then the council meeting is recessed here at 12:13 and we'll come back at 1:30. [12:23:25 PM] >> Mayor Adler: So we have a live display of music. I will tell you that for those of you that have sat here for the last hour, these meetings can sometimes go on really late at night and it is the memory of the music I think that often keeps us going. It is core to our culture, who we are in the city. I, like so many other people, passing through this city originally with no intention of staying ended up getting caught and music was a really B part of that. So we have our own Carnegie hall stage here that we invite folks as close here as we can get in the city. It's a privilege for us to bring in music to this stage. And today we have with us Gabriella, deejay gabby got it. Gabriella is -- gabby is a [12:24:28 PM] successful restauranteur and proud Latina based in Austin, Texas. Along with her brother, Gabriella is co- other than of one of the city's most popular restaurant management groups, Gabriella's group. Will oversee culinary destinations like gabriellas, revival coffee, plus music venues. After moving to Austin more than 20 years ago from Mexico, Gabriella initially worked behind the scenes in several popular restaurants. At first Austin served as a popular night life and entertainment destination for Gabriella as she worked nights and weekends to make enough money to be able to attend all her favorite upcoming events and concerts and festivals. And when not running some of the hottest spots in Austin, [12:25:28 PM] gabby can also be found deejaying not only around Austin, but across the state of Texas under the musical alias of deejay gabby got it. It is a thrill for us. Thank you so much for being with us. Please bring music into this space. [Music] [Music] [12:26:52 PM] [Music] [12:28:04 PM] >> Mayor Adler: Thank you. So if somebody wanted to follow you, how would they do that? What's your handle? >> I am on Instagram as gabriella.atx, and they can also follow all of my businesses, Gabriella's downtown, Gabriella's south Austin. Serena's Austin. And my coffee shop, revival coffee. And I will be performing this Halloween weekend. I'll be performing tonight at malavida and on my birthday this Monday for Halloween. [Cheers and applause] >> Mayor Adler: That's great. I didn't realize all of those restaurants were yours. >> Yes. >> Mayor Adler: Pretty impressive. All right. So we have a proclamation here. Be it known that whereas the city of Austin, Texas is blessed with many creative musicians whose talents [12:29:04 PM] extend to virtually every musical genre. And whereas our music scene thrives because Austin audiences support good music produced by our legends and our local favorites and newcomers alike. And whereas we are pleased to showcase and support our local artists. Now therefore I, Steve Adler, mayor of the live music capitol, together with my colleagues on the city council, do hereby proclaim October 27th of the year 2022 as gabby got it day in Austin, Texas. [Cheers and applause] Can we take our picture with you? >> Yes, of course. [1:43:42 PM] >> Mayor Adler: We're missing councilmember tovo. I'm going to reconvene the Austin city council meeting here at 1:42. Today is still October 27th, 2022. We're still in the city council chambers. We're going to try to get to speakers as close to 2:00 as we can. I think there are some things, colleagues, we can take quick votes on. I think that would be item number 44, the regulating plan amendment. We might do that one first. I think we can postpone the annexation items, 69-72. I think those will go fast. Then we have three tenant items that I think might move really quickly -- item 23, which is cure, 25 which is organize, and 39, which is tenant relocation. We're going to get through as in as we can in the next 17 minutes. Then we're going to get to zoning speakers and we'll try to do the consent. I don't think the two zoning [1:44:42 PM] items that I think are going to be discussion are going to take us very long, not because they're not in controversy, but because the issue is singular and clear. >> Kitchen: Mayor, one of those is going to go on consent and be indefinitely postponed. We just learned that, 55. >> Mayor Adler: Which one? >> Kitchen: I think it's 55. >> Mayor Adler: It's going to be -- >> Kitchen: The developer is pulling it back for indefinite postponement. >> Mayor Adler: That will go quickly and leave scenic drive. My sense is that scenic drive is an access question. That ought to go pretty quick. I'm going to take those two items up right after that while we have everybody together. That gets us to the executive session. It will be after 2:00 at that point. And then we will come back to handle item 45, the ordinance, and item number 41. [1:45:42 PM] I appreciate councilmember tovo's working with me on that. That's going to be postponed. We are going to start the clock and spend 30 minutes on it. And we've asked staff to really take most of that time, manager, to make clear what the issues are from the staff perspective. That said, let's see if we can handle some things. Item number 44. Is there a motion on item number 44? Councilmember pool. >> Pool: We have a public hearing, so once we open and close the public hearing on this one, I will make a motion to pass item 44. >> Mayor Adler: We called people to speak on it earlier at 10:00 on the call. Is anybody here that wasn't there to speak that wishes to speak? That's good, because the time to speak on this under O rules was this morning and we gave everybody ahance to speak on it that wanted to. [1:46:43 PM] As part of your motion, let's close the public hearing. The balance of it is to approve item number 44. >> Pool: I wanted to say a couple things. The folks are at the back of the chambers who have done really good work on this with my team. I want to take a moment to say we have north burnet gateway regulating plan change going through today. It's a fix to the cmu gateway subdistrict. It adjusts the F.A.R. From 8 to 12 and the maximum building height with the development bonus goes from 208 feet to 420 feet. I bring this up now to signal a larger update we sorely need for this regional area should come back to us before the end of the year or in early 2023. I'm looking forward to the additional changes in this area of town as it continues to expand. It is expanding well beyond what was initially imagined years [1:47:44 PM] ago. I appreciate everyone's support and work, support for this item and all of the work that has been done on it. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you. There's been a motion. Is there a second to that motion? Councilmember Ellis seconds the motion and discussion. Those in favor of item number 44, please raise your hand. Those opposed? Unanimous on the dais with councilmember tovo off. That gets us to items 69-72. 69- 72 are all annexation items. Is there a motion to postpone items 69, 70, 71, and 72 to November 3rd? Councilmember Ellis makes that motion. Is there a second? Councilmember pool seconds that motion. Is there any discussion? Those in favor of the postponement, please raise your hand. Those opposed? It's unanimous with councilmember tovo off of the dais. We have item number 23, which is [1:48:45 PM] the tenant cure item. That item has been proposed. It's been handed out. I would move passage of item 23. Is there a second to that? Councilmember Fuentes seconds that. We've incorporated the amendments that were proposed to us. We've posted and handed out this morning, I guess the version of that that takes into account all the amendments that we had. I appreciate that this does not do everything that everybody wanted it to do in the way that everybody wanted it to be done, but it does provide a cure with some accommodations and [1:49:48 PM] compromises. I appreciate the advocates, those that are supporting this as a first step to get to that six- month conversation. I appreciate the support, again, moving forward, pointing toward that six months from the letter that abor sent out. And I would urge us to move forward and pass this. Is there any further discussion on this item? Councilmember vela and then councilmember kitchen. >> Vela: Mayor, this incorporates councilmember Fuentes' amendment with regard to the notice? >> Mayor Adler: No, she'll make that here in just a second. >> Vela: I'll let -- speak. >> Mayor Adler: Councilmember Fuentes, you have an amendment you passed out. Do you want to -- that amendment? >> Fuentes: Yes. >> Mayor Adler: Is there a second? Councilmember vela seconds that. >> Fuentes: Colleagues, I do have in front of you on the yellow sheet, item number 23, the right to cure. [1:50:50 PM] This is just a couple of things. It directs the city manager to ensure that the web page at the city of Austin website is updated with the most up-to-date information on resources and assistance available to our renters. I would like to make a note that while we do have a web page, it needs to be more user friendly and we need to add a phone number to that web page. I was a little dismayed to find out that we didn't have a phone number to offer to provide on our notice. Certainly when a resident needs help and is in a dire situation, having a phone number available is absolutely needed. This also does an update to ensure that the landlord, when a notice of proposed eviction is issued, that an additional one- sheeter is accompanied. And we do have the example of that would look like. Basically, it's know your rights, information for the tenant to look at that talks about the process. It also provides resources. We want to include that phone [1:51:51 PM] number that I referenced. And this is modeled after San Antonio. They do Thi we are asking to do the same. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. Thank you. Is there any objection to that amendment being added? Hearing none, that amendment is added to the base motion. Further discussions on this item 23? Councilmember kitchen I think was next. >> Kitchen: Yeah, I was asking about councilmember Fuentes' motion. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. Mayor pro tem? >> Alter: I just wanted to thank the mayor and my colleagues who worked really hard on this to find a compromise. I think that where we landed I think is a really fair place for our next step in this regard. So I wanted to thank you for your work on that. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you. Councilmember pool? >> Pool: I just wanted to confirm that this addressed the concerns that staff had raised when we discussed it previously. >> Mayor Adler: Yes. >> Pool: Okay. Thank you. >> Mayor Adler: If I'm wrong [1:52:52 PM] about that, and legal or staff wants to address that? The ones that they raised were the right to organize, not to cure. So, 25. 25, that was councilmember vela taking a point on that one. Councilmember vela. >> Vela: And I very much appreciate councilmember Fuentes' amendment and I just want to note it says notice of tenants rights must be written in English and Spanish, the two most predominant languages in Austin. District 4 is very multilingual, and I don't need to amend it, but I would like to provide direction to staff to include whatever the explanation of tenants rights is -- I don't think we need to include 20 different languages in the document itself, but that there be a link or even just one sentence on there in different [1:53:52 PM] languages, thinking like maybe the top five languages or something like that, because we do have -- this is a very immigrant-friendly city, heavy concentrations of immigrants in district 4, 1, 2, 3, and I just want to make sure that it's accessible, that tenants rights notice is accessible to -- in multiple languages. >> Mayor Adler: So I think the direction, manager, is to make it as language-accessible in more than just those two languages as possible. Okay. >> Vela: Thank you. >> Mayor Adler: Please make sure the minutes of this meeting note that that's being incorporated into the vote we're about to take. Yes. >> I want to thank councilmember vela for bringing that up, because my district as well has lots of English as a second language speakers, so the more information that we can provide, the better. Thank you. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. All right. Any other amendments or any other discussion on this item 23? We'll take it to a vote. [1:54:52 PM] Those in favor of 23 as amended as noted, please raise your hand. It's unanimous on the dais, everyone voting yes. Thank you on that. What about item number 25? Councilmember vela, do you want to make a motion? >> Vela: I do. We have a final updated version. If we could give it just a second, there -- we were incorporating -- >> Mayor Adler: We can come back to it. Let's hold off. Let's go, then, to the tenant relocation. Councilmember Fuentes, do you want to make a motion? >> Fuentes: Yes, I move. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. Councilmember Fuentes, do you want to move passage of item 39? Is there a second to that motion? Councilmember vela seconds that motion. Councilmember Fuentes, we'll turn to you. >> Fuentes: Yes. Colleagues, this item came about from a real-life experience. We've talked multiple times of [1:55:53 PM] the mobile home communities within my district and councilmember Renteria's district off of south congress where residents have faced massive displacement. Item 39 seeks to close loopholes in the tenant relocation ordinance. I also have an amendment I'd like to offer. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. Councilmember Fuentes has handed out, and we have in front of us the Fuentes amendment. Is there a second to that amendment? Councilmember tovo seconds that. >> Fuentes: Thank you. This amendment -- >> Mayor Adler: Hang on one second. We're trying to make sure that people have copies of it. >> Vela: Item 39, correct? >> Mayor Adler: It's item 39. >> Fuentes: So this item, this [1:56:54 PM] amendment actually comes in conversation with councilmember tovo. Thank you, councilmember tovo, for being a cosponsor on this item. It adds two whereas information -- two whereases that provide background information on a previous resolution that councilmember tovo brought forward relating to mobile homes and a look-back period. So it adds -- this amendment adds that information in and udes and references that resolution in the be it resolved and references adding recommendations from the previous staff memo. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. The motion, item number 39 in front of us. Is there objection to that amendment being included? Hearing none, that amendment is included. Any further discussion on item 39? Let's take a vote. Those in favor of 39, please raise your hand. Those opposed? Councilmember Kelly is voting no on item number 39, others voting aye, passes 10-1. It is now pert near 2:00. [1:57:57 PM] Do you want to lay out your amendments, councilmember vela, on item number 25, and maybe after you lay them out we go to the calls and then come back to it? >> Vela: Yes. >> Mayor Adler: Or if you want to, we can just pick it all up later. You tell me. >> Vela: So, it's been forwarded to the clerk. Hopefully we'll get it all in front of you. It's essentially similar -- identical to the final version. It just clarifies that landlord means a person who owns or leases a dwelling but does not include a property manager or agent. That was a suggestion made by the law department, just clarifying that based on the concerns from the Austin apartment association that they did not want their property managers and front office staff being charged with a crime. The goal was to focus on the owners. And then the other amendment was [1:59:01 PM] on the offensive penalty section, again clarifying the section that we're adding is a landlord who violates or allows another to violate this article, as provided by this section. So essentially, the two final amendments are just clarifying language that was suggested by legal and I'm incorporating those suggestions. There were other suggestions. I know there was a red line version that we're not incorporating it was a delicate balance getting the apartment association, getting the Austin board of realtors, getting Basta and the Austin justice coalition and the tenant rights folks. And we have kind of carefully struck that balance, the language in the version that I have put forward is agreed to by all stakeholders. I believe that y'all also received the same email that I received saying that they're good with this language and so that's what we want to move forward with -- the language as [2:00:02 PM] agreed to by all of the stakeholders. With a handful of clarifications that law made as well. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. So that's coming out to us first all for us to see that. Copies of that. So let's go ahead and hold that. Is there a second to that motion? Councilmember Fuentes seconds that. So let's hold that for just a moment and so we can get copies. Let's go to the speakers that we have on zoning. And we'll handle zoning and then when we're through with zoning we can make this one of the quick items that we handle after it's been handed out and it's been posted for the public to see. Let's go ahead and hear zoning speakers. We have two minutes for each speaker, but before we do that, let's let the staff walk us through and the community through what we're looking at. So we have an eye to what's looking like it's going to be postponed and what looks like it's actually going to be discussed. >> Yes, mayor, joy Hardin, with the planning departm your postponement items are [2:01:03 PM] number 47, and there's an applicant postponement request to November 15th council meeting. And number 50 is the ret, an indefinite postponement and a staff request to your December 1st council meeting. And we have 55that couple member kitchen mentioned and it's an indefinite postponement. And Zimmerman and a request to November 3rd council meeting. >> Mayor Adler: 55 -- indefinite postponement from the applicants so no need for the neighborhood to speak on that one because it's indefinitely postponed. >> And I would say item 467 as well, the applicant postponement -- >> Mayor Adler: As well. And then 61 is going to be postponed. So the ones postponed are 47, 50, 53, 54, 55, and 61. [2:02:09 PM] Oops. Not 55. I'm sorry. Well -- >> [Indiscernible]. >> Mayor Adler: Yes, 55 is being -- 55 is indefinitely postponed. >> That's the one that councilmemberchen mentioned, yes. >> Mayor Adler: So let's go ahead and call our speakers. >> Yes, mayor, first speaker is Joyce basinio on item 48. >> Can you hear me? >> Mayor Adler: Yes. >> Hello, can you hear me? All right, thank you. I'm Joyce basiano and I am commenting on item 48, the medical center pud, how many minutes do I have? >> Mayor Adler: Two minutes. >> Two, okay. Well, do you have the visuals I sent? One looks like a site plan and the other is an aerial photograph, can we start with [2:03:10 PM] the aerial, and look at that. >> Yes, they're on the screen. >> They're on the screen, okay. If you will notice, Seton expansion most of it will happen on 34th street and there's a tower and a blue garage and you will notice they have two entrance ramps and four exit ramps for vehicles, and if you will notice on the right-hand side where the medical parkway, those two lanes that are existing now will only be available for service vehicle use in the future. On the northside on the 38th street side, there are three entranceananes and two exit lanes. So most of the traffic is going to come down on 34th street. And yet the Austin transportation department did not require a traffic impact analysis for 34th street. They did pretty intensive impact [2:04:11 PM] analysis for 38th street and three of its intersections and 40th street, and Lamar. And you can see that in your backup material. We the residents had to request a traffic study for 34th street. And if you can look at the aerial photo you will see what we got as a traffic study. It's just trips, daily trips, and these are the existing trips. And if you look on the right-hand side of that picture you will see that it failed because the vehicles parked on it. Well, they're parked on it and they're not parked there. You can't park on 34th street,you can only wait for a traffic light on 34th street. [Buzzer] The transportation department staff describes Seton side of the medical center yet it did not require a traffic impact analysis. This is a sorry state -- >> Thank you, your time has expired. >> Mayor adlerank you very much. [2:05:12 PM] >> It expired? >> Sorry. Irene pickhart for item 48. >> Thank you. My name is Irene pickhart and I'm here to talk about the Seton pud as well. Right now, you could see from that visual that Joyce showed you that the entrance and exit to the hospital -- one of the main ones is on medical parkway. That is a street that Seton has used over the years. And because of Seton, we have more stop signs there and it is a street with a turn lane. If you look at the visuals that I sent, which are three photographs, you will see the first photo is an entrance and exit on medical parkway. And on this particular photo, you can see due to the light [2:06:14 PM] traffic, that car exiting can turn south to west 34th or north to west 38th. This facilitates tra. On the next photo, if you are looking -- it's looking south on medical parkway. And the point here is that the entrance and exit does not interact with the students walking or biking to the elementary schools. St. Andrews and breakwoods, both within an eighth of a mile. And the third photo looking south on medical parkway, you see that medical parkway, unlike west 34th street, has a turn lane that facilitates the safe entrance and exit to the hospital. We are trying to do the best thing, the safest thing, for our neighbors, as well as the patients and family members who are visiting. [2:07:15 PM] In order to do that, retain the entrance and exit to the hospital. And parking garage on medical parkway. The medical parkway effectively and safely handles much of the traffic to and from the hospital and has been there ever since I've lived in breakenwoods, more than 40 years. So it's worked well. Medical parkway has the turn lane to the hospital. Which facilitates the traffic movement. Medical west 34th has none. Medical parkway has no bike lanes, with all of their potential complications. West 34th street has them on both sides of the street. [Buzzer] Medical parkway is not a walking/biking route to the two elementary schools. >> Thank you, your time has expired. >> My request is retain the [2:08:16 PM] medical parkway entrance. Thank you. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you. >> Sandra Mueller, item 50. >> Hello, councilmembers, good afternoon. This is Sandra Mueller from d1, and I live within 500 feet of the Rhett proposed property. And I have this request and so do a bunch of my neighbors. And hopefully there's a image of the yager property on the screen, but it's adjacent and the buildings are all one story high and contain two churches, a day-care and a small gas station and multiple small businesses, many of which are vacant. This item was denied by your zoning and planning commission on October 19th, last year. And you should also deny it. And I had to go ask for a zoning change to have a four-foot design element. The zoning and planning commission told them that code allows for an ornamental waiver and, therefore, denied the [2:09:16 PM] change request. And the zoning change is intended for office and commercial uses, and that's not what the Rhett, is and it's only residential apartments. And it has the imagine Austin comprehensive plan because the mobility options are below average while the connectivity options are fair. The property sits on a slight hill and making it higher than ite and two-story neighbors and especially copper tree and westview canyon. And yager lane is just that, it's a lane, a minor road. A two-lane road already dangerous with too much traffic and it's not accessible for major trafficways. As a are minder, the hotels on palmer which are the larger roadways are only three and four stories high. And so since the zoning change will allow development up to 90 feet I ask that you deny it. It would be unfair and an invasion of privacy to the exist homeowners to leave open the opportunity to develop nine-story buildings in the [2:10:17 PM] middle of our neighborhood for a four-foot design element. This should be denied. Thank you for your time and your consideration. >> Amanda blackwielder, item 52. >> Thank you, mayor Adler and city council, for allowing me to comment on the request for rezoning of 1507 and 1511 bastrop highway service road. I have a letter from the neighborhood requesting permitted uses submitted on October 11th. Our neighbor live 600 feet away from this property. While at some point it will make sense to rezone this area, right now it's not the time. Mayor and city council, this property owners have current and active violations, including maintenance for the structure on the property and illegal dumping. Which continue and is clearly gotten worse since initially reported. And I spoke with the [2:11:17 PM] environmental compliance supervisor, the property has been issued a stop-work order from environmental enforcement and is currently in the enforcement process. Has current active violations for development without permits and is headed to court. Richland estates has concerns that the landowner believes that it's more cost effective for them to ignore and to violate various city building and environmental codes, and to take the violations, because they know the fines are of no significant financial hards for them. It's our neighborhood's experience with other new businesses near our community to take this approach. And we have no doubt that these owners are doing the same. Their letter of intent states that their plan is, quote, a professional office and has no other concrete plans for the at this time. Which we find incredibly difficult to trust and believe at this point. The Richland estates neighborhood hopes that you will [2:12:17 PM] reconsider rezoning until at least the legal issues have been resolved. And think that once you see the photos of the dumping that they are allowing along this city-mapped creek buffer adjacent to our community, you will agree, and deny the rezoning until a later date. Thank you very much. [Buzzer] >> Mayor that concludes the remote speakers that we have right now so I'll switch over to in-person. First up for item 46 David brown, followed by Dennis Duffy. [2:13:24 PM] >> [Indiscernible]. >> Thank you. How much time do I have? >> Mayor Adler: Two minutes. >> Great. Thank you very much. My name is David brown, retired historic preservation professional. Thanks for the opportunity it talk. I'd love to talk more, but I'd like to reiterate that I think that the property clearly deserves historic landmark status because of its neat eclectic style of architecture and the beautiful early landscaping. In my 40 odd years as a consultant making judgments on such properties, I would have unfringingly recommended it for a process. And it has biased and unverified claims about it, and its owners. Many made to simply sow doubt about its value. A recent letter to the council addresses that but I want to comment on the engineering report. My wife and I walked briefly by the property last night as we often do, one of the least understood historic aspects is that it's part of a small group [2:14:25 PM] of a dozen zoned houses built around the corner of scenic and Stevenson in the early 20th century, a reported fishing camp west of the city neighborhoods at that time. All 12 buildings in a cluster, were built with similar uncourseda masonry and with a notable exception of the Delisle property, many of the remaining examples have been extensively remodeled over last few decades and some without damaging their historic character at all. It seemed fit to weather another century, despite the uncoarse masonry. And James she has examined the Delisle house damage which I have not had a chance to and found it repairable. Probably for much less than the provided estimates. We know receipt remodels that are working in the neighborhood and be happy with the uncoarsed masonry home and happy to put the applicant in touch with them, if they choose to go that route, rather than demolition. We realized that there are more -- much more recent rock [2:15:26 PM] structures near by that echo the styles. Such rock houses are style in subdivisions such as Hyde park -- [buzzer] And their presence suggest that builders are echoing a previously common local styles, supporting the concept this is a recognized iconic mini-neighborhood since its inception. We hope that you will think that it is important to save this property. Thank you very much for your time. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you. >> Dennis Duffy, followed by iliyad Gilbert. >> Hello, I'm Dennis Duffy and speaking for item 46. Historic zoning at 2002 scenic drive. I'm a structural engineer and I have assessed the structural issues at the property. It has significant structural problems that would need to be a habitable dwelling. My full report is in your backup. Even if someone wanted to preserve the structures, some of the problems would require taking the structures apart in [2:16:28 PM] order to address those problems. The low bearing masonry on the main house has a significant crack in it. It's likely due from foundation movement. And structures of this eratypically do not have a concrete foundation and it's making leveling and stabilizing extremely difficult, in order to create the kind of foundation necessary to do that, and you take down the masonry wall. And the secondary dwelling unit is built on the property line without a retaining wall. Inside the building, you can see the dirt cut that's made to create the house. And that invites water into the interior, the load bearing second story roof bears on a rock wall that is on the property line at the top of this cut. All of this is instabilities that cannot go unaddressed in these sort of renovation. And those are two examples. Several others, with the wood rot, is so extensive that I don't know that there's many sticks of lumber that could be salvaged in a remodel. [2:17:31 PM] I believe that the entire structure would have to come down to address these problems. Thank you for your consideration. If there's any questions I have time to take them. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you. >> Thanks. >> Ila -- >> [Indiscernible]. >> Ila or Ela, and followed by Lisa Gilbert. >> [Indiscernible]. >> Hello, I'm Ila falvi, and I'm -- >> Mayor Adler: Go ahead. You're set. [2:18:32 PM] >> Go. Okay. I'm going to read -- I thought that I only had a minute so I'm going to read excerpts from two letters, one written by a national organization, one written by a local resident. This letter was written by Chris coade, the counsel for the national trust for historic preservation. The national trust for historic preservation would like to express our support for the historic designation of 2002 scenic drive. Our organization was made aware of the proposal to demolish it. Based on a review of the record we support the historic landmark commission's unanimous recommendation that 2002 scenic drive meets the criteria established in Austin's code of ordinances. 2002 scenic drive is nearly a hundred years old, and an excellent example O local vernacular design and [2:19:33 PM] craftsmanship. It is very obviously an historic building per Austin's ordinances. The national trust supports the sound interpretation and enforcement of historic preservation ordinances. And the key aspect of the effective application of ordinances is that the decision makers follow the criteria established in the ordinance or the guidelines interpreting the ordinance. We are concerned that Austin's planning commission's denial of the property's historic status is not consistent with the evaluating criteria established in Austin's ordinances. We encourage the city of Austin to ensure the preservation of 2002 scenic drive by supporting the unanimous recommendation of the historic landmark commission and designating the building as historic. The next letter is from -- [2:20:35 PM] [buzzer] >> Oops, that's it. Sorry. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you very much. >> Lisa Gilbert and then Mary kale. >> Hi, I'm Lisa Gilbert and I'm a neighbor across the street from this house. I want to read an excerpt from Derek barsiyski from atlantis architects. To allow demolition to allow any future speculator to throw away heritage and character. For serving the site configuration the landscape and stonework of 2002 scenic is certainly something that a talented architect owner team is capable of doing. The current architects involves work is well recognized and their talent is only limited by the charge from their owners. And the existing stonework can be preserved and remain non-bearing. Failing structures can be supplemented with additional structure. Links and mold damage can be [2:21:37 PM] repaired. Also construction new or remodel side expensive, and building on this lot with its slope, soil setback is extremely expensive. An engineer's letter advocating a cheaper way to build is not an aspiration for a city like Austin. Certainly, the owners of this lot understand the cost of developing such an important site and site savings as a design goal seems disingenuous. So everyone is aware, this is on lake Austin, on scenic drive, and it is prime real estate. And it is truly a treasure. So, yes, it's going to cost a lot of money, but they spent a lot of money for this property. They also had this property for I think that they've owned it for two years and there's been no attempts to preserve the building in any way. Doors were wide open, the roof is uncovered with holes in it. So they have not made an attempt [2:22:37 PM] to preserve or to protect the property. They want it to be in disarray. They want to tear it down for the beautiful view. And us as a community lose. Because this is our history. [Buzzer] Thank you. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you. >> Mary kale and then irano Montoya. >> Okay, my name is Mary kale and it's a very good thing that I was a sprinter back in the day. I'm a grad student in history and volunteer co-chair and preservation for the advocacy committee and we advocate all over the city. We support the hlc deem significant. First though thank you for your service and historic preservation Austin staff for thhard work. You may hear today that the city staff pivoted on the historical narrative and they were half-staff this summer and [2:23:38 PM] someone on the staff had an extended illness. At the planning commission hearing there was a robust discussion on equity and we embrace T this. We would like to point out the equity elephant in the room. That some people have the funds to fund teams of consultants to advocate on their behalf. These are proxies for access and influence. Anyway, today it's your task to evaluate this case based on the code, which you can see above. This house meets all -- it meets three of the criteria, displays high artistic value and you have seen the architecture at construction and it's one of a kind and the architect does not have to be well known. It can be an obscure person or someone just not famous. It has long-standing historical associations with persons groups, institutions or business. The Delisle was a businessman, he played a major role in civic events and his wife was a social person, and I have to believe that in her social activities, which I sometimes see dismissed, she supported his career every [2:24:38 PM] bit as much as he did. That's just me talking here. The property also has historical associations with the slater family who purchased the property in 1946 and he was a attorney and co-owner of the tavern and you will hear more about that later. It has landscape features and a unique landscape and incoperate rare material. It's fabulous. You may hear about tax abatements of a few thousand. Used at the local, state and national level to preserve on an equitable basis. And put this in the context of other council actions debating with -- [buzzer] With taxes. Anyway, thank you very much. Preservation would like to work with the owner and we have a lot of resources and a major network. Thank you. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you. >> Iron Montoya and followed by Deborah Gillan. [2:25:39 PM] >> Mayor, council, I'm Aaron Montoya and speaking against item 46, historic owning at 2002 scenic. I'm an architect and working with the owner on this case. The decision by staff to include the landscape features as a qualification for historic designation was prompted and heavily influenced by a letter from preservation Austin which suggested the use of material irnite and of faux techniques on the site. The staff support claims that some lane features incorporate a material called irnite which they describe as an austin-based building material that is rare today. It is rare in the way that creatures like big foot and the lockness monster are rare. Where there are reported sightings being but no evidence of actual existence. It is S rare that a Google search will provide only one relevant hit, a reference back to the staff report on this [2:26:41 PM] case. The reality is that there is no occurrence of irnite anywhere on this property. Nor is there any occurrence of the faux pas techniques to support the case for historic designation based on the landscape features. The staff report goes on to say that other elements contributing to the historic designation are the meandering walks on expansive lawn, and a swimming pool with a river view. There is nothing significant or unique about these items. Most houses along the lake have similar features in their landscaping. I would just say that landmark status is rightfully a high bar, and I do not believe that this case meets that standard. Thank you for your consideration. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you. >> Deborah slater-gillan and followed by Blake toia. [2:28:45 PM] >> Thank you, councilmen and women for your service to the city and this opportunity to speak to you all. And I am Deborah slater-gillan and the daughter of C.H. And Mildred slater and the previous owner of the property. As such, I remain neutral in regards to the historic designation. However, I refuse to remain silent as the Whalen team has persisted in I its cowardly attacks on the character and the reputation of my parents who have been deceased for over 33 years. There's slanderous allegations based on speculation and hearsay and I will not tolerate them, nor should you. This certified letter that you see on the screen was sent to mimichael whallen and made part of the public record and was in the packets of the planning commissioners as it should be in yours as well. Unfortunately, not all of the planning commissioners read it or must have had access to it. [2:29:47 PM] And yet in spite of my request to cease and desist, Whalen's team continued its defamation and characteristic remarks on my family's name. I was in the tavern many times during my father's proprietorship, and based on my firsthand knowledge and experience, I categorically deny any and all claims of racism, segregation, or any other improprieties. And I challenge anyone with concrete evidence of the contrary to come forward tonight in my presence and present that or forever cease and desist these asinine allegations that were created for the sole purpose of winning their case. And I stand ready to answer any questions or rebutt anything that they care to bring forward. Thank you for your time. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you. [2:30:47 PM] >> Blake toyla and then Michael whallen. >> Good afternoon, mayor, Blake toylett, and mayor and distinguished members of the council. First of all I want to apologize for my telephone ringing. I thought that I had turned it off. I would -- I'm on the historic landmark commission and I have Terry Mars, the chair of the historic landmark commission and I would like for your indulgence to let her speak during my time. She was not able to get signed in the way that she thought, if that's all right. >> Mayor Adler: Go ahead. >> Thank you for lowering the bar here. I am Terry Myers and I'm the current chairman of the landmark commission. In the 14 years that I have served on the commission, I have never appeared before a city council to advocate for a case. [2:31:52 PM] This case is exceptional. And that's why I'm here. Each of you on the council has an appointee on the landmark commission. We are a diverse group, we have preservation architects, developers, builders, architectural historians and historians, and a structural engineer who has refuted the allegations of the Whalen team regarding the structure of this historic site. But all of us came together and voted unanimously to recommend historic zoning for this property. It is -- it's an almost magical place. I think that you can see that in the photographs that have been presented to you in your packet. We recommended this property for landmark status based on the historic architecture and historic landscape features, which are among the five [2:32:54 PM] categories that we can recommend a property, and they are significant, the property is significant for those associations. [Buzzer] >> Mayor Adler: Go ahead and conclude your remarks. >> I think that significantly is over for me. Thank you. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you. Thank you. For the record, I would have recognized the chair of our commission to speak and I would have ask her to speak, and that was the reason why I let hespeak though she hadn't signed up. I would have called her up to the podium to speak, given the position and service T she has. >> [Indiscernible] [Off mic] >> Mayor Adler: Not a problem. I just wanted to make it clear so people would understand, but thank you for being with us and thank you for your service. >> Michael whallen on behalf of the owner on item 46 who has filed a valid petition against the zoning. In order to landmark a property, [2:33:54 PM] the land development code requires to meet at least two historic criteria. And we believe that if you fully, valuate each of these criteria you will see that architecture is the only possible fit and that neither historic association is neutral on the topic, nor the landscaping apply. So first the historic land scaigzs. The rationale for this case has changed since the first report last spring. First it was on cotom slater, and no matter which man you look at the result is the same -- neither is historic. Neither slater or Delisle had historic impact or left a legacy or sacrifice for the greater community. The rationale instead offers that slater was a local lawyer who owned the tavern as you have heard and that Delisle was a developer for this house. Second, the landscaping. The yagzial is based on an unverified and claim that Delisle used an obscure synthetic material in some of the lawn amenities, irnite, which was a failed venture. [2:34:55 PM] Other than that, the case report describes the landscaping that consists of a bench, a little bridge to a former servant's quarters and a lawn and a swimming pool -- common yard features that you heard that are common along the lake. I would also add the structure was purchased last November, in a deteriorated state. There are photos and an engineer's report in the backup and you have already heard from Mr. Duffy, and the best that could be done would be a deconstruction and reconstruction of the structure because of the lack of the ability for the walls to bear load, which is a re-creation, not preservation. Quirky architecture alone is not enough under the code to make something historic and in this case the other cteria being offered simply do not stand up to scrutiny. Simply being a developer does not make someone historic and the landscaping, far from being historic, consists of common yard amenities. Thank you all. [2:35:59 PM] [Buzzer] >> For item 47, Charles Brandt followed by Gerald Chavez. Mr. Brandt, are you here? Mr. Chavez? Moving on to John larkham, item 47. Molly Mitchell. Jimmy seal. Chastity Steve. Brandon Armbruster for item 48. >> Good afternoon and thank you for your time. My name is Brandon Armbruster [2:37:03 PM] with St. Andrews episcopal school. And I would like to address the following concerns that we have. The additional trips surrounding the school, um, cause us concern with the 30-year-old traffic impact analysis. We're unsure as the impact of 34th street and the surrounding streets. Circulation for drop off and pick up is already difficult and shifting traffic to a new 1,300 parking garage on 34th street and nearly 400,000-square-feet of space adds to our concerns. Egress on to 34th street is complicated for everyone, particularly the buses that make trips between our two campuses, and athletic and fine arts events as well as field trips. By focusing the additional traffic on to a street that has only one lane of service in each direction, the risk to safety of our school community and impact to our operations is potentially [2:38:04 PM] large without measures to mitigate the impact to street and the surrounding community. We have asked Seton and atd to look at middle turn lanes on 34th street and use ingress and egress off of medical parkway instead of 34th, and to upgrade utility lines to make this possible. Additionally, we have asked to add a pedestrian beacon, school zone additions and using the street impact fees to focus on the streets that are approximate to the development. I would ask you to not vote on this project today, but, rather, to allow for additional time for St. Andrews and the neighborhood to have a traffic engineer evaluate the project between now and the next meeting. Thank you all very much for considering this, and we look forward to being a partner in finding a solution. Thank you. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you. >> Jason Tomkins for item 48 and followed by Greg Underwood. [2:39:12 PM] >> Good afternoon and thank you for your time. I signed up to speak today as a neutral party. And I want to emphasize that, I'm a commercial real estate developer here in town, but I represent the west 31st street creekside neighborhood which sits just south of Seton. One of the things that is -- is difficult in this particular situation is we're all trying to row in the same direction and be supportive of an asset that we know that is -- is going to be around for a lot longer than many of us. But I think that when you look really closely at some of the challenges along west 34th street, like Mr. Armbruster just pointed out it's difficult without an updated tia to understand the impact of what is proposed here. So there's two elementary schools, both less than .2 miles from the southern edge of the Seton campus. And this west 34th street is carries a significant amount of bike and pedestrian and car [2:40:13 PM] traffic at peak times. Seton is seeking to amend its pud which was originally approved in 1992, and due to the original zoning being tied to that tia, there won't be much of an update here with respect to a traffic impact analysis. So just by way of comparative evaluation, the new Seton building at 1004 west 32nd street, delivered at the end of last year, is only 100,000-square-feet of space and it has an on-site garage and generated 4,200 trips per day. And it required a tia. This particular development is adding over 650 new stalls to the -- to a garage that will be a total of 1,300 stalls. Is adding approximately 330,000-square-feet of new additional space and does not require a tia. So we want to be supportive of Seton and row in the right direction and allow them to deliver the new facility, but we need to focus on finding ways to [2:41:14 PM] alleviate traffic on west 3th street. That is a street that kids from the heritage neighborhood association, from breaker woods and my neighborhood and the neighborhood north of west 38th street travel to frequently to get to and from school and so the add traffic is of concern. Thank you so much for your consideration. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you. >> Greg Underwood for item 48 and then Leslie Mccallum. Leslie Mccallum. Bill Meachum. Patricia Michael. David Armbrust. David Armbrust for item 58 and [2:42:14 PM] then Roy Whaley. >> Mayor and council, I'm David Armbrust on item 58. I understand that is on consent for first reading. And I will defer any comments to second or third reading. >> Mayor Adler: Which number is this? >> 58. >> Mayor Adler: 58? Thank you. >> For 58, Roy Whaley and then Daniel woodroth. Daniel wooh. >> Mr. Mayor and council, David woodroth, and the lead designer on the project. I will follow Mr. Armbrust's suggestion and if we're on consent, I'll take it to the second or third reading, thank [2:43:15 PM] you. >> John stokes. Item 59. >> Good afternoon, my name is John stokes and I'm a contact for the peaceful hill preservation association. The subject property here is on peaceful hill 7901. And we are speaking in support of the project. Originally the preservation association had opposed the project because we had concerns about the layout of the proposed site, and felt that it made the property look like multifamily housing, which the preservation association opposes. However, the designation of sf-6 has more than outweighed those concerns. And that's why we're supporting it here. Sf6 is a good designation for transitions between residential [2:44:16 PM] buildings and later more dense -- more dense development that is coming. I can refer you to a plot next next door adjacent to this which is 43 acres, 1,218 apartments, 80,000-square-feet of retail space and 200,000-square-feet of office space. We feel that's not going to be appropriate for peaceful hill lane. And we are supporting sf6, up and down peaceful hill lane. And to that end we support this project, and if it's possible to get it on consent, that would be great. Thank you very much for your time. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. >> Mayor, that concludes all of the speakers that we have registered. >> Mayor Adler: Okay, thank you. Colleagues, that gets us back up to the dais, and we'll go through what is on consent and what is contested. >> Joy hard dts enkin with the [2:45:17 PM] planning department. And you begin with item 46, c141 -- 2022-0099 and there's a postponement to November sth 15th council meeting. And this is a Seton medical center pud amendment number 2, which you heard a lot of comments about. And I have a motion sheet that I would like to read which states part E, E water quality facilities shall meet city code requirements for new development on the property as determined by the city of Austin at the time of site plan application, amend part 7g to read as follows. And then we have a sentence that we're amending this is property south of the public utility easement shown in exhib B, 30 feet water main easement to the city of Austin, accomplishing [2:46:18 PM] the following. And we're adding a part C, the owner will provide Austin water with the final cause data to design and construct the rainwater and reuse systems. And with that I can offer this for consent on all three readings, however, my understanding is that the mayor pro tem has a letter that she does want to enter into the record to be official. And she also has a motion sheet that she has been working with the neighbors and the applicant is in agreement with and I know that she will add that at the end, but we still would like to have this offered for consent on all three readings. And item 49 is c814060175.03, and this is the east avenue pud, and I have another motion sheet. A lot of pud amendments. This motion sheet is a little long so bear with me. At a new part 11, as follows, and renumber the remaining sections, part 11, development of the property shall comply with the following regulations, [2:47:18 PM] aye, no exterior of the building shall include mirror or glass as in section 167 definitions. And B, land shall comply with lead bird collision deterrent standards on the building and structures and C, landowner shall restrict the glass reflectivity to 13.5% and the compliance zone from ground level to 36 feet above grade on all buildings and structures. And D, landowner shall restrict the glass at 13.5% reflectivity on all buildings and structures. E, landowner shall design buildvucture with bird-friendly design elements. A podium overhang to shield the compliance zone, to fully shield lighting, and C, full cut off landscape lighting. And four, no exterior building up lighting and, five, building articulation that reduce the size of the building's reflective plane. And construct a vegetative wall [2:48:19 PM] on the west side of the first two stories of all buildings and structures and, G, vehicle access is prohibited to concordia avenue if required by the city of Austin at the time of site plan approval. And with that I can offer the east avenue pud amendment case, item 49, for consent on all three readings. Item 50 is c14021, and this is offered as an applica indefinitely postponement. And item 41, and this item is offered for consent on all three readin. And item 52, is c14202200967, I can offer this item for consent on all three readings. But I have another motion sheet to read. This was an agreement made with the applicant and neighborhood, and this reads as follows, amend [2:49:21 PM] the caption to add the conditional overlay language to the zoning stream, add new part two and three to the ordinance as follows and renumber the remaining sections, part two, the property within the boundaries of the conditional overlay combining district established by this ordinance is subject to the following conditions. The following uses are prohibited uses on the property, auto repair services and auto washing of any type, campground, and exterminating services, veh storage, and automative sales and construction sales and services, drop off recycling collection facility, and service station. Part three, accept as specifically restricted under this ordinance the property may be developed and used in accordance with the regulations for general commercial services cs district. And with that I can offer the item for consent on all three readings. And item 53, c14202200770, and this is a postponement to your [2:50:21 PM] December 1st meeting and the case is again a postponement request by staff to your December 1st meeting and item c5, and as stated there's an applicant indefinite postponement request. And item 56 is c14202200067, this item is offered for consent second and third readings. Just note that this item does have a valid petition, so we will require nine votes. 57, and this item is offered for consent on all three readings. And item 58c8100139.03, this item is offered for consent first reading only. And item 59, c12022, and offered for consent on all three readings. And item 60, and this item is offered for consent on first reading. And item 61c10220044, and [2:51:25 PM] there's a postponement request by the mayor pro tem to November 3rd council meeting and item 62, and this item is offered for consent on all three readings. >> Mayor? >> Mayor Adler: Hang on one second. Yes, mayor pro tem? >> Alter: Thank you. I wanted to ask if we could invite the sho creek conservancies to come up and speak on item 48. They were not able to sign up on time? >> Mayor Adler: Certainly, any councilmember can invite anybody up they want to. And I think that you were just invited to come up and speak. >> Thank you, mayor, we'll stay within the time limit and [2:52:25 PM] there's a thumb drive with a set of slides up right now. The executive director of shoal creek conservancy to speak about a minute and then I will close. >> Thank you and thank you for your time. The shoal creek conservancy is the steward of the watershed that includes the section of shoal creekt is located in cedar springs park. The image on the screen now is cedar springs, an historic natural resource, beloved by many community members and also theite of some restoration work that sho creek conservancy is operating. And the site of many tours and historical visits to shoal creek. The amendment for the pud at Seton would allow the demolition of the current parking garage and the construction of two -- or insinuate the construction of two parking garages on the tract of land closest to shoal creek. Our concern is that doing any construction underground would potentially impact the [2:53:26 PM] groundwater flow to the springs, thereby, reducing or eliminating the spring -- the flow to the springs which would kill a natural, beautiful destination that we have all cherished for many, many decades and centuries. We are proposing to work with the Seton developers to ensure the protection of the spring and we have some evidence and partnership that we have already worked with the Seton team on to assure that no harm will be done to the springs. This letter, which will be entered into the record states this intention. So we want to bring awareness to our concerns for the health of the springs. And have this letter to be on record for the intention that no harm will be done, and we'd like to work with Seton to continue to make sure that is the case. But would like for everyone to know that is a potential concern related to item 48. [2:54:27 PM] Thank you. >> Council, just in closing, the headline is that in spite of Seton -- ascension Seton's stated intention, not to harm cedar springs or shoal creek, the proposal in their adjacent trt proposes three stories of underground parking. Their own borings show that groundwater is at 13 feet. So we -- we are asking you to do nothing today that would require Seton to build underground parking, or in any other way compromise cedar springs or shoal creek. Thank you. >> Alter: Thank you, and, mayor at the appropriate time I'd like to make motions for this but I need to add on consent for this item. >> Mayor Adler: That's okay. [2:55:27 PM] So the consent agenda on -- on these items is items 46 through 62. I'm showing the following items -- the following item pulled, item number 46. Is there any other item to be pulled? Okay. >> Alter: I want it make these motions -- >> Mayor Adler: Which number? >> Alter: For 48. >> Mayor Adler: So let's hold that and let's pull 46 -- let's pull 46 and 48. Anybody have any comments on -- anybody move to approve the consent agenda? Councilmember harper-madison makes a motion and councilmember pool seconds. Any discussion? Those in favor of the consent agenda, raise your hand. Those opposed? Consent agenda item passes. That gives us then 46 and 48. [2:56:27 PM] Let's do 48 quickly. Go ahead. >> Alter: Thank you. So, I appreciate the opportunity to do this quickly. I have two motions and a letter that have been distributed. Motion two was just recently passed down and hopefully it made its way down the dais. Before I do that, I have a brief question for our transportation staff who I believe that are here and able to respond. Mr. Batey I think? Good afternoon. Thank you for being here. Mr. Batey it's suggested to me that Seton would not be required to pay street impact fees. Can you confirm, will this project be required to pay our current street impact fee? >> I am Curtis Batey with the au transportation department. This development will pay street impact fees for any new development that they provide. >> Alter: Thank you. Can you smailt what you think that this project would be required to pay based on what they have indicated that they are planning to construct? >> Yes, based on their current [2:57:29 PM] plans, it looks like approximately a million dollars in street impact fees. >> Alter: Thank you. Given that we have established in the record that this project would indeed be required to pay street impact fees, I'd like to ve approval of this item with the additional conditions which aretured in the motion street one and motion street two that I distributed. These conditions have been reviewed by etd and our legal staff and accepted by the applicant. I understand that these do not satisfy all of the concerns raised by the neighbors, deemed feasible, prioritize the construction of certain improvements on 34th street to ensure vehicular and pedestrian safety and also obligate the applicant to contribute $30,000 beyond their impact fee requirements to go towards these improvements. And, lastly, the motion would direct our staff to include in the case record a private agreement between shoal creek conservancy to not harmhe [2:58:29 PM] creek cedar springs. And for the record since I just passed out motion street number two I will read that in, but motion street one is that yellow sheet that has one page that has the motions with a, B and C. With additional direction to put the letter from ascension Seton to shoal creek motion sheet number 2, set permissible under state law, fees associated wit the redevelopment of the site shall be prioritized for improvements along west 34th, 31st, and other streets immediately adjacent to the site. And finally, I want to acknowledge the work of our neighbors and the parents of students at the elementary school, who have been working to ensure pedestrian safety for this community. We will continue to work with you to ensure these improvements [2:59:30 PM] materialize. We have a project on 31st/shoal creek that we are still working to get right. I hope we can continue to lean into that to make sure that we get that related project right. And thank you to the applicant for working with the neighbors to get to a better place with this item. >> Mayor Adler: Is there a second to the motion? Councilmember pool seconds. I have a question for our staff, and you may know the answer to this. On the one that says that we're designating where it is the street impact fees would be paid, it says consistent with state law. I want to make sure there's not a difference with our city ordinances or our city policies, because I I think I had remembered when we get street impact fees paid, they'aid out according to where the need [3:00:31 PM] is greatest in the area. And what prioritizes the payment is the greatest need. And if the greatest needs would be here at this location in that area, then they would be appropriately used here. If there's a greater need somewhere else, they would be used somewhere else. But I could be wrong. >> In general, you are correct. But because this is a P.U.D. You can make the stipulation of how the street impact fees could be spent for projects in this area. The reason we put in the stipulation per state code is there are certain projects that street impact fees cannot fund by state law, such as a bicycle lane, an urban trail. >> Mayor Adler: So it's the policy issue on designating it. We've had a lot of cases where people want to designate sleet impact fees or other revenues to particular projects or locations [3:01:33 PM] and we have resisted that and said the staff has a list of where the priorities are greatest. I recognize we have the leg ability to do that, it's just something that generally, the council has not done because it goes -- I recognize there's a need here, but if there's a priority where our staff has said while there's a need here, there's even a greater need over here in a different situation, because there's greater danger to the environment or there's greater impact on public safety, what we have done at this point is to say spend it where there's the greatest need. Can you tell us if in this case there are areas of greater need that this money would otherwise [3:02:34 PM] be allowed to be spent for in state law, or is this the place with the greatest need for public safety, or environment, or health, or whatever? >> Right now the projects that are identified as funding priorities are those in the service area that are also contained in the roadway capacity plan. 34th, 31st, medical parkway -- none of those are identified in the roadway capacity plan. They could be qualified, but they are currently not. To they are not in the priority listing of projects. >> Mayor Adler: Does this project that's being built here, would that put them in the priority area, or would it not put them in the priority area? >> Most likely not. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. So I have a concern about us designating the money to somewhere -- I recognize the need is here, but our council has been pretty good about [3:03:34 PM] making sure that the dollars go to where the need is greatest. So I support your motion sheet number 1, but I -- unless you can tell me something new or different, I can't support motion sheet number 2, if there's greater health needs, or safety needs somewhere else. >> Alter: Mayor, we prioritize specific things in P.U.D.S all the time. We are a quirk in -- have a quirk where no T.I.A. Was required. They can't require them to do the traffic things in the P.U.D. That way and pay things above and beyond their impact fees, or apply their impact fees to traffic improvements or mobility improvements that would be required by the P.U.D., because it's this older P.U.D. And we've been going around and around on this and spent months on this. Seton is trying to move forward next week to break ground so they can provide this women's health center. The applicant, neighbors, and [3:04:35 PM] our staff have agreed this is language we could use. Nothing can be built unless there is a roadway improvement that gets prioritized through the state process. I will be forced to vote against this case if we do not pass that motion. I do not believe that the improvements exceed the amount that would be in there, the rest of that money in that area would also be going in my district and I'm comfortable with this. We have spent months trying to figure out a solution, given the particular rules that happen with this old P.U.D. And I think everyone is on board that with two elementary schools in the area, and the potentially unknown traffic impacts that saying to the extent that there are traffic improvements that are necessary to make this development work, that we need [3:05:36 PM] to move forward with it. And it is a P.U.D. And it has these limitations, which are just the reality of what we have with our code at this point. >> Mayor Adler: Councilmember Kelly. >> Kelly: Thank you. Related to item 48 and Seton hospital, my daughter was born there in 2009. That hospital has a special place in my life as well as many in our community. Thinking back to when she was born, our city has changed so much and grown in so many ways. I'm in that area regularly for doctor appointments and I agree that improvements with the schools need to be prioritized. Great people work at the hospital and live nearby. As our city grows, I believe we must grow our capacity to serve the community by taking action like motion sheet number 2 today. Thank you, mayor pro tem, for your leadership and motion sheets regarding the item and for clarifying some of the concerns in the community. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. Yes, councilmember Ellis. >> Ellis: I could see the [3:06:38 PM] benefit, since it's worded as to the extent permissible under state law. When we covered street impact fee before I was chair of mobility, when councilmember kitchen was chairing, we spent a lot of time trying to make sure those service areas were properly spelled out and we could communicate to people this is how we get new projects to be able to improve the transportation infrastructure, whether it's very close-by or somewhat adjacent to the property. So I would hope that the language covers that concern, but do see the need for us to be able to leverage street impact fee to create those really urgent needs directly close to the property, if at all possible under the state law. >> Mayor Adler: I'll call for a separate vote on 1 and 2 because I'm going to vote against number 2 and I could be the only one. State law says it has to be spent in that area. We all agree it will. I'm uncomfortable saying we should spend it for a pro that has less need than another [3:07:40 PM] project which has greater need. I'm just not comfortable doing that. And I'm concerned about precedent that the council sets. And I recognize I'm stepping off the council shortly, but proud that over time, T council generally has spent our money where the need is greatest rather than -- I'm proud this we have generally spent it where the need is greatest, and I'll leave it at that. I recognize the need is real keen here, but that just means wherever it is the need is greater, it's even keener and the hazards are even greater wherever else that might be. But I'll call a separate vote on it and then we can move forward. Any other -- comments on this? Okay. Yes. >> Mayor, I want to clarify, we're not specifying any precedent, because it's within the context of a P.U.D. [3:08:44 PM] >> Mayor Adler: I'll let -- >> Alter: We're doing the same thing for the statesman P.U.D. With their impact fees. And we're not objecting there, so I just don't think we're setting a precedent. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. And then I would disagree with that difference, but I'm not going to be the one that has to wrestle with that precedent in the future. Councilmember tovo. >> Tovo: I'm glad you raised that distinction. That's why I'm going to support it. It is a very different case than some of the other ones that come across our dais. I almost said desk. This is an opportunity -- we have discretionary authority here to grant this change or not. And part of what we can evaluate with a planned unit development is whether or not some of those dollars that are being generated through the project through the street impact fee can be reinvested to mitigate impact of the changes we're okaying. [3:09:44 PM] It's appropriate to do so. I plan to support it. I'm super familiar with this area because my children went to this elementary school and I know what it looks like in the morning when you have lots of employees going in and out and folks walking to school in that area. So I think it's a valid concern that some of the neighbors have raised and some of the representatives have raised from one of the schools, that the increase in size is just going to exacerbate some of those dangers. >> Mayor Adler: I think we can move to a vote. Councilmember kitchen? >> Kitchen: I'm going to support it also, but I also want to point out it's not an unknown what the other needs are in the area. The street impact fee process has a list of projects that are eligible for street impact fee use. And that's something that atd staff does on a periodic basis. I can't remember how often, but there are a list of projects in [3:10:44 PM] an area. And it's a relatively small area, so with my limited knowledge of this area, it would seem that this would be appropriate from a P.U.D. Perspective. So I hear what you're saying, mayor. I also want people to understand that there is a list already of what the needs are in a particular area and I'm not aware of any that are really high needs in this particular area. >> Mayor Adler: I think it's important that as people vote on this, that everybody voting in favor, and that seems to be the will of the council and I'm fine with that, because people have a way to distinguish that or to set in their minds a precedent that recognizes this as kind of an outlier situation, just because I think that these kinds of issues can come back to a council repeatedly and it's important that when these issues come up, either it doesn't happen or there's a long enough pause to recognize that it runs different than the general proposition of making sure we [3:11:44 PM] spend the money where the need is greatest. Let's just go ahead and take a vote. Those in favor of motion sheet number 1, adding that amendment, please raise your hand. Those opposed? It's unanimous on the dais. Those in favor of motion sheet number 2, please raise your hand. Those opposed? I think I'm the only one voting no, two voting no, councilmember Renteria and I voting no, motion sheet number 2 gets added. Are we ready to take a vote on the item in its entirety, mayor pro tem? >> Alter: Thank you. I appreciate the support on this and I want to clarify motion sheet one also included the letter from ascension Seton. >> Mayor Adler: The letter is made part of that record. Let's take a vote on this item number 48. Those in favor of 48, please raise your hands. Those opposed? Unanimous on the dais, 48 passes. Thanks, everyone, for your participation on this. All right. So that takes us, 48. I think that is all of the zoning cases. [3:12:46 PM] >> Alter: 46. >> Mayor Adler: 46. So let's do 46. Is there a motion to approve item number 46? Mayor pro tem? >> Alter: I'd like to move approval of the historic zoning case on all three readings and I will speak to it at the appropriate time. >> Mayor Adler: It's been moved to approve on all three readings. Is there a second to that motion? Yes. >> [ Off mic ] >> Mayor Adler: Is that a legal constraint, or a practical -- >> I don't know what the question is. >> [ Off mic ] >> This didn't -- okay. So there's an ordinance? Oh, I see. [3:13:46 PM] No, we do not have an ordinance. If this did not receive the planning commission's support, it got six votes, it needed to receive seven. So there is no ordinance. >> [ Off mic ] >> That's a question for law. >> Mayor Adler: So the motion in front of us is to approve this item on all three readings. In order for it to be approved it would have to have nine votes. If it doesn't have nine votes, then the vote to approve this on all three readings will fail and this item will be over unless somebody else makes a different motion. My question is, I'm sorry my question is really specific. Can the mayor pro tem make a [3:14:48 PM] motion to approve it on all three readings so that the council can see whether the votes are there to do that? >> I would assume they could make a motion, but without an ordincnce we cannot pass this on all three readings because we do not have an ordinance. >> Mayor Adler: Let's see if that's an issue and then we can come back to it. >> Okay. >> Mayor Adler: There's been a motion to approve this on all three readings. I think -- is there a second to that motion? Where is Kathie? Kathie seconds that. Let's have a discussion on the motion to approve this on all three readings. Mayor pro tem, do you want to say anything? >> Any questions from council? Kalan Contreras, planning department. >> Mayor Adler: Hang on a second. Mayor pro tem, I'm recognizing you. >> Alter: Thank you, mayor. This case has not been without [3:15:48 PM] its challenges, and I think that some of the characterizations that have been made are regrettable. And I don't really believe that this reflects the standards for public discourse that I would hope we would expect of one another. In this instance, this is recommended by our historic landmark commission and our staff. It is not recommended by the planning commission. And it appears to meet the criteria that we have in our code. You know, in asking to pass this I understand that we are asking to approve this against the landowner's wishes and this would require nine votes. This is a historic house that is architecturally incomparable and I believe that we should follow the recommendations of our historic landmark commission and our staff. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. So moved and seconded to approve this on all three readings. Any further discussion? [3:16:49 PM] Councilmember Kelly. >> Kelly: Generally speaking, I believe in historic designations and I think that we should certainly support them in our community, but I have a lot of heartburn going against the wishes of an owner. And so I can't support this item today. Thank you. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to approve on all three readings. Councilmember? >> Vela: I share the sentiments, beautiful house in pretty bad shape. And I'm always hesitant to grant historical designation to a house that needs just a vast amount of investment for it to continue to be viable and usable. It's a beautiful house, but with water getting in, that's rough. And I'm just not sure that it's viable in its current form, so I'll be voting no. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. Councilmember Ellis? >> Ellis: I'm in agreement with the previous two [3:17:50 PM] councilmembers. This clearly was an amazing home and I'm sure people had really beautiful memories made, but right now it's in disrepair. It doesn't have central air. The roof is leaking. I really worry about saddling an owner with an insurmountable goal even though it has some charm and I know people made a lot of good memories in it. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. Further discussion? Let's take a vote. Those in favor of approving this on all three read please raise your hand. I'm going to ask it really specifically. I'm asking on all three readings. If this does not have nine Tes, it will be in order for someone to make a different motion if they want to. This motion is to approve on all three readings. Those in favor, please raise your hands. All three readings. Those opposed, please raise your hand. Those abstaining. So, I'm seeing 3otes in favor -- mine, the mayor pro tem, and councilmember tovo. I'm seeing councilmember [3:18:51 PM] Renteria abstaining. I'm seeing the others voting no. It does not have the votes to pass on all three readings. On a 3-7-1 vote. Any other motion to be heard? Okay. Then this matter is over. We're now going to go on to the next item. I think that takes us, then, all of the planning commission -- I mean, all of the zoning cases that we have. Colleagues, that is number 46 and number 55. Are we ready to do item 25 at this point, or do we want to handle that after executive [3:19:51 PM] session? >> Vela: I believe we're ready to go, mayor. The copy of the most recent version has been passed out. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. >> Vela: And all stakeholders are on board. >> Mayor Adler: Councilmember vela moves passage of item number 25, which is the most recent version that's been handed out and posted. Does that have -- it's number 4, is that right? >> Vela: Yes. >> Mayor Adler: Is there a second to that motion? Councilmember harper-madison seconds that motion. You can debate it first if you'd like. >> Vela: Yes. Again, the primary purpose of the right to organize is one of the tools. And we saw it, one of the first cases I dealt with as a councilmember was the Clayton lane and Santa fe displacement cases where the tenants were trying to organize to negotiate with the landlord and one of the tactics that is frequently used [3:20:53 PM] when these kinds of situations arise is that the landlord or the property manager will call the police on the organizers and essentially try to get them expelled from the property because they are allegedly criminal trespassers. So, the primary goal of the right to organize ordinance will be to clarify that an organizer who is invited by a tenant at the property is allowed to be on the property. And with this, I would also like to provide some direction so that APD is aware of this, and so that ultimately their general orders should hopefully reflect this as well, so when they are called out to a property, saying I've got some canvassers or people that need to get out, they should be aware that the [3:21:54 PM] people are there at the invitation of a tenant and they have no business interfering, that they should just withdraw. So that, more than anything, is the goal of the ordinance, to allow tenants to organize so they can do that without fear of the police being called. >> Mayor Adler: Do you have a direction ready to read in? >> Vela: I would just -- in the ordinance it says that -- it provides for rule-making and during the rule- making process I would like to direct the Austin police department to reflect in their general orders that criminal trespass does not include tenant organizing. >> Mayor Adler: Any objection to that direction being associated with this? Do you have a concern? Why don't you state -- if there's a better way to say it, tell us. >> I think that the ordinance as [3:22:55 PM] you drafted it, the intent is to protect the rights of the tenant. And I think we crafted language that can do that. We can't interfere with the contract between a property owner and the tenant, so I think that issue is a little bit problematic. If there's somebody calling the police to ask for help about some kind of trespass the police are going to come to the property. >> Vela: I would dis -- disagree, we interfere all the time with regard to what the building is required to have, what our building code is. It's implicitly contained within the landlord-tenant contract. Not only that, but section 92.331 provides that federal, state, and municipal ordinances, that basically the landlord relationship, the landlord/tenant relationship is subject to federal, state, and municipal ordinance. [3:23:57 PM] We have antidiscrimination ordinances, those affect the relationships. If we were to pass something that says, for example, or if a landlord were to have a contract that says, you know, lgbtq people are not allowed on the property, we can pass a municipal ordinance clarifying that they are allowed on the property despite any lack of state and federal protections. And that would be absolutely legal. So, again, I just don't see this as interfering with the contract at all. The state also has -- they have put in exceptions for an active duty military, active duty soldier called to military service. They've put in exceptions for victims of domestic violence. Those are, again, directly interfering in the relationship and there's been no concern whatsoever with regard to those. >> Mayor Adler: So the issue that was directly in front of us was the direction that councilmember vela read that said that he was directing as part of the rule-making process [3:25:00 PM] that our general orders correspond to the ordinance. Is that an okay direction for someone to make? As a general rule, it would seem to be okay, that general orders would be consistent with our ordinances. >> Mayor, council, Patricia with the law department. The way I understand the motion in front of you, the ordinance taxed, that right is traveling with the tenant, not with the tenant organizer. So that does not mean that the landlord would not still call. That wouldn't necessarily take it out of APD's hands. >> Mayor Adler: What this says as I read this is, a tenant has the right to invite onto the [3:26:00 PM] property a tenant organizer. Right? And, you know, to the degree that tenants have rights to invite people, or it's our public policy where tenants have the right to invite people, a tenant organizer is one such person that they would have a right to be able to bring in. The question in front of us is, if that is the will of the council, if that's the public policy that we want adopted, and certainly there are other public policies that trump all kinds O things in the law, like the prohibition, the contractual prohibition not to rent to someone who is black is against public policy and not enforceable. If we pass something that reaffirmed that, he has a direction that says there should be a general order when you're drafting this stuff. Please make a general order consistent with our ordinances. Is that not right? Is that not allowed? >> I think the confusion for me in listening to this conversation is how -- what is [3:27:02 PM] being described as the right. So, the way that the ordinance is drafted, it talks about the tenant's right to invite. >> Mayor Adler: Right. >> And the discussion on the dais is focused on protecting the tenant organizer. >> Mayor Adler: No. It is protecting the tenant's right to invite a tenant organizer. If it is correct that it is a tenant's right to invite a tenant organizer to be on the property, which is what this says, then I think that's okay. So we recognize the tenant can have that right. Not the tenant organizer. I know there was an earlier draft that talked about the right of a tenant organizer to be there. That's not what this says. >> Correct. I'm actually going off of the conversation on the dais. I guess maybe I want to make sure that it's clear that what the ordinance -- what you have in front of you goes to the tenant, not to the tenant organizer. >> Mayor Adler: It says a tenant's right to invite a [3:28:03 PM] tenant organizer, and it has what the tenant's rights are. And I think that's all councilmember vela was saying. >> Vela: I will say we incorporated the language that was suggested by law with regard to -- before we had it worded where the organizer has a right to be there at the invitation of a tenant. We flipped it to make it clear it's the tenant who has a right to invite somebody onto the property and that law asked us to clarify that, and we made that amendment in this new version. >> Mayor Adler: Logistically speaking, I think the part of the confusion here is some of the things that you have underlined in red, some of the changes you made consistent with what we had heard from counsel. There are some changes suggested that are not underlined in red and I think that's part of the issue. So that's why I was saying at a high level, I was about to say, does anybody have a problem with the direction that our general orders be drafted in a way that [3:29:05 PM] is consistent with our ordinances? I don't think there's a problem with that. Without objection, then, that direction is made part of this. That gets us back to debate on the main motion with the direction. And I was going to say that I appreciate the work that you did in this, because -- and now I'm working off an earlier draft. There was a suggestion that you say -- but it doesn't include a landlord's manager or agent. And that's language that you've adopted. You put in the definition of a tenant organizer, which was just a definition. There was a suggestion that said that the right is not the tenant organizer's right, but rather is the tenant's right. And you've made that change in E. There was a suggestion that you add the words intentionally with respect to the retaliation or [3:30:05 PM] the interference, or that allows another to and you've made that change consistent with that one as well. And there was a suggestion with respect to offense and penalty that you include language that speaks to a landlord who violates or allows another to violate. You made that change as well. There was a change that we take out the taking out of -- that we take out the extra language about mental state. You took that out. So I appreciate the work you did to accommodate and to take into account the earlier advice that we received. And for that reason, I'll be supporting you on this. >> Vela: Thank you, mayor. And I appreciate, we did incorporate probably about 80% of law's suggestions. Some of the suggestions -- maybe [3:31:09 PM] not legal issues per se, would break apart the delicate bargain we struck with the stakeholders where everybody is comfortable with this language. It's just always difficult to be right in the center of parties that have opposing interests and negotiate a solution, but I think we're there. We've gotten there. Everybody is comfortable with this version, including with the most recent amendments. And we are -- again, I would move passage. And just briefly, though, I do want to thank Stephanie in your office and ramie who have been facilitating the conversation between the apartment association, the realtors, and the tenant advocates. And it was no easy task, hence, multiple postponements to get everything just right, but I think we're there. >> Mayor Adler: Sounds good. Any further debate on this before we vote? Yes, councilmember Fuentes. >> Fuentes: Yes, thank you so much, councilmember vela and mayor for working on this. I'm super excited to support the [3:32:10 PM] tenants right to organize and to provide this additional protection for Austin renters. We know the majority of austinite are renters, and certainly given the housing crisis that we're in and the escalation of rent that we've seen in our community, having these series of policies including the ones that we voted on earlier, the right to cure, go a long way. I'm super happy to support this item. >> Vela: Thank you, councilmember Fuentes. And I know we both have apartment complexes in our district with a lot of low-income tenants. There's a lot of frequent flyers on our code violation apartment complexes in my district as well. And I'm excited about the possibility of organizers coming in, bringing tenants together to more effectively negotiate with those frequent flyers, code [3:33:12 PM] violators, and hopefully serving as an intermediar between code enforcement and the apartment and the tenants to resolve some of those concerns. Anyway, I'm excited about the ordinance, appreciate everybody's hard work on it, and look forward to seeing ten than tenant organizations start to arise especially in some of our larger low-income complexes. >> Mayor Adler: I really appreciate you bringing this and I think it's really important, because I think this right should exist. Just to make clear that, you know, we're focusing on the landlord. The landlord has to have knowledge that this is going on. So from an organizer standpoint, the organizer is going to have to figure out how to make sure that the landlords can be shown to have that knowledge. That may require an additional step for them to make sure it's not just the manager or the agent that has knowledge, but the landlord does, too. I'm going to reconvene the regular city council meeting today for October 27th, 2022. It is 4:58. Colleagues, we have two -- three things left we're going to need to do. One of them is councilmember tovo, who is not present, we were working with such speed as we went through the tenant organization issue, didn't get a chance to vote. When we have a full dais I'm going to call that back so we can take a vote again to reflect [4:59:16 PM] everybody, but we'll wait until we have a full dais to be able to do that. What? We did. On the right to organize. So we'll do that when we have a full dais. We have two other things to handle. Let's see if we can move to -- deal with them both in 30 minutes. The second one I promise we'll do in 30 minutes because I'm going to set my watch. But let's go ahead and start with the environmental item. Which is item number 45. Does someone want to move passage of item number 45? It's the ordinance. Item number 45. Mayor pro tem? >> I move passage of item 45 version two. >> Mayor Adler: Is there a second to that motion? Councilmember pool seconds that. Colleagues, I've handed out a [5:00:16 PM] motion sheet one and two on that that I think has been kind of scrubbed and reflects I think the agreement I would move passage of our motion sheet, items 1 and 2. Is there a second? Councilmember pool seconds that. One and two, front and back of that page. We discussed both of them at the work session, one is consistent with what we're doing with respect to the analysis and two asks staff to follow the same ess we had on transportation with this work. Is there any discussion on those? >> Tovo: Mayor, I have concerned about the use of your language of taking in motion one. I just can't support that amendment. And I would ask our staff to -- [5:01:19 PM] when it comes back to council, potentially schedule an executive session. I don't think we'll be here to have that conversation, it alarms me to be talking about environmental regulations as takings of land. So I think that requires some further conversation. >> Mayor Adler: So, in order to pass this -- I want them to take a look at whether -- we know that some of the people in the area whose property are entirely covered by the buffer have suggested that they think that it might be that. I don't want to predetermine that question, don't intend to predetermine that question. It would be entirely proper for us to have to come back to say there is no such thing and no potential liability. But I did want them to come back and at least address that concern. Is there better wording than any loss-economic viability, which is one standard, whether or not it exists, should we say loss of [5:02:22 PM] economic viability and any potential taking? Does that help? >> Tovo: Shall also include consideration of the potential loss of economic viability and end it there? >> Mayor Adler: Yes. I'll go with that. I think it's the same thing, but I'm fine taking out those words. And manager, what I mean is, the loss of economic viability and the legal impacts of any loss of economic viability to give as much as information as possible to the council. Does anybody object to that change being made? Hearing none, we'll take out those words. Any other questions about sheet one and two? One and two are added. Councilmember pool. >> Pool: I have the quick amendment. I have a motion sheet as part of phase two to relocate landscape code from 252,oning of land development code to 25.8, which is environment. And you'll see from -- I'll see [5:03:23 PM] if I get a second. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. There's been a motion to move that. Is there a second to that? Is staff okay with that change? >> Pool: They are. Watershed, zoning, and legal have all vetted this and are supportive. And they can speak to that if anybody wants them to. >> Mayor Adler: Seconded by councilmember Ellis. >> Pool: I would like to ask staff to notify counsel when this item comes back about any unintended consequens.s. Generally we ask for that anyway. I see the affirmative nod from our folks in the audience. And the rationale -- landscape code in the past was used for aesthetic and screening purposes when it was first developed. Today, the city uses the landscape code for a variety of purposes that go beyond the original intent, including water quality and heat island mitigation. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. Any objection to that amendment being included? Councilmember tovo. >> Tovo: I need to ask our [5:04:23 PM] legal staff to confirm, one of the concerns I have about moving this language from the zoning code into the environmental criteria manual is that it could have an impact on vested rights determinations. In other words, whether a vested project would be required to comply, regulations that they would be required to comply with. So could you please give me a verbal? You and I had an opportunity to discuss. If you could give me a verbal affirmation that you would be considering that, if this change goes through. >> Ted with the law department. Yes, we will look at that as well. >> Tovo: Thanks very much. >> Mayor Adler: With that said, any objection to including the pool amendment? It is included. Councilmember Renteria. >> Renteria: Yes, mayor. I really want to thank my colleagues and the staff for agreeing with us on the 400-foot setback east of the longhorn dam. I have gotten a lot of calls from property owners concerned [5:05:26 PM] about them taking their property value, got calls saying they would take us to court if we did that there. So, by your amendment, we're going to be able to allow them to negotiate and work with the property owners along that area to make sure that all of it gets out, and all that information gets discussed before anything gets done. >> Mayor Adler: Okay, thank you. Anything else on this item 45? Are we ready to take a vote on item 45? Councilmember vela. >> Vela: Mayor, I have some amendments that I would like to offer. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. >> Vela: Amendment 1 -- and these are all designed to -- for affordability, essentially, to promote affordability and try to mitigate some of the additional cost that moving from a [5:06:30 PM] detention pond to the other types of drainage that are being proposed. And so starting with amendment 1, and it's amendment 1 version 3. This one would create a variance for the proposed water quality control, an administrative variance that went to staff, if it was a. Necessitated by a unique site conditions, which is a current code, or B. Necessary to avo a loss in residential units or building square footage. And essentially, if the water quality control -- let me give you one example. Currently, some builders will bury their detention pond under their parking, because a [5:07:31 PM] detention pond takes up a substantial amount of space on a site. And if they can bury it, which is expensive, but they don't lose actual developable area. And so that allows them to maximize the footage on that site. Obviously gsi cannot be buried because you have to plant it. There's going to be filtration via the soil and the plants on it. And so what this would do would be to allow someone to use a traditional detention pond drainage if they could show that there was, again, necessitated by unique site conditions or if it was going to result in a loss in residential units or building square footage. >> Mayor Adler: Councilmember vela urges his amendment number 1 version 3. Is there a second to that? [5:08:32 PM] Councilmember Renteria seconds that. Councilmember Kelly seconds that, we'll do it that way. Discussion about amendment number 1 version 3? >> Mayor. >> Mayor Adler: Councilmember pool. >> Pool: I'd like to get staff's input on this. The administrative variances for site constraints and allowing the amount of housing can be a constraint and could be exploited. >> Katie, environmental officer. Thank you, councilmember pool. I am concerned about getting too prescriptive about what explorations we should undertake as part of that variance process. Having flexibility allows us to have opportunity to look for different site constraints and I think my larger concern really is that there's already an administrative variance process that exists that is flexible that we can use in the scenarios that he's talking about. [5:09:34 PM] Right. There's a proposed administrative variance process. And there are a lot of other regulations that have implications for the developability of a parcel -- parking minimums, compatibility, etc. And so calling out green storm water infrastructure as the only place in code that we want to make sure that we're not losing developability I think puts a target on environmental goals whereas it doesn't on things like compatibility, parking minimums, and many other parts of our regulations that potentially have an impact on developability. >> Pool: Thank you. Mayor, it seems like this amendment may not be ready to be approved today at this point. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. I have a quick question, if I could. It was originally proposed to put in language that had excluding any potential loss of impervious cover. I don't know if you've seen [5:10:36 PM] version 3 or not, it removes that language, which I think you're supportive of. Is that correct? >> I'll defer to Liz. >> Liz Johnston, deputy environmental officer. I think that that would be fine for us. I think that it leaves the find that would be red to meet the administrative variance fairly flexible without listing the string of conditions with what those site constraints may be. And so it really opens up the ability for staff to be flexible. >> Mayor Adler: That was a move in the right direction. What I hear you saying is by listing specifically a and B, it actually limits you, because you might want to do it for reasons other than a and B. >> Correct. >> Mayor Adler: I hear councilmember vela saying he wants to call out a and B so that people know specifically those would be among the things that you could consider. And my question for both you and for councilmember vela, is the [5:11:38 PM] place that we need to get to that meets both of your concerns, I think, to say that the proposed water quality control comma without limitation is and then have a and B so that a and B are factors they can consider without limitation, but it still calls out a and B for people to be able to see. >> I think my response is still what does that do to all of the other regulations that have implications for the developability, because then it puts green storm water infrastructure top of the list for the thing that gets chipped away through a variance process whereas other things don't have that same provision and administrative variance condition. >> Could I -- >> Mayor Adler: Help me understand, just so that I understand that. If it says a variance from this section, the proposed water control is -- I'm trying to say these would be two such reasons, but you're not limited just to these reasons. That seems to be what you're [5:12:39 PM] wanting it to say. >> Partially -- >> Mayor Adler: Or I'm missing it. >> Loss of developability O its own should never be a reason to grant an administrative variance. It is something that we can consider and potentially could consider along with a suite of other limitations of a site as we're considering administrative variances, but my concern in calling it out is the focus on it. >> Mayor >> Mayor Adler: Okay, councilmember kitchen. >> Kitchen: I have a similar concern. The first concern is I think we need to think through this more. This has a lot of implications. And I would rather, you know, invite the councilmember to let us think about that, because I'm very concerned about doing it for the kinds of reasons that our environmental officer is saying. And I'm concerned about the implications and the results it might have. So I'm really not comfortable [5:13:40 PM] moving forward with it. I don't think it's been vetted enough. And I also believe that if you're just going to use developable land as the criteria, then that's everything -- it could be everything. I just don't know. So, I appreciate what you're trying to get at, but I'm not prepared to do that today. And I'm wondering if there's another opportunity for you to think through that, you know. What we're moving forward with today is some clear things and we've set a course for a second phase. We're also doing the kind of thing that the mayor just passed earlier that talks about offsets. So we have a number of things already in the works to consider the impacts. And so I would be much more comfortable -- I can't support that. >> Vela: So, I completely agree that the environmental constraints are just one of many constraints. That said, that's what's before us today. [5:14:41 PM] I would be completely supportive of a broader rethinking of those constraints and the way they interact to limit development and to raise cost of housing, but we're moving -- we decided to split this and now we're moving forward on one track, and I want to address the track that is before us. You know, I remember being on the planning commission when -- this was 2015-2016 -- and I can't tell you how many things we were like, we'll do that in codenext. You know. We just put off all of these measures and then they died. And here we are, you know, eight years, ten years later. So I am very hesitant to move forward with something that we know has a negative affordability impact statement without trying to mitigate the affordability impacts of this measure. And so that's where I'm at. I understand the utility [5:15:44 PM] easements and fire easements and there's a lot of different things going on that are affecting the viability and the unit count and all those kinds of things like that, but one of them is going to be the biofiltration ponds. In size, the pond is going to be similar to the size of a detention pond, so that's not the problem. The one issue is where you have a typically, I think, again, staff, please correct me if I'm wrong, an mf6-type project where they don't have a lot of room on there and they bury the detention pond under the parking lot, typically. And if you're going to bury it you can't do gsi because the plants are not going to grow underground. That's the spirit. It's not a lot of cases but there are enough cases and we're going to lose enough housing that it concerns me. >> Mayor. >> Mayor Adler: Yes. >> Pool: I might suggest that because we're looking at things that we all agree on without -- and things that we have already vetted and these are new items [5:16:44 PM] that we put this in the phase two as a fallback and then that will give us the time that we are clearly needing in order to socialize the concept more fully across the dais. So I would recommend that we pull this -- put this one into phase two. >> Mayor. >> Mayor Adler: Councilmember kitchen. >> Kitchen: Yeah. And I understand the concern that you're raising. I'm not interested in, and I don't think that we're talking about just delaying things because -- and it will never get done. I understand that concern. That's not what we're doing here. What we're saying is that -- or what I'm saying, anyway - - is I need to understand the full impact, because what we're trying to do is -- and we also have our environmental officer who hasn't had a chance to really vet that and who's telling us that maybe there's some problems with it. So that's why we've divided this into a phase one and two in the first place. So what you might want to do is [5:17:46 PM] put some timeline on it, because then there would be some opportunity to say go consider this, get back to us with the next date, so then it's not open-ended, but then you're allowing for the time to consider it. So you might think of something like that. >> Vela: And I appreciate that. The problem is that we haven't considered everything. We're not considering the affordability impacts of this measure today. And so that's my concern. I agree that we should be looking at this collectively, but we're not. We're moving this forward today and then we're going to say oh, we'll think about affordability sometime down the road. And that is a real problem. I completely disagree with, again, just giving short shrift to we're aware that this is going to cost money. We're aware that this is going to cost units, but we'll deal with that sometime down the road. I don't think that's a good [5:18:46 PM] approach to take. >> Kitchen: That's not what I said. What I said, how about putting some timeline. I don't have your amendment in front of me or suggested language. I agree that it doesn't make sense to do open-ended and I agree that it's something that needs to be addressed, so put a date on it. Just give some time for some analysis of it instead of just expecting that we would pass it exactly today when we don't have an analysis of the impact of it. >> Vela: And again, I would reiterate we don't have an analysis of the affordability impact of these measures that we're taking today, which, again, we should be doing those hand in hand. >> Kitchen: Let me ask our staff, have we analyzed the impact on affordability? Tell us about that. >> Yes. Housing and planning staff have provided in your backup an affordability impact statement. For gsi, the result is undetermined, but we think is a marginal increase in cost. But the footprint of the systems is similar to that of [5:19:49 PM] conventional controls. We know that since 2013, gsi has been the chosen control far and away over conventional controls. It's the majority of what water quality controls are on the ground today. And so this was not one of the concerns in the AAS. Functional green was a concern in the AAS, but gsi was not a chief concern of that report. >> Kitchen: So we do have an affordability impact analysis of this. >> We do. >> Kitchen: Okay. >> Mayor Adler: Councilmember harper-madison. >> Harper-madison: Thank you, mayor, I appreciate being recognized. I do have several questions also, but I'll start with just two I think are most pertinent currently. When council adopted the watershed protection ordinance back in '13, I understand that staff did an outstanding job of simultaneously presenting the draft changes to both the code and the criteria manuals. And so that allowed for the [5:20:51 PM] stakeholder community to provide input and assess the full impact of the proposed ordinance, in which case I wonder if staff has a similar process when rolling out the criteria manual updates for all the proposed code changes before us today? >> Thank you for that question. There have been a lot of questions about that specifically. The ordinance in front of you today does not have any significant environmental criteria updates associated with it. There could be some cleanup to clarify, make the words match, but there's nothing that is necessary to be implemented as soon as it goes into effect. Where there was concern was the functional green landscape requirements, which did have quite a significant amount of criteria update, but that has been removed from this ordinance and put on a later track. >> Harper-madison: Thank you. That's very helpful. The other question was, without copies of the necessary criteria manual changes available for our [5:21:51 PM] consideration, how was staff able to prepare an affordability impact statement with a comprehensive analysis of the ordinance's impacts on affordability? >> As Liz said, there are not substantive changes to the ecm associated with what's in front of you today. >> Harper-madison: The data you used is what we had available to us prior to the changes? >> For the ecm? >> Harper-madison: For the -- >> For the affordability, we have planning staff here, but they work closely to provide numb related to gsi that watershed protection staff have used. And looking at other test cases to get numbers that would be able to provide the likely cost of different types of gsi. >> Harper-madison: Thank you. I appreciate that. And correct me if I just made this up. Did you say the gsi process is part of phase two? I did not hear that. >> Gsi is part of phase one. [5:22:51 PM] It's what's in front of you today to mandate green storm water infrastructure is in most cases what would be used for R quality control. And as we've said, the environmental criteria manual spells out and has had that spelled out for years how you spec the design of those features. So those have already been operationalized for years in the city. No net change to what the technology looks like. >> Harper-madison: Thank you. >> Yes, councilmember vela. >> Vela: I understand an undetermined affordability impact statement is not satisfying. So, it gives me great pause to move forward. I love the changes. I just want to reiterate, I think they're great, they just need to be balanced so that we get a neutral affordability impact statement. I passed out a letter, we had been talking to a handful of folks. This one is from Ron thrower. [5:23:54 PM] He talked to some civil engineers, and they estimated, again, a detention pond -- they're virtually identical. The detention pond and the green storm water infrastructure are very, very similar. The essential difference is that the green storm water infrastructure is planted. So, you bring in the soil. You plant it. You irrigate it. Instead of having a concrete ditch that will drain the water, you have an environmental, almost a natural-looking pond, which is a great change. But again, his estimates are that for a half-acre site the total cost above your standard sedimentation pond was going to be $65,000. For a five-acre site, it would be $177,000. The larger sites I'm not particularly concerned with. For a five-acre site, $177,000 among however number of units is a relatively trivial amount. [5:24:55 PM] Again, the smaller sites concern me. When you have a half-acre site and you're adding $60,000, let's say it's ten units or something on there, that's $6,000 per unit we're putting onto those units and we're not doing anything to mitigate it. So, the big sites, not horribly worried about. I'm concerned with the potential affordability impact of the missing middle sites. That's why I initiated the amendment inhehe first place. But we don't have that balance struck right now. >> Pool: Mayor. >> Mayor Adler: Councilmember pool. >> Pool: I was thinking that councilmember vela has four more items that he wants us to discuss as amendments and I know knowwe have a time constraint, so perhaps we should put this to a vote. If you want to proceed, or in the alternative, we could put this in phase two, give staff time to develop the information that we all are looking for and [5:25:57 PM] answer the questions that you have, because staff's answers are different from the information that you think it should be and it would be nice if we could kind of bridge that gap and come to a common understanding of these impacts. I would point to the balancing resolution that the mayor passed earlier which is item 42 which seeks to find where the costs of affordability are affected by some of our other ordinances. Clearly not just the environmental ones. And we talked a real long time about how it was real important to keep the environmental protections out there because that protects our entire community and in the end, is less expensive than if we allow for pollution of our water, soils, and air. We passed item 42, which provides a good framework for bringing back that balancing and [5:26:59 PM] offsetting information. The piece you're looking for is in the works. We passed it earlier today. I would urge that we work with some dispatch so that we're able to address all of the issues in front of us here today, recognizing that we have a bit of a time constraint. >> Mayor Adler: Here's the issue that I think that I have, because I hate being put into a forced choice between an environmental issue and an offset. And it may be that the right way -- one, we want to avoid a reduction in residential units and avoid building square footage. One way to do that would be to be granted a variance where you don't have to do the gsi. Another one would be you have to do the gsi, but you're allowed to build into part of the setback, or you have to do the gsi, but there's some other development offset that lets you [5:28:00 PM] do it that still gets us the full measure of gsi and still allows the full development. And councilmember vela, as I'm looking at this, I'm thinking we'd be picking the only cure to the loss of the environmental protection is the loss of the environmental protection. And I'm not sure we want to be in that place. It seems to me that perhaps a phase two analysis where we say to staff, you need to have the ability not just to grant the variance, but also to say to the property owner, let's look at your site plan and let's figure out what other rule changes or offsets we might make that gets us the full gsi but doesn't result in a compromise. And I'm not sure that this amendment gives that kind of flexibility to staff. We've set up a whole process to actually deal with that on all these, and maybe this ought to also avail itself of that kind of an opportunity. [5:29:02 PM] >> Vela: Again, I completely appreciate that. Again, I wish we could look at this collectively and as a whole, but we've separated it. And it's going to be, I think, difficult to merge those. Really, I would prefer that this item and phase two go together, that we should wait to pass these changes until we understand what the affordability impacts are going to be and until we have mitigated the affordability impacts. Right now what we're going to do is we're going to add a additional cost and we're going to mitigate that sometime down the road, undefined and unclear. And affordability is the single most important thing that we confront, and I do not want to [5:30:03 PM] kick the can down the road on affordability. >> Mayor Adler: Councilmember kitchen. >> Kitchen: Well, I have a suggestion. And perhaps it's an amendment to what's on the table in front of us, although I don't have its language. But I'd like to propose that we just direct the staff to look at what options there might be related to variances or other kinds of offsets along the lines of what you're talking about, mayor, and ask the staff to return to that as part of the next phase where they're looking at the TCM, the -- not the TCM, but the criteria manual. And then we're specific. And that's really the place where you're going to get into those kinds of details and then could give us more specifics. So, because instead of trying to change this right now. [5:31:04 PM] And then we have some specific idea of when it's coming back. >> Vela: Mhmm. I will say that that was the amendment that I added when we first initiated -- these changes and it's coming back. So I've kind of lost a little bit of faith in where we had that item where I asked to make sure that the item did not have an affordability impact, particularly on the missing middle-type developments. And here we are with the environmental portion and without the affordability portion. So, again, I'm concerned that when things get, kind of, you know, pushed down the road, I'm not sure when they're going to come back or when they're going to be addressed, because there was no -- when the missing middle amendment was put on there, it was not, we'll do this in phase one and two. And I understand the concerns. I understand that. This goes beyond environmental stuff. The concerns that they're [5:32:04 PM] dealing with are there's multiple departments that need to be in this conversation about the limitations on the site and how they affect the number of units and those kinds of things like that. And so I completely understand their concerns, but the reality is that we don't have the neutral affordability impact on missing middle the way that we initially crafted that amendment. >> Mayor Adler: I think we're all pointing in the same place and I think we all want that. The question is how do we best achieve that. Do you have a suggestion for us? Because I guess we want you as you're doing gsi, if there's, U know, a material impact on units or square footage to have the ability to be able to do more than just say your way, but you don't have that authority right now. >> We do have an administrative variance already listed in the ordinance. Just to be clear, that exists in the proposed ordinance. So we will have -- >> Mayor Adler: You can grant or not grant. [5:33:05 PM] You can insist on the gsi protections or not get the gsi protections. Is there a third option? >> Well, part of what we're considering in this variance is innovative controls. There is an option -- for instance, those underground systems that have been brought up multiple times, you can't use gsi for planted gsi for an underground system. There's no light. That's something we would consider because those are costly systems that are innovative. I also want to make clear that there are carveouts so you can still use conventional controls if your site is over 90% impervious cover. So that takes care of a lot of sites. If you're in an urban watershed you can use payment in lieu if you meet certain criteria instead of putting a water quality control. In so there are so many options still in sites that are constrained for ways around having to do gsi that are already designed by right in the proposed ordinance. [5:34:09 PM] Oh, and -- >> Mayor Adler: I'm trying -- wrestling with this, because I want gsi to be able to go forward. It looks like a lot of the missing middle projects already do gsi. They figured out a way to be able to go forward. I think we heard that 80% of those projects go forward and do it. At the same time, being able to look at a phase two conversation that goes beyond your ability to do it because it's outside of you. It might be that you don't waive the gsi, you don't change any of the gsi requirements and that the real answer is something that is outside of your authority and your department to do it, manager, but there's another department that says, hey, we could relax this other thing over here. That might be better than relaxing the gsi. But we haven't set ourselves up to have that conversation. And that is the conversation that's going to be in phase two on those other things. I'm trying to figure out how we get gsi, even if we let it go forward today, to be part of [5:35:11 PM] that conversation, because I'm trying to get you tools that are outside your department's tools. I'm trying to get you and the city more tools than just having to find it within your own department. >> And I appreciate that. And looking forward to having those conversations. I think it will be very fruitful and productive. The missing middle component that is part of phase two, we definitely will be looking at the smaller sites because I think that's where a lot of those projects will happen. And it could be that the administrative variance is not the best option. Maybe it's payment in lieu for those sites. So theould be other options on the table that we will look at at that time forure. >> Mayor Adler: And some of the options might not even be you guys at all. It might not involve an environmental fix because you insist on full gsi. Everything else you've talked about, solutions, I understand and they're creative. But those are the things you can do, which is why they're coming to your mind. I want you to have tools that don't come to your mind because you don't have any power to do [5:36:11 PM] them by yourself. >> Yes, and we will be involving other departments in those conversations as well. >> Mayor Adler: My question is what authority do you need from council in order to be able to add other people's opportunities to your toolbox? >> I feel that we already have that to be clear, for phase two. >> Thank you, mayor. I was going to suggest that perhaps we come back to this item. I know councilmember vela has a couple other amendmes and I would like time to print them out and consider them. So if it's a good time to pause in this conversation. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. Is it okay if we pause on this and go to the next one? >> Vela: Absolutely. Just -- I can explain them and then we could take a pause and then reconvene. >> Mayor Adler: Let's do that. >> Vela: I think this goes very much to the point that they were just making, the amendment number 2 would allow gsi to be [5:37:13 PM] within the compatibility setback. And that is something -- because right now you cannot put a structure in the compatibility setback area. And so what I want to do is let's put the gsi there, because it's going to be very nice planted and it's going to be almost landscaping. So that helps prevent the loss of buildable area. And then I'm just going to go through them right quick. Then number 3 would be exempting sites smaller than .5 acres from, again, the gsi requirement. .5 acres is 21,000 feet or so. These would be, again, smaller missing middle-type sites that are going to be bearing a disproportionate cost for the switch over to gsi. [5:38:15 PM] And these are also -- you know, the gsi does not have a huge impact -- again, please correct me if I'm wrong. But on your more, kind of, suburban areas, the land use is just not as intense and there's more room to put gsi, whereas this may -- out at the edges of the city may have no impact whatsoever, because the land use is just not as intense. Whereas, again, in our central neighborhoods where there's so much development and redevelopment, this could have a relatively serious affordability impact. So, again, looking at maybe we can just cut out those smaller sites. Amendment number 4 would be just to explore incentives for people to go above the base water quality requirements so that maybe if you go above and beyond on this side there's some kind of bonus or some -- to structure some kind of incentive. [5:39:16 PM] That's direction to staff to explore that as a possibility. And then amendment number 5 has to do with porous pavement, which right now we exclude porous pavement for, like, sidewalks and for more minor uses where that is not going to count against your impervious cover if you're using the porous cement. And this would direct them to say what if they're using the porous pavement in a more intense use, driveways, other kind of areas. Can they get some kind of credit for that. Not a one for one credit, but some kind of credit toward their impervious cover or their, you know, environmental requirements. So, that's just briefly, those are the five amendments that have. >> Mayor Adler: Councilmember kitchen. >> Kitchen: I don't know if you want to talk about these right now. I want to know what our [5:40:18 PM] environmental officer thinks about those. Have you seen all of the ones that he's laid out? >> Yes. >> Kitchen: Is this the right time? >> Mayor Adler: Quickly. >> Kitchen: Okay. >> Okay. Amendment 2, the setback, we couldn't grow more and -- agree more and already in code we find opportunities to be flexible with certain types of gsi in setbacks. I'm happy to issue formal policy -- guidance to make surewe're being as flexible as possible. I want to defer to Todd, but we've heard concern from the law in dipping into 25.2 and that's why we're asking that it move to phase two. >> Mayor Adler: Do you have the ability to make variances to 25.2 development standards? You don't have that ability in your department, right? And again, that might be the right answer. We can't do it in here because of posting, but the right answer might not be, as you're pointing [5:41:18 PM] out, this one I love because it's saying you have to do the full environmental thing but you might just do it in a place they can't give you permission to do as part of their variance process. What we want to do is give the variance process the opportunity for another department to say, okay, yeah, we'll give them the variance to go into the buffer area if you can't, or the setback area. And I think that might be the more refined answer and the better answer that preserves the environmental protections for us. Go to number 3. >> Okay. Number 3. Okay. So this is for small sites. And so I certainly recognize councilmember vela's concerns, but we already for commercial sites under one acre and single-family subdivisions under two acres in urban watersheds, most of the core of Austin is in an urban watershed, we're already allowing folks to use payment in lieu for water quality. So that means they don't have to have any controls on- site. They can pay into a fee that already exists. [5:42:19 PM] And so for those urban sites, that does not seem to be a concern for us. If we look at suburban watersheds, there are significantly -- so, outside of urban watersheds, sites can't exceed 80% impervious cover. When you have 20% to work with, generally the constraints of the site are going to allow for gsi to be used in those contexts. Finally, if there are still site constraints that do not offer that, that administrative variance exists. The last thing I'll say is on a small site, some of the green controls that are proposed, things like rain gardens, more distributed controls where you don't have one central pond, especially in some of the most urban places that do decide they want controls on-site, those are easier to design into the site. They have more co-benefits for people who are experiencing that site than a centralized control. When we see urban developments -- I came from the landscape architecture world - - we're seeing more green storm water controls in urban contexts because you can fit them into [5:43:19 PM] the site differently. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. What about number 4? I'm sorry. >> Pool: Real quick, before we go to four, I think our attorney wanted to comment on two because it was legal that had the concern on amendment number 2. >> Mayor Adler: I think we know what the concern is. >> Pool: Did you state your concern? >> I have shared my concerns with council and don't need to speak to that further. >> Mayor Adler: He stated the concern. We weren't posted to make the changes to 25.2. We know what the concern is. >> Pool: That's what I wanted to make sure. >> I'm happy to discuss whatever you would like to. >> Vela: Mayor, for the legal questions, I'm going to have some questions about posting language and that may be a longer discussion. Let's hold off on the legal discussion with regard to proposing language. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. >> Amendment 4, we're in full support. >> Mayor Adler: Go to five. >> Number 5, this is something we can't support and this is because paving receives full [5:44:20 PM] impervious cover credit for pedestrian areas, sidewalks, multiuse trails. But, when we start talking about pervious paving in areas where you have higher vehicular traffic there's compaction that occurs and water is not getting into the ground in the same way. We do not have a good engineering solution for that that our experts feel comfortable with. We have tried to be flexible, for instance, in the way you can get out of counting the credit for your fire lane. And we have had significant issues with actually having that work in practice. And so we are happy to talk more about what this would look like. We can deal with some of this in the criteria manual. We want to make sure that staff and technical experts are the ones who are dealing with the technical criteria on these items. >> Mayor Adler: Chito, what do you want to do? >> Vela: I would like to pause and continue discussion because I do have some questions for [5:45:20 PM] legal, not just for this, but I need to understand -- to me the posting language is sufficient and I'd like to speak with legal. >> Mayor Adler: Let's put a pause on this. Let's move to item 41. He can, but I don't know if it precipitates a longer conversation, because councilmember vela disagrees with the conclusion, we're going to pause on this for just a second, but thank you, I appreciate that. Let's go to item 41. >> Harper-madison: Mayor Adler, put a pause on it until when? After 41? >> Mayor Adler: We easily could. Let me talk to councilmember vela. Maybe during part of this and let's see what the best way to move forward is. >> Harper-madison: Do you mind if I make a statement to the audience? >> Mayor Adler: Go ahead. >> Harper-madison: I see a lot of green, a sea of green in the audience. Hi, links. I have an event up the road on congress for the breast cancer resource center. I'm supposed to be there at 6:30. [5:46:20 PM] I would like very much to deliver the proclamation that I owe you guys this evening. So, I'm just kind of timing this based on when we wrap here and actually start proclamations. And would like to request from my colleagues if it's at all possible if I could do my proclamation first and then run down the street. >> Mayor Adler: I think that would be good. >> Harper-madison: Thank you. >> Mayor Adler: It's ten until 6:00, we'll start our 30 minutes on item 41. We can take a break. I know we have people waiting for proclamations. I'm trying to end the meeting. I want to do everything all at once and 6:00 proclamations is the best time we can get. I'm proposing something that gets us to 6:20. We can start the 30 minutes. That's what I propose. It's the will of council, can control. >> Pool: That sounds good to me. >> Mayor Adler: Let's proceed. [5:47:24 PM] >> [ Off mic ] >> Mayor Adler: I don't think she's going to miss her proclamation. She's going to go first. What we're going to do is do 41. Councilmember tovo, you've given us a powerpoint. If you could frame this for us, and then manager, I want staff to help us understand what's at issue here. And we're going to postpone this. We're not going to take action. We don't need to discuss things, but we need to understand those issues. >> Tovo: I appreciate it. Thank you very much. If I could ask the staff to pull up the powerpoint presentation. So, colleagues, and those in the audience, thank you for the opportunity to talk through this resolution. It has been on the agenda. This is the third meeting and I appreciate the opportunity to lay it out and talk about some of the elements of it. We've had an opportunity to [5:48:25 PM] really hit some of the highlights. I have put on the message board -- because it is lengthy -- a list of what I see as the action steps that it's directing, because I think that we've gotten mired in what the concerns are and have not spent a lot of time talking about what it does accomplish. If I had seen the chronicle article today with a great title called public land for public good about this piece. If I had seen that, I probably would have used it for my presentation. This sets out a vision for how we use our public lands, which is a tremendous resource that we have here at the city of Austin. For decades, community members have talked about how we can use it more effectively, how they can be involved in helping shape the use of our public land. And that is one of the intents here. And the main thing that this does is assemble -- we've had lots of conversations through the years about public land and real estate issues. And the intent here is to assemble those task force [5:49:27 PM] recommendations, the things that are practices but not policy, the things that have been recommendations that are not policy, into a cogent policy for the future. Again, with the intent -- with the real intent to maximize our value. So, next -- thank you. We have -- just to put a point on it, this a very scarce resource we have. This resolution in addition to setting up a process embeds community values that we've talked about again and again into the framework so that they are not afterthoughts late in the deal or things that we're negotiating for late in the process, but that they are expectation from the outset. Critically -- next, please -- these are living wages. We have expectations for what we pay our employees at the city of Austin. We have a series of agreements about what kind of wages people are going to pay if they are [5:50:28 PM] doing business or building things for the city. I am proposing that we live out this value on our public land, that if we're allowing businesses to be on public land at lower than market rates, that we should make sure that they're paying their employees a living wage. Accessible, affordable childcare should be built into our proposals, better builder standards, and compliance with p/wbe goals. These are things that we ask of third parties. These are all things that we ask of -- frequently. These are things -- one of the amazing opportunities we have is to use our city-owned land to create geographically dispersed affordable housing. This resolution builds out a process that allows us to have those conversations up front. [5:51:29 PM] One of the concerns that we'll talk about probably not extensively today, but I hope next week, is -- next, please -- the -- how this differs from the current process. Just to give a couple examples here, sometimes the process does include extensive council feedback in the beginning. For example, I had done a resolution this council passed to ask our staff to look at a portfolio approach. They came back and to identify some top sites for affordable housing. They came back with several to talk about. We had the presentation in work session. One of the proposals was to sell healthsouth and they got feedba F from council we didn't want to sell. That was a great example where early council feedback helped shape what we were going to do. This is just making -- coming up with a framework that would make those conversations and when they happen consistent. [5:52:31 PM] Another thing that this would do -- we have two examples. I have a slew of examples. Let me offer a couple related to purchases. Another great opportunity we had with healthsouth, we had the right of first refusal. It was owned by another entity use it had been owned by Brackenridge. They had to offer it to us for sale. We had a wonderful real estate professional who brought it to the attention of the manager, and we were able to purchase it. The grove is an example where that didn't happen, where we had a right of first refusal. It was state-owned land. I think we had an opportunity to purchase it for $29 million. I'm looking to Leslie, because councilmember pool was involved. We had an opportunity to purchase it for $30 million. And because it sat on the former city manager's desk for several months and didn't come to council, by the time it did come to council we were wildly pressed to try to figure out what financing we could use to make that work. [5:53:31 PM] It eventually sold to a private developer for $47 million. And we could have gotten tremendous community benefits and affordable housing there if there had been a policy expectation that that be presented to council quickly. And so one of the things -- that's just an example of the kind of thing that's contained within there, so there's a consistent expectation for if there is a property offered to the city or a property that we have the ability to buy, that it will be offered to council within a certain amount of time. Next, please. This is just to show that sales and purchases are pretty much the same policy in the framework I'm proposing, pretty much the same policy as we have now, with one suggested exception. And that is to separate negotiation fro execution. We typically that with a lot of our contracts these days. That would set that as the expected practice. Next please. Solicitations are really where [5:54:31 PM] we have an opportunity to do something as a community that's very -- more complex and very exciting. Healthsouth is an example, Mueller, colony park, where there are lots of moving parts. And what I am proposing, what I think is responsive to what I've heard through the years from the community is earlier council and earlier community input. I've highlighted where I think the most significant change is. Staff have indicated this is a concern for them. I would say -- and welcome, colleagues. Please help me figure out what process -- what is your feedback for how we get that early council input to help shape what the development is going to lock like, what the staff are going to go out and ask for in terms of the proposal and still keep it moving along quickly. So, I -- next, please. [5:55:32 PM] The next is just rapid-fire things that keep coming up either from staff or from colleagues, or others. Next, please. Will this resolution affect current agreements? I have -- we have met with staff repeatedly and said no, it is certainly not the intent to impact any projects that are currently in process. Colony park, we were asked for additional clarification. We've gone back and clarified again. Projects such as colony park, Ryan drive, St. John's -- all of those things where there's already been a council action, the expectation is not that these policies would suddenly apply to them. It really is just on a prospective basis. Next, please. Does this resolution slow down the process? I think it speeds it up. I gave an example the other day of a tract of land that camp twice on the council agenda and we ultimately did something totally different after two lengthy council processes -- city processes. [5:56:34 PM] Next, please. Does it preserve the city manager's judgment? Absolutely. At every turn in the process it allows the manager to recommend doing something different. It is just setting up -- it's intended to set up a framework, not a very proscriptive process. It has gotten more detailed over time, in part because the staff have asked for more details, have asked for more explanations. But it really is intended to set out just aramework. Next, please. Does it preempt bond requirements or federal and state law? No. There's a section in the beginning that says nothing is designed -- everything needs to comply with bond requirements. Next, please. This includes the airport. This is something that we've already set out in our nonprofit audit. Next, please. Next. I'm going to fly through these. These aren't some of the big points. Will the resolution require tenants on city-owned land to [5:57:34 PM] pay living wages and comply with better builder, yes. That's a value we should embed in our practices. The language says if there are particular projects where the manager is recommending against it, the manager can recommend against it. What we're asking, what we would be asking in this resolution is for the manager to explain why. Why would we proceed with this prt and not comply with better builderrer? Is there a reason, is there an argument for not doing living wages on this tract. Next, please. And it may, indeed, result in lower market rents. That was one of the concerns that the staff raised. And I think that that for me is a policy conversation. And that's one of the reasons to have that early council input so that the council can provide -- the manager can provide recommendations based on the staff's ex-nees and the -- expertise and the council can [5:58:35 PM] determine what policy direction they want to go to. Next, please. The same is true of the affordability goal, which we've heard feedback on. This was set -- I'm proposing 85% because when we talked about it during healthsouth and asked Mandy Demayo what level of affordability you expect in city projects, the Austin housing finance corporation goal is at least 85% affordable -- of affordability goal. That day on the council agenda we had also approved a project through the Austin housing finance corporation that achieved a 93% affordability goal. So, I'm proposing that we set that expectation high at 85%. And there's also plenty of language in the draft to say, and the manager can recommend lower levels of affordability with a justification and a rationale, as our staff did ultimately for healthsouth, though they had in June said they thought we could achieve [5:59:35 PM] more affordability if we did it through the Austin housing Austin housingfinance corporation, ultimately they recommended that we go with the model with aspen heights because the number of units was larger even though it wasso there will be a range of reasons why the manager might recommend otherwise and this provides the flexibility to do so. Next, please. I think we don't have time to get into this today. This is looking at rfps ahead of time. Next please. Next please. I think that's the last slide. Okay, thank you. So colleagues, as I understand the concerns from staff, and they have grown and expanded and changed, but I think there are -- I think we hit on a couple of them. And I want to just see if there are questions. [6:00:35 PM] The mayor asked me to identify what I saw as kind of the top five concerns I've seen from staff. Just to recap, one is will this apply to other kinds of deals that are already in progress. The answer is no. Two, the Austin economic development corporation, one really important direction that this resolution is providing is to set up early on when we're considering the major redevelopment of a piece of publicly owned land is consultation with the Austin development corporation. This is something I'm so proud our council has established. It is designed to bring value to private parcels, but also to our city owned land. So this resolution I am beds them within the process, we really haven't done that when we set up the adc. It's not clear when they came into the conversation. So this would establish that as an important part of the check in. I want to clarify that it [6:01:36 PM] does not subject them to the same process that's outlined in here. And manager, your mexican- american row this morning talked -- your memo this morning talked about the adc having not been consulted as I mentioned to you and I hope your staff, the director of the aedc communicated with your staff today making sure that that is very clear. We have reached out to them and have discussed this with them probably four times by now. Their main concern initially was that this did apply and I assured them it does not because we have the relationship with them that we approve a work plan over here, so it is very different. I took away a sense that they would welcome a role early on in the process to see if they are -- can bring value to a project. Violating the law or the charter, that's certainly a staff the staff have raised. There has been a significant number of concerns raised [6:02:37 PM] about those that we have from affordable childcare to affordable housing, and the next, what I would suggest we talk about on Tuesday, is slowing down the process. I think I would close it there. Again, I think maybe the chronicle piece did a better job capturing the value of it than DI in our previous conversations because we've been talking about it so quickly, but we have an enormous opportunity to use our assets wisely, prudently and really to bring value and to hit some of our community needs that we know we have from housing to support for local businesses small businesses to do pop-up art galleries a the music performances. We should be using our publicly owned land in a way that is really active. So there are a lot of smaller provisions within this. Everything from a concern about leaving places vacant, but a great deal of this really just -- put into policy things that we've [6:03:38 PM] already agreed should be priorities. Like holding on to our own land and not selling it. Doing a different valuation for right-of-way. Most of these things we have discussed in one form or another and in recommendations or a task force, a report, an audit. They just haven't moved into any kind of policy. I'll leave it there and just ask for questions. >> Mayor Adler: All right. We have going until 6:20, so a little over 20 minutes. Manager, can you get staff to give us their perspective on this. >> Yes, thank you, council members. And I want to thank councilmember tovo for the engagement you've had with staff and had many conversations and trying to understand some of the different questions that have been raised by our staff and trying your best to address them. So I've asked [indiscernible] From the mayor, we asked our staff to go to our different [6:04:39 PM] departments and hopefully summarize the five or so issues that have come up in the past. So acm Gonzalez is going to walk through those five years that still need concerns. >> Thank you, city manager. Assistant Rodney Gonzalez -- >> Mayor Adler: Hang on one second. Council member, did you want to ask a question before we hear from staff? >> Renteria: [Inaudible]. >> Tovo: I thought they looked good, councilmember Renteria. >> And mayor, I will be efficient with your time. Just some opening remarks. Of course the premise for the resolution is developing council policy guidance. We understand that completely. We understand council's role as policymakers and fully support that. In doing this for 27 years and you all know this, no two deals are alike. Every deal is different that comes to council for approval. Every deal is different that we put together. We appreciate policies, the concern of course with this policy is something that is [6:05:41 PM] limited or has no flexibility, not only restrictive covenants our ability to operate, but also presents challenges for council as well in terms of future council discretion over deal. And of course the policy itself, specifically the real estate disposition and requirement of the disposition we feel should be reviewed by the aedc and the board, and I can get into that in more detail in a little bit. Staff concerns, of course, what we feel is that the resolution erodes at the city's competitiveness. So this isn't really even a staff issue. This is broadly the city's competitiveness when it comes to real estate acquisition. I've cited some examples, some citations here from the resolution, but just as a reminder that health south and St. Johns were placed under contract by the city manager's authority using an earnest money contract. That was before any council discussion on those tracts. We were able to do that and of course the contracts are contingent on council approval and we of course secured that council approval later on. So we feel that without [6:06:44 PM] something like that that we could lose our ability to seize real estate opportunities like St. Johns and health south. And the other piece, with regard to our partners out there, the resolution would add unquantifiable ctsts. Our creative space operators and locally owned small businesses. We provide the citations from the resolution there. Leases, it's clear that on page 10 the policy does not impact current long-term leases so it's very clear, does not do that. However all these leases expire at some point. They will have to be renegotiated. They will have to come back to council as well as new leases. And it's that poi that this resolution would be triggered. We all know that the cost savings that these non-profits achieve through city leases, they then take that costing savings and they apply it to their missions that they fulfill. And because there is no definition for the [6:07:44 PM] construction, any type of permitted construction activity will invoke those requirements as listed in the resolution. Non-profits are considered as commercial tenants and thus they would have to comply with living wage standards and revenue sharing. I don't know how we would do that with a non-profit in terms of revenue sharing. So that of course could provide a challenge as well. And of course, once again this applies to new leases or renegotiated leases. It does not apply to current leases. And under our new non-profit lease policy that was developed and that's a staff policy that was developed, and one of the solutions that were put forward in that policy as a result of previous audit findings and we would be glad for that staff policy too. And as I mentioned before, leases do expire at some point and they will have to be renegotiated. In February of 2022 the [6:08:46 PM] finance department put together a non-profit lease policy. That is an internal policy that we use that was in response to audit findings. Specifically the policy defines and provides the basis for too methods for utilizing below market rental rate leases, which is what we used for our non-profit partners. One is the council action method. That is where you come forward with the resolution of an ordinance and you say specifically how you want that lease structured. You talk about the term, you talk about the rental rate, location, facility, etcetera. That is a bona fide use that we recognize when we engage with non- profit partners. The other one is the direct negotiated -- negotiation method. The preferred option, of course, is the council action method where you tell us point-blank in the same setting how you want the leased structured. We believe this would nullify that policy that was in response to audit findings and all non-profits would have to compete for new leases upon lease [6:09:47 PM] expiration. And of course by virtue of the premise of this, the rental lease, which is what all these are, would never compare to market rates. So there is a premise in here where we would have to do an appraisal so that way council could compare the rate to what is in the market. Hands down these rates are below market. That's the way that they're structured. Then other challenge and this is an operational challenge that we would have right now currently it's difficult toind tenants for market rate leases for properties. We have that issue currently in our real estate department or real estate division can elab that in the future. These requirements would reduce our competitiveness for city leases in the market. And of course again we are competing with other market rate commercial landlords that don't have these types of requirements. So itces us at a competitive disadvantage. [6:10:54 PM] And more with regard to the Austin economic development corporation, we've read the resolution, all four versions. Do not see where the Austin economic development corporation is exempted from the resolution so that certainly is a concern of ours in that the board and of course you all know this, you led the creation of the aedc. We worked with our consultant, Matt, over a year to develop the recommendations that came to council in July of 2020. The premise of it and the foundation of this is that it's based off of successful economic development corporations, namely the new York economic development corporation. They have complete autonomy. They have complete authority. They have complete control when it comes to these assets. They are not specifically directed as this resolution does in front of us as far as how to utilize that property. And so we can certainly elaborate that in the future, but we believe that the success of the aedc is [6:11:56 PM] potentially harmed with this resolution. Once again I in our reading of the resolution, it applies, B we've also heard where it -- where uncilmember tovo says that it doesn't apply. >> Tovo: Multiple times. >> So in closing remarks, we want to of course thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback. We appreciate that. Thank you, councilmember tovo, for allowing us to share our concerns with you. We are committed to working with council on policy, especially as council conveys your values that you want to achieve in real estate matters. >> Kitchen: Mayor, may I ask some questions. >> >> Mayor Adler: Yes. >> Kitchen: Okay. I'd like to speak -- to ask some questions about the aedc. So I would like to pull this aside because this doesn't apply to the aedc. So can we just agree that it doesn't apply and then that will take away that whole set of concerns that we [6:12:59 PM] have? And if there's some concern about the language that's not clear that it doesn't apply, then that could be fixed. But this does not apply to the aedc. So I would like to just take that off the table as one of your concerns. >> If that is the intent of the resolution not to apply, then yes the language should be modified. >> >> Kitchen: But yes you agree that all the things you just said about the aedc we can just set those aside because they're not a concern. >> Absolutely. That is the concern is that it applies to the aedc but if the intent is it does not apply whatsoever -- and we'd have to talk about this because the intent is that we hand over property to the aedc unabated. >> Kitchen: Well, as you know -- I don't want to talk about the aedc anymore because we've already said it doesn't apply, okay? So let's just take that offline and we can talk about the language to make sure that that's clear. Okay? >> We'd be glad to work with you on that language. >> Kitchen: Sure. Boose said and as we've all [6:13:59 PM] agreed that we've put the aedc in place for the flexibility that it offers and that's the intent. So I just wanted to get that clear. What I'd like to do is talk about the things that this actually applies to to understand what the real concerns are. I have a number of questions about -- of the other things -- the other things that you mentioned. I'm still not entirely clear on what the concern is. Again, we're setting aside the aedc because it doesn't apply. So the other things it applies to can you help me understand what is your biggest concern? We'll start with that. >> We just listed them. We can go back through the slides. >> Kitchen: Yeah, what is that? >> Sure. If you would pull up the presentation again. >> Kitchen: Okay, it doesn't apply -- well, maybe I should just defer to councilmember tovo now because the main thing I wanted -- I really want to get aedc off the table because that's not an issue. [6:15:01 PM] So can you go back? Do you have that list in one spot? That might help. I can't remember, I'm sorry. >> The presentation is coming back up. >> Pool: And could we get a copy of the presentation? >> We're pulling it back up. >> Kitchen: Take me to your biggest concerns. >> Mayor Adler: Move off of aedc. My understanding, just so that I understand, if aedc is working on a piece of city owned land it's not -- this does not apply to it. >> We want to offer language to the resolution to make it clear -- >> Mayor Adler: That even if the aedc is working on a piece of city-owned land none of this applies? >> We would want to propose that language. >> Kitchen: Yeah, it's not supposed to. Okay. So this is your greatest concern here about the -- the city's competitiveness. So seeking the council's [6:16:01 PM] input within the early stages of decision making concerning -- so how is that of concern? >> So the two examples cited here, for example, our real estate office works with all property owners across the city. They are the first contact, if you will, by these landowners, with areas of opportunity. So they will reach out to our real estate folks and say hey, I'm thinking of putting this on the market so it hasn't approached the market yet. Is the city interested? And if it seems like a great deal and if it's within the cityager's authority, we can act on that immediately. >> Kitchen: What does that mean act on? >> It means that we can put the property under contract through earnest money and it can be held off of the market and that allows us the time to put together a proposed structure to bring to council. >> Kitchen: Okay. So the concern is seeking [6:17:02 PM] council input before putting in a an Loi is that what it's called. >> Earnest money contract. >> Kitchen: We take purchase out. That would answer that concern. >> And mayor, we could certainly work through the resolution today, if you would like. That wasn't my understanding. >> Kitchen: Well, that's what I'd like to do. I'd like to understand the majoroncerns within the time frame that you've set. >> Mayor Adler: And then I'm going to ask council member vela wherever he is to come back down because I think maybe there's a resolution F us to work forward on that. >> Kitchen: So mayor, we'll stay within your time frame but work through as much as we can. >> And this one wasn't pertaining to sale, this was pertaining to acquisition. >> Kitchen: Purchase. If we take purchase out of the -- if we say this doesn't apply to purchase does this answer that concern? >> That would resolve that particular concern. >> Kitchen: All right. That's two down. [6:18:05 PM] Do we have time for any more, mayor? >> Mayor Adler: My suggestion is no, but now that've been listed I think there's an opportunity for you to be able to respond and to do this. I'd also point out that Lorraine Rizer, our real estate person, has offered also to serve as a resource to anybody on council that wanted to contact and talk with her. I think we all know her from years. >> And mayor, I also want to mention that we kept the list at five per your message board post. Obviously there are other staff concerns that didn't make this, otherwise it would be a much longer presentation. But we did keep it to your five as you had mentioned in your message board post. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. Help us elevate the other ones as part of this process. >> They are included in the memo that was released. >> Mayor Adler: All right. I haven't had a chance to catch up to it. That at least gives something for councilmember tovo to come back in and say I hear this, this is how I've responded to this, tell me why this doesn't meet [6:19:06 PM] that objection? >> Yes. >> Mayor Adler: Or to say I hear your objection and I think I'm right and you're wrong. >> Absolutely. And in the case of aedc we would like a chance at drafting that language so that it's very clear. >> Mayor Adler: Yeah, please propose language. All right. Proposed language on any one of these, but if there's an objection that you see that you think you couldpose language that cures your objection, but still otherwise would let the intent of it go forward, please help us with that. >> We certainly can. >> Mayor Adler: Okay, thank you. That would be helpful. All right. Is there a motion to postpone this item? Councilmember tovo makes a motion to postpone to? >> Tovo: Next week, please. >> Mayor Adler: Let's postpone to next week and talk on Tuesday on of where we are. There's been a motion. Is there a second to that motion? Councilmember kitchen seconds that motion. Any discussion? -- >> Tovo: Mayor, may I just say one thing? I appreciate the staff spending so much time with it. I think your suggestion that they propose some solutions here would be helpful and I [6:20:07 PM] would ask, manager, that you kind of take a look at some of the concerns that you've raised because, for example, there's some places where they're asking that we, for example, add language about in compliance with state law and bond -- we have a whole section saying everything in here needs to comply with the bond and a spirit of kind of really working to fix the things that are truly objectionable would be helpful. And I know that there is both a comment here that it has a depth of detail that you're concerned about and on the other hand there are multiple, multiple phrases where your staff have asked us to explain it or to give examples or to provide more information or more detail. We were trying to do something that was setting out a structure that we could follow moving forward rather than something terribly prescriptive, but we have been responding to all of these questions and [6:21:08 PM] trying to put more details and more details and now the fact that there are details is being cited as a problem in and of itself. Thank you for kind of moving to the bigger issues and providing some solutions for them. I think that would be good. >> Mayor Adler: All right. Those in favor of postponement please raise your hand. I see it being unanimous on the dais with council members Kelly and Renteria -- councilmember Kelly voting. I see you now. >> Thank you. >> Mayor Adler: With council members harper-madison and Renteria off the dais. That passes. Council member vela, do you have what could be a quick resolution to this next 91. >> Vela: I believe so. What I would like to do is propose the variance, but it takes effect November 1st, [6:22:08 PM] 2023. In other words, let's kick the question to phase 2, but if we do not have an answer, if we don't have offsets, if we haven't figured out how to balance the additional cost, then by November 1st, 2023, then the variance would kick in. That way we have incentive to get it done. >> Mayor Adler: Sof I understand that correctly, what you're proposing to do is to take your -- gsi moves forward. Your five amendments get referred to in essence the phase 2 process except that, number one, that variance language be effective a year from now or the date you put in, absent the next council taking action to otherwise adopt offsets. Council? >> Thank you, mayor. Chad, law department again. [6:23:08 PM] We can put in a separate date for that one provision. I do not think we have a mechanism to make something automatically revert or anything like that. But I suppose when council revisits this issue in phase 2 you would have the ability to amend the -- >> Mayor Adler: Take it out. >> So I can, as the drafter, put in a delayed effective date on that preferred provision and then subsequent council action could affect what's been described. >> Mayor Adler: I like that, colleagues, because that means I don't have to make a choice today between environmental protections and enforcement. And I trust the next council to figure out the appropriate offsets and standards. I second that motion on this item 45. Is there any discussion? Then let's take a vote. Those in favor please raise your hand. So it's -- it's passing with the amendments that were [6:24:10 PM] made and with this additional amendment that basically sends those five amendments into a phase 2 process, but also adopts amendment number one with an effective date a year from now. Alter: Mayor, that was just the -- I didn't want to vote in favor of the motion. I want to vote in favor of the end product. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. So you abstain on -- >> Alter: No. I'm voting no on council member vela's motion -- >> Mayor Adler: Let's take a vote. On council member vela's motion please raise your hand if you're in favor of it? Those opposed? Let's see, we have six I think. So -- and councilmember Kelly voted yes. So the people voting no on it are the mayor pro tem and councilmember tovo. We have councilmember harper-madison off the dais and the other eight vg eye. That amendment passes. Let's take a vote on the item then. Those in favor of the item with all the amendments and all the directions and all that please raise your hand. [6:25:10 PM] Those opposed? It's unanimous on the dais with -- no, I'm sorry, I keep forgetting to look up. Councilmember Kelly votes no. The others voting aye, but with councilmember harper-madison off the dais. That means it passes with nine affirmative votes, one no vote and one member off the dais. That takes care of all of the items we had for business today. Congratulations. Let's go now to -- this meeting here is over at 6:25. And we'll now move to proclamations. Thank you. I apologize for everyone's tardiness, our tardiness. I apologize for the delay. We're adjourned. [6:27:40 PM] >> Mayor Adler: All right. Are we ready to do some proclamations? All right. We're going to begin with the two proclamations that I'm going to introduce since I'm standing up here. I'm going to do the certificate of completions first and then I'm G to do the freedom Sunday souls to the polls day proclamation. The next one will be the Pio and marketing team, followed by Pease elementary, Austin repair and reuse day, and then the third annual national injury prevention day. Okay? [6:28:41 PM] Let's start with the certificates of completion. How do we do this? Read the certificates, okay. Certificates of completion, city of Austin we have today for multiple people celebrating graduation from the competitive business school program, which is quite the achievement. We want to make sure people are recognized for having accomplished this. So each of these folks that will be named here in just a moment are received a city of Austin certificate of completion. They're being recognized for successfully completing the five qualifying classes to receive the cooperative business school certification. This program is a result of the partnership between the city of Austin and the university of Texas Rio [6:29:47 PM] grande value center for agricultural and environmental advancement. It is a trusted way to do business and build communities. Cooperatives are grounded in principles of equity, resilience, resourcefulness and concern for the community. They are an essential part of a more just and prosperous future for Austin. Every one of these graduates is going to receive a certificate signed by me as mayor on behalf of my colleagues on the council. All right. >> Thank you, mayor. I'm Susana, deputy director for the economic development department. Good evening, everyone. Today is a special day. We are proud to celebrate and recognize our first cooperative business skills certification graduates. Congratulations to all of our first graduate class. [Applause]. [6:30:47 PM] The economic development department first implemented this business training program in 2020 through the pandemic. Since then we have hosted over 20 classes in how to start a worker or housing co-op, convert an existing small business to a cooperative, and train for how to be on a board of directors. Thank you to our partner, the university of Texas Rio grande valley center for sustainable agriculture and rural advancement for class instruction and coaching to the Austin co-op community. Thank you analise. She is the director of the Texas cooperative center at university of Texas Rio grande valley. Thank you so much for your support. [Applause]. We close out this month of October as a national co-op month by celebrating these graduates so that we're very excited. So as I read each of your [6:31:48 PM] name, please step up to accept your certificate and a photo with our mayor, please. And then afterward we'll take a group photo. Let's get started. The first graduate is Jen Beardsley. Please come up. >> Liz bellrose, please step up. [Applause]. [6:33:10 PM] Blanca delgado. >> Lynn Krug. [Applause]. [6:35:23 PM] >> All right. Would everyone who is here with the souls to polls day, come on up. [Applause]. [6:36:56 PM] >> Mayor Adler: All right. I'm excited about this one on so many levels. First is that this is my colleague's councilmember harper-madison working on this. She wanted to be able to read this. I'm going to read her words, but I made everyone stay on the dais about 30 minutes that I had told them I would and she raced out because she had another place to be, but this was real important to her. I want you to know that. This is also exciting to me because I'm going to be attending church on Sunday and making one of those marches from church to the polls. I will also be with you. >> [Inaudible]. >> Mayor Adler: I'm not going to say out loud. [Laughter]. So this is the remarks that councilmember harper-madison had prepared. I won't read it as well as she does. Representative democracy is my favorite form of government, but only works [6:38:00 PM] if it is truly representative. And that means we need as many people as possible to participate in our elections. Now, right now there are powers that people are doing everything they can to restrict participation, particularly among historically marginalized groups. Every election cycle we talk about the importance of exercising the hard-earned right to ve, but now more than ever, it really feels like we're in a U it or lose it situation. Which is why I'm so grateful for groups like the Austin chapter of the links for organizing critical get out the vote efforts like the upcoming freedom Sunday [6:39:00 PM] souls to the polls event. So without further ado, this is a proclamation by councilmember harper- madison and prepared, but she gave me to sign it. Be it known that whereas African-American churches, civic organizations and citizens have played a crucial role in expanding civil rights and suffrage and racial equality and jurisdictions throughout the United States and throughout our nation's history. And whereas for the first time ever on October 30th of the year 2022, communities of faith and other organizations across Travis county under the leadership of the Austin chapter of the links, inc. Will engage in freedom Sunday's souls to the polls, a statewide nonpartisan, non-denominational voter [6:40:01 PM] initiative aimed at maximizing African-American participation in the upcoming November elections. And whereas the coordinated effort will feature community leaders, election officials, activists and citizens engaging in voter registration drives, candidate forums, voter education symposiums, prayer, fellowship and support. Now therefore I, Steve Adler, mayor of the city of Austin, Texas on behalf of councilmember harper-madison and the entire Austin city council, do here by proclaim October 30th of the year 2022 as freedom Sunday, souls to the polls day. Congratulations. [Applause]. And accepting this proclamation is going to be Angela Henderson, president of the Austin chapter of the links and also Yvonne Masey [6:41:04 PM] Davis, co-share of the national trends and services facet. Congratulations. [Applause]. >> Good evening. As the mayor stated, I'm Angela Henderson, president of the Austin, Texas chapter of the links. On behalf of our national president and our area director and the Austin chapter, I would like to thank mayordldler, count member Natasha harper-madison and the entire members, all the members, for this honor. We are humbled that our services are being recognized. As I've been saying, lots of people register people to vote, but the main thing is to get them to the polls to vote. And I also would like to thank the ministers that are here with us this evening. We have pastor parker and pastor chase and my pastor, pastor aw Anthony mays. [6:42:04 PM] Thank you. [Applause]. >> I'm Yvonne Masey Davis. And as he stated, I'm the co-chair of national trends and services. And under that facet comes souls to the polls. Souls to the polls for me came last summer because I was seeing all the things that was going on and we needed a way. And it took me back to my childhood. I grew up in a small town. My mother was the activist. She became a city councilmember. And in our little town she was the first African-American that was elected to the city council. She became mayor pro tem and she was the first African-American and woman to be elected in Coryell county. And that stands to this day. Back in those days, probably in about 1961, our schools were still segregated. And if you knew my mother [6:43:04 PM] she would say, N that's not going to happen. So her little girl along with our pastor who was also a friend of Dr. Marvin griffin who became pastor in Austin, they had a case and I was the person, the little child, that was U in that case to integrate schools in gatesville, if you can believe this, in 1961. And all of my life we have fought for civil rights in a lot of different ways, and I really grew up not realizing some things that I took a lot of things for grant the, as my mother would say. And something happened about eight years ago and I said I'm not going to sit on the sidelines and let things happen. And each one of us are an ambassador. I went back because my roots are in the church. And my dad was from north [6:44:04 PM] Carolina and so we saw what was happening back in Birmingham. My friend here, my brother in the struggle, pastor parker, y'all call him martin Luther king of Austin. People secretly called me Rosa parks. [Laughter]. But we are all ambassadors and we started in the church, the civil rights movement started in the church and it's time for us to unite. And in this partnership we not only have the pastors that you see here, something imploded in Austin in council member Natasha harper-madison. I can tell you we're getting our taxpayers' money is put to use. She texts me at 5:00 in the morning. And she offered to do this. So she's not asleep when we think that people are asleep, they're working. And I could not believe that I received a message from [6:45:04 PM] her at 5:00 in the morning responding to a post that I put on Facebook. And that post has gone everywhere around Texas and we have churches that are united with us, not only in Austin, in temple, in Giddings, the city of Elgin, smithville. Even in my hometown of gatesville. It's popping up all over. So something is going on. And we need to keep that fire ignited. We can all make a difference. We can all get someone to the polls to vote. You can all go to the church. Can you all go to the church, unite with the church, congregations, and let's go take people to vote. No matter how they vote, we want them to exercise their right to vote because it may not be here for another generation. Thank you, mayor Adler, thank you to the city of [6:46:05 PM] Austin. We appreciate you. And most of all, we want you to realize that this -- our democracy is at stake. It's not over and we're not hopeless because we have an army of black women with our pastors who is going to fight for us. Thank you. [Applause]. [6:48:18 PM] >> Alter: I would like to invite our Irr Pio team down here, and marketing team if you're separate. [6:49:36 PM] Good evening, everyone, I'm Alison alter and proud to serve as mayor pro tem for the city of Austin. And to serve district 10 on the Austin city council. As an environmentalist, I'm really proud of the progress that our city has made towards our zero waste goals during my time on council. And today I want to talk about the expansion of our curbside composting program and one of the teams that made it happen. Curbside compost collection began in 2017 and it is now available to all Austin resource recovery customers who receive curbside services, nearly 210,000 households. During the final expansion of the program which reached 55,000 additional households, Austin resource recovery's public information and marketing team, which is standing here behind me, ran a year long community outreach and effort to educate customers about this service. This team was faced with new challenges as the covid [6:50:37 PM] pandemic hit our city while they launched the expansion. The public relations and marketing team had to keep customers to keep them staff and use flexibility to continue providing this valuable city service. Their work included mailers, virtual town halls and both social and earned media. And for many customers this was a new experience so that's mailers and all that information was really important so people would feel comfortable adopting this. Throughout the campaign the team held environmental justice a guiding principle and their work was super effective. Contamination and compost bins decreased from 2.8% to 1.5% and the weight of compost increased over the course of their campaign. In may of this year the Austin resource recovery public information and marketing team traveled to New York City to accept the public relations society of America's silver anvil award for most effective [6:51:38 PM] environmental social and governance campaign in recognition of their community outreach and marketing around this expansion of the curbside composting collection program.austin resource recovery no doubt faced strong competition in their award category. Companies like IBM, krispy kreme and Pepsi. So this is no small feat. The civil anvil award recognizes an organization that has delivered environmental and social benefit to stakeholders, celebrating the best strategic public relation campaigns of the year as well as understanding organizational excellence. These awards have been a benchmark of high performance and public relations for over 75 years. I am so proud of arr's public information and marketing team and I'm applied that because of their efforts -- I'm pleased that because of their efforts Austin is much closer to reaching our goal of diverting 90% of the city's trash from landfills by 2040. It is my honor to recognize this team with a distinguished service award today. [6:52:38 PM] Before I read the award, though, because we are here with the marketing team, I ntnt to encourage any Austin resource recovery customers who do not participate in curbside composting to request a cart. The service is easy to use and you can do so by calling 311 to get started. And now public information and marketing team, I want to personally congratulate you on an excellent public education campaign and to read your award. Gina, do you want to come up here? For their untiring service and commitment to residents as dedicated employees of Austin resource recovery, the public information and marketing team is deserving of public acclaim and recognition. In may 2022 the public relations society of America awarded Austin resource recovery the silver anvil for most effective environmental social and [6:53:40 PM] governance campaign. The award was in recognition of arr's year long curbside compost community outreach marketing, which held environmental justice as one of the guiding principle. This certificate is provided in acknowledgment and appreciation thereof this the 27th day of October in the year 2022 by the city of Austin and the whole council. Thank you. And I was also asked to present a distinguished service award to ava Cardenas who lead the team. [Applause]. Congratulations. Thank you. Gina, did you want to say a few words? >> Thank you, councilmember alter and all for this great honor. We are super pleased to see compost coming to Austin. I'm happy to the community for joining with us to make this successful. I want to extend a thanks to the team standing behind me. These are the people that did all of the great work [6:54:40 PM] you just heard about, so thank you to the team, excellent work. Thank you for this honor and thank you to the city of Austin for continuing to help us in our effort to reach zero waste. [Applause]. [6:56:19 PM] >> Tovo: Good evening. I'm council member Kathie tovo. I represent city council district 9 and that is the district that includes peace elementary. So today the next proclamation is in honor of a really special event that's going to take place tomorrow at peace elementary. You'll hear a little more about it in a minute. It is the peace elementary cupcake tree. -- Pease elementary cup take day and hootnannie event. And this will include some of the alums of Pease elementary. Some of the other community supporters and there's going to be a very special event taking place that I'm going to describe in the proclamation. So be it known that whereas Pease elementary is the only elementary school in downtown Austin. And until its closure in 2020 it served as the oldest continuously operated elementary school in the state of Texas. And whereas the Pease tree project is a pilot project [6:57:19 PM] in partnership with landscape design firm dwg and tree folks and focusings on one of Austin's grandest of grand champion tree known as the cupcake tree, one of Austin's largest live oaks. And it is a tree on Pease elementary's campus that was for generations a place of learning, of civic resilience and ethnic and socioeconomic diversity, all under the massive canopy of this ancient tree. And whereas to celebrate and memorialize the history of Pease elementarychchool, hundreds of acorns from the cupcake tree were collected in the fall of 2021 and then germinate and grown intoling trees over the past year to be given to Pease students and alumni and parents and staff during hootanannie as a legacy of this historic landmark. Therefore I, Kathie tovo on behalf of mayor Adler, do pronounce October 28th, [6:58:19 PM] 2022, as Pease elementary cupcake tree day in Austin, Texas. [Applause]. And I'd like to invite Daniel to say a few words. Test. >> Council member tovo, thank you for your unwaivers support on this and thank you to Andrew and everyone else who's been involved in this project. This is about celebration -- recognizing the legacy of Pease element but also the tirelessness of the teachers and staff and students. It's an opportunity to present advocacy in the sense of the importance of the cup cake tree as a symbol butlso as a [6:59:23 PM] message of environmental advocacy and climate action and empowering future generations to understand the importance of what this tree represents for Austin, for the community, for generations of people but also as a pilot and an insensitive towards enhancing Austin's urban tree forest and a legacy for generations to come to promote the next generation of Eric -- of heritage trees in Austin. We are proud to accept this. >> [Indiscernible]. >> Thank you for the reminder. We have a historic fall festival and will occur [7:00:23 PM] tomorrow evening on the grounds of Pease elementary. We've had amazing support from to enable us to use the grounds and bring the kids together in full costumes and hand out sapling trees. It's a tremendous opportunity to look back and to celebrate. Thank you. [7:01:52 PM] . >> Thanks again for doing this. >> Tovo: It was my pleasure. >> Tovo: Thanks for continuing to be with us. This next proclamation so going to be presented to our fabulous staff at Austin resource recovery. We have director snipes, many other staff, as well as local partners. One of the first things I realized about Austin when I [7:02:53 PM] moved here is we have a great culture of reuse. I am a huge fan of thrift stores and bookstores and some of the other places to get used items and our Austin resource recovery has set such a high standard along with local partners of reusing, repairing, keeping things in circulation and getting as much life out of them as possible and creating a culture in Austin where we're good stewards of our environment and saving and reusing things. That is a way of how we're moving towards the zero waste goal. This is in recognition of national reuse day. Be it known national reuse day is celebrated October 20th and repair on October 30. Austin -- whereas the city [7:03:59 PM] supports reuse year round through recycle and reuse drop off circle, through recycle bookstores, through Austin reuse directory, community PC program and whereas the city of Austin supports year -- repair year round through fix-it clinics and bike shop events and whereas reusing and repairing goods furlter -- further's the zero waste goals by creating investment, climate mitigation goals and social equity goals by expanding access to repair and reuse opportunities to those historically underserved communities in Austin, I, on behalf of Steve Adler, along with my colleagues behind me proclaim October 20th, 2022 and Austin repair and reuse day in [7:05:01 PM] Austin, Texas. Congratulations. Thank you so the folks behind me who made that happen. And I would like to invite director snipes to say a few words. >> Thank you, council member. I want to take the time to thank the team and community partners who are here this evening. They have done a tremendous job of making a difference in the community through reuse programs and for me these are programs that allow us to connect with our community and see a benefit that all of us understand is really tangible. Hats off to them and thank you very much. Appreciate it. [Applause]. [7:07:19 PM] . >> Good evening, everyone. I'm council member Ellis and proud to represent district 8, southwest Austin. I have the pleasure of presenting a proclamation with some special people who are doing great work in the community to improve health and public safety by building awarehouseness through education. It is the goal of coalition members to work to empower diverse populations and prevent injuries which are the leading cause of death and disability to children under the age of 18, whether be promoting use of car seats, distributing free gun locks this is done in a [7:08:20 PM] manner respectful of various cultures, beliefs and life styles. Working with art per -- partnership with public health, they are working to build a safe community for its young people. Be it known that whereas injuries a leading cause of death and disability in children 1 to 18 years old and whereas the city of Austin is committed to creating a safe environment and whereas while many injuries and deaths vary across the state every county in Texas is impacted by these events. Whereas hospitals, state agencies, and community organizations are committed to reducing injuries and deaths by promoting safe practices and whereas national injury prevention day raises awareness and promotes aness in [7:09:20 PM] reducing injuries in Austin, the city of Austin commends all involved in the worthwhile endeavor to help protect children from injury. I, on behalf of the mayor of Austin, proclaim November 18th, 2022, as the third national child injury prevention day. [Applause]. . >> Thank you. I'm Mina ire. I'm the chief medical officer at Dell medical center. It's wonderful to be here today. I want to thank you mayor Adler, council member Ellis, and Austin council members issuing this proclamation. We appreciate the partners with us today. We have had the pleasure of [7:10:20 PM] serving the central Texas community for over 120 years. It's meaningful to the Dell children center to recognize the importance of injury prevention. Unintentional and preventable injuries are the leading cause of death and disability for children 1 to 18. Injury is the leading cause of death through 44 years of age. With the plan expansion of Dell medical center north you have -- we have a commitment to work tirelessly to prevent childhood injuries. The safe kids coalition join doctors and nurses at trauma [7:11:21 PM] centers across the country to raise awareness. We will light a light in solidarity with communities across the country who are doing the same. Thank you. >> I'd like to thank council member Ellis and also the city of Austin for drawing attention to the people who make our life safer. All across the country groups will make November 18 a day of safety. This is my third year of preventing in this event. I'm the founder of an organization to promote gun safety. My mission was sparked by the death of my son when a handgun went off and killed him accidentally. It was preventable. The kind of event that gun safety awareness can stop. [7:12:21 PM] National prevention day helps focus things that injure children. I'm grateful for hospitals, fire departments, police officers that support awareness. We know a single day will not make this much of a change itself but the awareness that we can spread can be a lasting effect on the safety of our children and communities. I hope that this gets out to everybody but I want to encourage everyone to post to their social media accounts using hash tag "Be injury free." That date is November 18th and we'll distribute any artwork if anybody needs that as well. Thank you so much and we so appreciate the proclamation. [Applause]. [7:13:51 PM] . >> We're glad we had such a huge audience.