Special Called Meeting of the Austin City Council Transcript – 12/07/2023 Title: ATXN-1 (24hr) Channel: 1 - ATXN-1 Recorded On: 12/7/2023 6:00:00 AM Original Air Date: 12/7/2023 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. Good morning, everybody. Call to order the special called meeting of the Austin city council. It is December 7th, 2023, and it's 10:00 in the morning. We are meeting in the Austin city council chambers, which are [10:00:31 AM] council chambers, which are located in city hall at 301 west second street in Austin, Texas. And a quorum of the Austin city council is present. Again, I want to welcome everyone that's here. We appreciate your attendance today. And those that are watching and paying attention. As I indicated, this is a special called meeting. It is a special called meeting of the Austin city council to consider what has been generally referred to as the proposed home ordinance. Let me explain how we'll proceed during the course of the day. First, we will hear from the Austin city staff for quick remarks by city staff. On the agenda item that's before us. Then I will ask council members to lay out proposed amendments that they may be proposing later in the day, or when we take up the item. We're doing that so that those of you in the public will have the [10:01:34 AM] in the public will have the transparency of no knowing what we will be considering in toto as best we can at this point in time, meaning both the or the proposed ordinance and the proposed amendments. We'll just lay those out so that people will have them. I would also indicate that to my colleagues on the council, all if you know you're going to have questions about something and you have not already, he told staff what the what you may need, who you may need to answer those questions. Please go ahead and do that as quickly as you can so that we can make sure that someone is here to address those. Once we lay out those amendments, we will then hear from those who are wishing to speak. Each person will have two minutes. As I indicated on the message board, people may donate time to someone so that a single speaker can speak up to six minutes. If you're donating time, please see the city clerk over here to my [10:02:35 AM] the city clerk over here to my right, to your left, to complete a time donation form in advance so that we can be organized. The donors of time must be physically present at the time. The person to whom they've donated the time is going to be speaking. Again, due to I mentioned this before, called the meeting to order. But let's let's go over a couple of other things due to the large number of in-person speakers, the boards and commissions room, which is across the atrium here, it will be used as an overflow room. So if you want to, you can people can be there and watch and know know what order we're going in in. Will be streaming the meeting in the overflow room as well as so that you'll be able to keep up. Speakers will be able to check the order of upcoming speakers at the kiosk outside the city council chambers. But I do ask that you [10:03:36 AM] chambers. But I do ask that you please, please, please be patient. With the system due to the volume of speakers that have signed up, there may be a little bit of lag time. We have two podiums that are set up so that people hopefully we can act in an efficient manner and out of respect for those who are signed up to speak later in the day when your name is called and the clerk's office will call names more than one name at a time, when your name is called, please make your way down to the front when you hear your name, not when you think it's going to be your time to speak because as we again want to be respectful of the people that might be following you and we want to move with some efficiency. And the reason we have two podiums as opposed to what we typically do, which is just one podium, is so that people can alternate. And by alternating, we'll be able to hear speakers in a more routine fashion. A couple of [10:04:37 AM] routine fashion. A couple of other things. One is I've mentioned this before and I'll want to say it again. Our rules allow for two signs in the back of the room as I indicated, we've been a little lax on that in the in the past couple of weeks. But the reason we do that, particularly on a day like today, where we have a full council chambers, is because everybody has a right to see and participate in this process. And if signs are held up someplace other than in the back of the room and we can see them, but if signs are held up, then you're blocking someone. So I would ask that and we'll enforce this. Please don't put signs in seats where you're blocking a seat from somebody. And please don't hold signs in a way that you're blocking someone's view of the dais as they are here. Also trying to participate in the hearing. We're also asking that people don't all come up and [10:05:39 AM] people don't all come up and gather behind the podium. If someone is called on to speak, let that person come forward and let that person speak. Obviously there may be some exceptions to that. If someone comes up and they have a child with them or something of that nature, but demonstrations around the podium aren't going to be allowed because we want to hear from everybody in an efficient and routine manner. And if you are here to participate in the hearing, you have spoken and you have the ability to open up a seat for someone that's going to speak after you, I would also ask that you be courteous to the speakers following you and you open up that seat so that others may move into the council chambers and be a part of the process. All right. Think that covers everything. I will make a few comments just before we start the public comment part, but I will now call up on the [10:06:40 AM] but I will now call up on the city manager to be recognized as we go into to our discussion of this important ordinance. >> Mayor council, we have Veronica Briceno, the assistant city manager that's in charge of this item, and she will be making a brief presentation, then turn it over to the staff for additional detail. >> Good morning, mayor and council. Thank you. Veronica Briceno assistant city manager. I first want to start by thanking staff did this last time at work session, but I want to echo that. Thanks. Staff has worked tirelessly to get to this point. They have worked through a Thanksgiving holiday and they have been making sure to get all of your questions answered, providing information that has been requested and so forth. So you'll see some of our staff here today. But they are standing before many behind us. So thank you very much to our staff. Today is the final public hearing on the proposed changes to residential uses and standards in the land development code, including adding phase one of the home initiative, the policy conversation about this proposal began this past summer when council adopted resolution that called for the code amendments. [10:07:42 AM] called for the code amendments. Before you today, council and the planning commission held a joint public hearing about the proposed amendments on October 26th. On November 14th, the planning commission voted to recommend the council approve the proposal with a variety of amendments. Two of the planning commission's key recommendations are to set a maximum Florida area ratio or fa for two and three unit developments within the mcmansion area to reduce the size units and to create the preservation and sustainability bonuses to encourage homeowners to keep all or part of an existing structure on a lot. Staff described these and other planning commission recommendations during a work session last week. On November 28th. Over the weekend, staff provided a memo with information and options for implementing the planning commission's recommendations. I won't describe those in detail now, but we are happy to answer any questions or provide additional information if needed. We understand that council members plan to offer amendments to the proposal staff is available to answer questions as you discuss [10:08:43 AM] answer questions as you discuss options to improve the proposal. We have staff here from planning and development services, housing and transportation and public works, Austin fire, watershed protection, Austin water and Austin energy. If you have questions for any departments that I haven't named, please let me know and we will ensure that staff are available for questions after we hear from the public. With that, we look forward to hearing from our community on these important changes to our land development code. Thank you. >> Thank you. Members any questions? At this point? Okay. What I will do next is, as I indicate, tpid, so that we will have transparency about what all is being considered and the public will know as we go forward on those members, I'm going to call upon individual members that I know have proposed amendments so that you can just lay out the amendment so that the public will know what that proposed amendment looks like and what the basis of the proposed amendment is. And then we will go to public comment. And in no particular [10:09:45 AM] comment. And in no particular order, I just open my notebook. Yes. Councilmember Kelly, you have something? >> Yeah. I was just wondering if we could put those amendments up on the screen so that those at home could see them if they haven't already. And then those in the audience could as well. >> Well, I don't know that we're prepared to do that right now. >> Okay. And so we can either not put them up or we can do them later when it comes time to vote. But so what I'll what I'll do is I will ask staff to work on when we get to the time for voting, whether we can be able to do that. And for now, just ask that council, lay out the amendments. Does that work for you? >> That's great. Thank you. >> Good, good. >> Maybe we remind them they're also on the message board so that they can view them there as well. Thank you, mayor. >> That's a very good reminder. Yeah, I'm sitting up here. >> I'm to follow your polgar. >> Well, I'm sorry. >> You're going to have to deal is do Daniel, do you know what? I'm sorry, sir. You're out of order. You're. You're out of [10:10:46 AM] order. You're. You're out of order. And I'm going to ask that you be excused from the chambers. We're not going to start this way, sir. Please. Please escort him. >> You don't get that, though. You don't get that. >> I'm sorry. Thank you for being here. >> My people. My people in Austin are hurting. Yes yes, he. >> They are not here. >> Thank you, sir. Please >> That's going to man, this thing is wrong, man. >> Please. Not. I'm sorry. Please enforce our rules and that's up. >> Yeah. Yeah. We yeah, please. >> Come on, folks. Tell them [10:11:52 AM] >> Come on, folks. Tell them y'all got Katy, man. >> Mayor, you a messed up man? You messed up and that still. And that's the deal on you, man. People, y'all still. You y'all scared me. >> I'll start laying out you. Council member, council member vela, if you don't mind, I'm going to ask you. >> I'm going to ask you to lay out your proposed amendment, your rule Minnesota side man. >> Yeah, yeah. >> Thank you, mayor. Chair recognizes councilmember vela. Thank you, mayor. I have three amendments. All I would characterize as kind of tweaks to the planning commission version. The amendment one motion sheet number one, which has been passed out to everyone, [10:12:53 AM] has been passed out to everyone, changes the to I'd say simplifies the floor area ratio. The far calculations, the current far calculation options include a series of complicated exceptions and are kind of difficult to administer. This provides just a simple and clean definition for floor area ratio. It also does it pushes up the maximum far for a .65 unit to 4350 or I should say the minimum square footage from 3750ft S total to 43 50ft S total to make sure that the three unit configurations on smaller lots have enough square footage and then it. And then it adjusts the two existing dwelling units. [10:13:55 AM] two existing dwelling units. There's a there's a distinction in the current version where for the two unit formation the duplex formation gets 0.5 far in one portion of the ordinance and 0.55 in the other. And we just make both of those 0.55. So if you're doing two units, regardless of what the history or situation is, you get the same amount of far. That's a motion sheet number one. Motion sheet number two to deals with the minimum front yard setback. Currently, citywide, it's 25 foot setback for, for the mcmansion, an area it is a complicated calculation where you do it's the average of a multiple units. That's again, a very difficult to administer. Folks have to hire a surveyor, go out and measure the front setbacks on the, you know, essentially the block and then [10:14:57 AM] essentially the block and then take the average. We change it to a standard 15 foot set minimum front yard setback back that way the houses can be a little bit closer to the curb. And that gives people, again, a little bit more flexibility in designing their units. But I would also note that on reducing the front yard setback, we will reduce impervious cover a big chunk of impervious cover is the driveway you know, the driveway. The farther back the driveway has to go to the house, the more concrete we have to pour in order for that driveway to reach the house. Same thing with the sidewalk. So by moving the houses up closer to the front of the street, there's going to be less driveway and thus less impervious cover. And then the other the last one is also involves a setback, although this one is changing the [10:15:59 AM] this one is changing the setbacks for a street side. A street side yard setback. Meaning where a house front is a corner house where it fronts the street, but then the side of the house fronts a side street. It right now, the setback on the side of the house that is on the side street is 15ft. We are reducing it to five feet. This amendment is designed to allow corner lots to have front facing to have essentially when you do three units on a corner lot, you would then be able to have three street facing units. If we're allowing them to get a closer to the side street setback basically on certain lots it will help that alignment so that all the houses have some street frontage. Those are my three amendments. >> Mayor thank you. Councilmember [10:16:59 AM] Councilmember >> I'll recognize councilmember if we have questions on amendments. When do you want us to take those? >> When we bring them up. >> Okay. >> I'll now recognize councilmember pool and then councilmember qadri, councilmember Allison alter and then councilmember Ryan alter. So councilmember pool, then councilmember qadri. >> Mayor. Thanks. I am bringing one amendment that maintains our standard ordinance effective date, but gives staff 60 days. The 60 days they need to shape their procedures for applications. And just a little bit of information about that, I posted this amendment and an update from legal to the message board. The amendment is related to the effective date of the home department to develop processes to support the program . Thank you, mayor. >> Thank you, councilmember. Councilmember qadri. Yeah, I'm really quick. >> We're bringing a historic preservation amendment at my amendment ensures coordination between the historic preservation office and development services staff. On implementation of the preservation bonus. It addresses [10:18:00 AM] preservation bonus. It addresses staff's memo of considerations that was released last Friday. And I just want to emphasize how valuable this preservation bonuses to our city, and especially in district nine, preserving existing structures furthers the city's affordability culture, preservation and climate goals by diverting construction debris is from the landfill. So I believe this amendment will help ensure the program's success. >> So thank you, councilmember councilmember Allison alter. Then council member Ryan alter. >> Good morning and thank you, everyone, for coming out this morning to have your voices heard. I posted one amendment, with related to short term rentals. A version two has been distributed with some additional edits from law. As posted the proposed ordinance would expand short term rentals beyond our existing limits and allow 100% of newly developed site under this use to be a multi unit short term rental. While I believe short term rentals have a role to play in creating the [10:19:00 AM] a role to play in creating the vibrant and hospitable city that we aspire to be, I don't typically hear the concern raised in our community that we have too few short term rentals. Given that, I would prefer that any expansion of short term rentals be considered more comprehensively rather than using this item as a vehicle to change our existing limits on this, use, increasing the potential for high income, investor driven use of our limited housing stock does not, in my estimation. Further, our housing supply goals. What we asked law to draft was something that would keep the rules, the same as what we have now. And so that is what is in your backup. Secondly, I had really hoped that some of my colleagues would put forward some of the amendments that our staff had recommended that would improve the proposal, seeing that those are not on offer. I'll be working with staff to prepare some of those amendments. So for instance, one that does alternative one with respect to [10:20:00 AM] alternative one with respect to the fa that exempts garages without adding additional square footage to the fa, we need to be careful how we do that. It has a big potential impacts and also for the front setback following what staff recommended with respect to the porch. I also will have an amendment adding some requests for data to the Watson's amendment for the study related to understanding what size units we actually getting from this proposal. And I'm looking forward to listening to the community and may since we'll have a long time, may fashion some other amendments along the way this morning. >> Thank you, councilmember councilmember Ryan alter is joining us virtually. >> Hello, everybody. Let's see there we go. So you get a helper today. There you are. So I have an amendment related to tree [10:21:01 AM] an amendment related to tree preservation. So what this will do is look at ways that we can ensure that trees on a lot are preserved and through a variety of options, whether it's an alternative compliance or potentially allowing somebody to build a little bit into the setback if they're avoiding a tree, staff's going to make some recommendations on what would be the most effective and come back to us in March. So that we can preserve our tree canopy. >> So that's it. Thank you, councilmember. >> Thank you, members. >> I'll end this part of our program with laying out an amendment that I will offer. Put this up on the message board and put up a red line version. But it with a program like this, we need to also make sure that we're studying the data and the effects and impacts of such an action. And so my motion to amend would include that we receive at a minimum, the following things in a report out [10:22:02 AM] following things in a report out starting three months and then six months, and then a and three. I'm sorry, six month, three months, six months and a year. And then on an annual basis for a minimum of five years data metrics for enacting the initiative that include things like the number of permits applied for an had requested under this, the number of demolition permits, a marketing analysis related to housing prices and the price of the various types of units. Also related to geographic impact of this ordinance. Doing an analysis of the geographic impact analysis and providing data on with regard to potential displacement of communities of color and utilizing demographic information. Ann it will also seek an analysis related to infrastructure impacts and environmental impacts and then take into account various plans of the city, such as the climate equity plan, the water forward [10:23:04 AM] equity plan, the water forward plan and forward. As I indicated , it would also do a comparison Ann of what is happening to the previous three years so that the data allows for a comparison where we can make determinations about actual impact with that, we will begin our public comment period. And I'm going to turn to the city clerk's office to ask for help in navigating that. The first we will hear from are people that are wanting Spanish translation, translation from Spanish. So we will hear those folks first and then we will go to the remote speakers and then we will go to the in-person speakers. Thank you very much for being here and for helping us out. >> Okay, mayor, the first speaker is remote, but he has not called in. So I will go to in-person Ann Mueller Rodriguez. Tonya Vazquez. Following is [10:24:12 AM] Tonya Vazquez. Following is Amanda Carrillo. >> Do you want me here? Oh, by the way. Yes we need. To I'm sure. >> Yeah, yeah, yeah. Buenos dias. A todos estan aqui. May I? Tonya Vazquez. Vivido Esta aqui de Austin por mas de sesenta Anos. >> Good morning to everyone here . My name is Tonya Vazquez. I believe in in the east Austin for over 60 years. >> Yeah. Tengo setenta dos Anos E muevo poco de espacio Pero [10:25:14 AM] E muevo poco de espacio Pero aqui estoy. 1772 years old. >> I moved slowly, but here I am , este trabaja por el distrito escolar por mas de veinte Anos ahorita tengo TREs Anos me dado del trabajo. I work for Austin independent school district for over 20 years and I'm being retired for three years. >> Cansado ahorita Pero no. >> And thought that I will be resting now, but that's not the case. >> Yeah. Aqui estoy quiero van eenoo sappi Cada vez vengo a hablar con cualquier persona or organization Esta es el Corazon tengo adentro de MI and so here I am. >> And I want you to know that [10:26:15 AM] >> And I want you to know that every time that I come here to speak up, this is the heart that I have with me. >> Este es el color de la gente. Vive en MI vecindad Esta estas, son? Las Gentes and ustedes van, a planner sabana de Esperanza, for this is the color of the people that live in my neighborhood. >> These are the people that will you will be rolled over and will be displaced. >> Van van a seguir verdad and you will go on in any case. >> Right. >> Mehenti tiene MI Familia tiene casa. Terreno ahi en esa comunidad ahorita facil para estar esperando el dinero tenemos orita por las cosas basicas necesitamos para vivir. >> My family has a property and a house and a property. There [10:27:15 AM] a house and a property. There are now we're finding it very difficult to have the money to really spread and cover the basic needs. >> So look quiero Q span Q home ? No seran la crisis de vivienda Y tampoco va a las oportunidades de vivienda para la gente de la Clase media want you to know that home is not going to solve the housing crisis and it's not going to provide the opportunities for the middle class, for middle class home. All of acelerar el desplazamiento de inquilinos E duenos de hogares de bajos ingresos home will only accelerate the displacement of tenants and property owners. >> Low income property owners, home incremental los impuestos la Renta's Viernes invitar a los de cerrar desarrollo others a [10:28:16 AM] de cerrar desarrollo others a destroyer nuestras viviendas acessivel para construir por los cuales son muchos mas ricos home will increase or taxes the rents and it will also profit the developer that will be building for our for people who are very wealthy. >> Home no tiene requisitos para asegurar vivienda assessable rebels para gente de medios E bajos ingresos have requirements to make sure that there is a it is successful for low income for low for low income people. >> Thank you very much. We appreciate your comments. Mayor mayor. Just a moment. >> Just yet because there is the delay with the translation, I want to make sure that she was [10:29:17 AM] want to make sure that she was able to complete her thought. >> Well, she was given one of the things that we do is if there's translation, they're given double the amount. >> So she got the additional. Thank you. Yes >> Appreciate it. Thank you very much. >> Myrna Rodriguez. Oh, Amanda Carrillo. That's good. Susana if we if you can remain here in case the remote speaker calls in. Thank you. I'll proceed to end mean remote speakers. Ruth Lauer. >> Oh, there is the delay. Hello yes, I'm going to turn off. Sorry >> Okay. Hello. My name is Ruth Lauer. Mayor and council members . Thank you for letting me speak today. I'm speaking in opposition to the home initiative. I support efforts to create affordable housing in Austin. However the home initiative will do just the opposite. Many cities across the us and the world are also facing a housing shortage. Some towns [10:30:19 AM] a housing shortage. Some towns have tried similar initiatives. Minneapolis bastrop. Portland. Houston they found that that, this increases the cost of infrastructure increases expensive housing for new to people with more money moving into the area but does nothing for affordable housing. I believe that council member Ryan alter also knows this because he tried to create affordable housing in east Austin and his project. It ended up being sold on the county steps. I think that this will do a lot for developers. They're the ones that have the money. I can we do need to do something for housing in Austin. I can see maybe doing something in the center of town like this or within a quarter mile of trans export corridors. But otherwise I think this is [10:31:20 AM] But otherwise I think this is just going to create a big mess. I'm sorry that young people don't understand the housing market is different from the rest of markets. It's driven by costs. And as long as people have money, they're going to outbid every all the affordable things. I really request the city to step in and do something for our school teachers, our retail workers and others. Thank you very much for your time. And I do I totally oppose this initiative. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Alexandria mayor. Hello. >> Council and mayor, it's good to talk to you today. I'm speaking in favor of the home initiative with Austin. I've been in Austin. Housing crisis grow more severe over the last nine years. Home from what I've seen will be able to turn back [10:32:21 AM] seen will be able to turn back the clock won't turn back the progress of growing housing prices it isn't a good step towards actually making things more accessible for everyone in the city. I appreciate your time and thank you. >> Thank you. >> Kisi zolani. Casey, please unmute. Lee Lynn sprog. Good morning. >> Council members. Lynn here. I'm a district one resident and I am calling in strong opposition to the home initiative. I feel very clearly [10:33:22 AM] initiative. I feel very clearly that this is not the solution to the housing crisis in Austin and that we need solutions that are actually centering our, our most at risk neighbors for displacement and not solutions that will just be putting more money into developers pockets. So I urge you to look for different solutions. Thank you for your consideration. And I also want to say that, you also it's not too late for the council to issue a resolution for the cease fire against the genocide in palestine. Thank you . Mayor. >> I believe this is Amanda Carrillo. Can you hear me? >> Let me ask a question. Ah. Do you have a do you need or want? Translation? No >> Okay. So you know what? Yes. So that the Spanish speaker [10:34:23 AM] So that the Spanish speaker community can understand. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yes. So I'm going to speak in English if you can translate for me, please. >> No, no, that's not what we're doing. >> That's fine. Then. Don't need translation then, is she? >> Then she's out of order. I'm sorry. You're out of order. We had. Your name was called because we believed you needed or wanted a Spanish translator so that you could speak. >> No, sir. >> Do not need. So we'll call on you when we get to people in person. >> Next speaker is Jeremy Hendrix. >> Good morning, council. Good morning, mayor. I'm Jeremy Hendrix with the laborers international union. I represent construction workers who build this booming city. And I'm a resident of district four and I'm also a recently elected president of the Windsor hills neighborhood association. And I'm here to speak in favor of the home act that will help create more housing opportunities for our members and their struggling terribly with rising rents and mortgages. Sadly and I'm also a leader with the central Texas building trades, the Austin central labor council, which have both [10:35:24 AM] council, which have both endorsed this important measure because our members need it. Construction workers are essential workers to the future of Austin and central Texas, but sadly our members are unable to afford to live in this city. They proudly work to build and maintain their struggling with additional housing for their children, for their aging parents. And sadly, this housing crisis is making it more and more difficult to find the skilled workers needed to keep our building boom going. So the need for the passage of the home act is critical and urgent to address this shortage of affordable housing. Home is a crucial step in making ownership more accessible and reversing rising costs of housing that prices our members out of this market. We in labor are alarmed by the widening gap between the average salary and the cost of homes, which threatens the long term sustainability and growth of our city. We are also concerned that as more members are forced to move further out of Austin, they lose their ability to vote and choose the leaders and policies, policies that accurately reflect their values. Unfortunately, we're losing the beating heart of our community when we lose our [10:36:26 AM] community when we lose our teachers, our firefighters, our ems workers, our healthcare workers, our city workers, our construction workers and others who simply can't afford to live in in or near Austin. These essential workers deserve the chance to live and thrive here as part of our community, as neighbors, as homeowners and we must take this action by passing the home act. So please, I urge you to give the home act your full support and work together to ensure its successful implementation to make this city a city for everyone and also appreciate mayor Adler or excuse me, Peter Watson's additional amendment to add the research along the way so that we can make sure this is working for everyone. Thank you and have a great day. >> Next speaker is M Shaw. Yes I oppose the home plan which will cause mass destruction of trees and shrubs in a greedy rush to make piles of money for Americans, for greedy people are going to get as much money out of their property as they can. [10:37:27 AM] of their property as they can. >> And this is a big boondoggle for all of us who own property right now. All of this destruction will also increase flooding. You say that you're going to consider floodplain designations, but at least white people are the most litigious people. American white Americans are the most litigious people on Earth. And everyone I know who has ever received a floodplain designation, who does not live on the coast, has successfully fought the federal government on that, including people in university hills, which is where I own a property and have owned it for over 30 years. That property is a haven for birds, trees, wildlife, hours. I fought the city successfully this summer to be allowed to keep a yard full of wildflowers out front. Those birds and bees are crucial to our survival as a species. But the biggest problem [10:38:28 AM] species. But the biggest problem is flooding and university hill floods there has been standing water 18in deep, at least 200 times in 30 years. In my backyard in this particular drought, century, I've had little walnut creek 15ft up the incline in my front yard. The creek both flowed over the bridge by willamette and it's pronounced willamette in the neighborhood. And both up through storm drains. Still, I am not in a floodplain. In the late 90s. I know one house well. I've already covered that. People who fight floodplain designation in this neighborhood saying that you will consider the floodplain designation is completely disingenuous. Meaningless. We are your flash flood alley and all of Austin is downstream from. >> Thank you, speaker. Your time has expired most of the time. Next speaker is Jessica curry. [10:39:28 AM] Next speaker is Jessica curry. >> Good afternoon. Thank you for allowing me to speak. I'm against this initiative in its current form as it offers no protections to current homeowners and will negatively impact the homeowners quality of life and increase property taxes, hurting the most vulnerable and lowest income property owners by pushing them out of their neighborhoods. And the city of Austin, the workplaces of the population to which you claim to be trying to provide added affordable housing options are all over the city. Schools and medical offices serve every neighborhood in Austin to be successful. This initiative has to include limits to increase density per block square mile or neighborhood, and those limits should not be exceeded in any area until reach citywide spread the impact and build citywide responding to realize demand neighborhoods and homeowners also need protections in place at a developments on the side on without on site parking should automatically at no cost allow that block to [10:40:29 AM] no cost allow that block to enroll in the neighborhood parking program and permit the issue tied to street frontage of each lot issues with infrastructure should halt new permits until issue resolved. Austin energy is years behind on service line upgrades to serve current demand. Just remove the Paige on upgrading north Austin's 50 year old lines that run over my home. I presume to avoid additional questions and attention to a project that more than doubles the transmission capacity, but is years behind in completing. Last but not least, Austin needs to protect homeowners from appraisal values on lots being raised based on potential highest and best use when a homeowner is not taking advantage of upzoning potential value on speculative use should not increase taxation on a property until or if ever, realized the taxable value of a single family lot should not increase based on unrealized potential use and chase homeowners out of Austin by raising their taxes beyond their means. Struggling homeowners can't afford to take advantage of up zoning entitlements to add an Adu or duplex to their home. They will just be taxed out of [10:41:29 AM] They will just be taxed out of their home, potentially the only generational wealth their family has. Last but not least, I'm baffled by the concentration on single family. Lots to meet this middle housing need in Houston as a model or example. Houston at least made an allowance for neighborhoods to opt out block by block and in the end, speaker, your time has expired. But they did leave. >> Mayor if I may make a quick comment. We are receiving phone calls from phone numbers that are not on our final speaker list that we are not admitting and we will continue to deny. So if you did not register and someone is distributing the call in number, you will not be admitted. You would have had to have registered. Thank you. The next caller is Jean Ramirez. Our council. >> Jenny Ramirez. >> I am a resident of graduate 82. Okay I'm against this. >> First of all, the reason I'm [10:42:31 AM] >> First of all, the reason I'm against this because I do I do not trust this council or the mayor to oversee transparency because of actions, of lack of transparency, even in the homeless budget. So we don't know how the infrastructure for this. I don't see anything being rolled out on any of the agendas on this. And also no one's thinking about the water here. No one is thinking about water. No one is thinking about the structure that are going to be shading over someone's yard, garden and everything because of the high, the high structure. And I'm not sure what the 20 to 30 year old that spoke out the first meeting. What are you expecting? You want to stay here because you graduate from UT and guess what? You're not going to make the money you're going to make if you don't move for the job is and then you expect us to also pay for student loans. I don't understand this. Me and my husband, we weren't able to buy our house. We were way old. And it looks like we're going to get priced out here in Austin. You know, that's exactly. And also, [10:43:31 AM] know, that's exactly. And also, this council approved for apartments and condos right there on town lake and guess what? They said they were going to make the builder have affordable units where are those? I want to know what happened. Also, this is a land grab every month we get letters from people wanting to buy. And you know what those buyers have money. They have the money they have. They want to buy our house and you think they're going to sell it for an affordable house? This is ridiculous, man. And all all the single people who want to buy single family homes later when they do get married, you're going to have to move out of Austin to get that because we won't have that if this passes. Thank you. >> Next speaker is Laura Blackwell. >> Hello, council. My name is Laura Blackwell, a renter in district four. And I'm speaking out today against the home initiative and urging the council members to prevent the displacement and acceleration of Austin's housing crisis through the following. First, we would [10:44:33 AM] the following. First, we would like to postponement for a less busy time when the community can be more involved in these propositions and of course would like the council members to vote no. Some alternatives that podair Austin is asking for that I'm supportive of are permitting additional dwelling units on all single family lots with creative financing opportunities like forgivable loans for mid and low income homeowners, and creating density bonuses, proposed amendments. We would like to see an overlay that protects some of Austin's most vulnerable neighborhoods from displacement by not applying the up zoning proposed in home in those locations. Thank you so much and have a good morning. >> Next speaker is Monica beatty . >> Yes, hello. I'm a trustee for [10:45:34 AM] >> Yes, hello. I'm a trustee for the Texas federation of women's clubs headquarters, a 92 year old historic landmark in the old west university neighborhood. And we oppose the proposed home plan as we live within the over developed west campus and already suffer from too much traffic and too few street parking options. The idea of tripling housing and parking will make the roads even more of a nightmare for and a heavily pedestrian and biking area. The untested real estate model of hopes and dreams benefits. Newly arrived investors, developers and landowners. Instead of the decades long existing property owners. Basic supply and demand, economic principles dictate that Austin does not will not ever have room for everyone who wants to live here. By radically changing the zoning rules for over 700,000 current property owners, our property values will immediately decrease, while taxes will increase due to increased demand for city services. This unproven, untested game of Austin real estate poker is too important to fast track without more [10:46:36 AM] fast track without more community consideration and commentary. The timing of these zoning changes without even knowing all the final details and impact being known at this time as zoning has mentioned, these proposed are being rushed into existence with few citizens being involved during the busiest holiday and family time of the year to be completely transparent. More open houses should be held in the 10th council district instead of just one. And again, we oppose this because it is a nightmare in the making. Thank you. >> Next speaker is Carolyn crumb . >> Good morning. I strongly oppose the home amendment partly because change is would be in two phases, so it's impossible to evaluate the eventual outcome from the provisions of this first phase alone. Please postpone voting to a future date to incorporate ideas to improve [10:47:37 AM] to incorporate ideas to improve both affordability and environmental protection and to combine phase one and phase two into one. Set of amendments so that the potential changes can be evaluated as a whole. One set of suggestions to strengthen home that recently came out that is worth evaluating to improve dwelling affordability and protect the environment is from community powered atx. The Austin community needs more time to consider these ideas and others. Home would be such a big overhaul that Austin needs the time to get this right. Phase two would add even more density and make changes to impervious cover setbacks and tree regulations. Burns so that that phase could be very damaging to the environment such as higher impervious cover, increased localized flooding, increased urban heat, island effect and a reduction in our tree canopy in Austin. Single family lots are the second largest contributor to canopy coverage. Trees on private property are critically important to the urban forest. Reduce flooding, reducing heat using water pollution and combating climate change are the 2021 climate equity plan has a [10:48:37 AM] 2021 climate equity plan has a goal of achieving a 50% citywide tree canopy cover by 2050. Presently the city has about 40% cover, and with home, that goal would be in jeopardy. Please postpone voting until both phases have been combined into one set of amendments can be evaluated in a democratic and fair manner. This will also give time to properly evaluate ideas from the Austin community that have just recently been proposed . Thank you. >> Diana Dean. >> Hello. Can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Hello? Yes. >> Okay. Hello to our council members and to our mayor. First of all, I would like to let you know that my name is Diana Dean. I was born and raised in D one in our 2002 neighborhood plan with the occupant housing occupant occupancy. It stated that home owners have been [10:49:39 AM] that home owners have been outpaced by renters. In my neighborhood, we have a senior housing, we have rvs. We have $400,000 homes, $600,000 homes, $800,000 homes, a home behind a home, $1 million home, and another thing that that is up and coming. We also have five story luxury units and other developments within our community. That is another layer of density. And as you know, that does put a strain on our police department, fire department, ems, environmental, health and safety of the community. And most important, mental health of community and mental health of a senior like myself. So I would also like to say that, we need to make sure that council will send your staffers out to contact teams [10:50:41 AM] staffers out to contact teams citywide neighborhood associations and the community to give updates, input and questions and most of all to build trust as this phase one of the home option for middle income empowerment. And also with so much density in my area, we do run the risk of middle income people that live on large lots to move out because it changed the character of the community. Thank you, Lila Levinson. >> Hello. I have three major concerns about the home ordinance. >> The first one is what the effect will be on property taxes , because I know very well from my past experience in my many years in Austin that when more buildings are allowed to go up on a lot, when the value of the [10:51:42 AM] on a lot, when the value of the lot increases, then that translates into higher property taxes. My other concern is similar to what other people have been expressing impervious cover. I live a block from waller creek, which any type of rain event with more and more are very heavy rain events, floods and floods. The homes around it. How is reducing the requirement for reducing the increased amount of impervious cover going to affect urban flooding? I'm also, as some other people have been talking about, very concerned about tree canopy. When we see what happened in Austin last summer, what is going to happen now with reducing our tree canopy to the island effect, which is going to make it more difficult for rain to come to Austin, given what we know now about the configuration of cities and heat island effects and thwarting off any rain. I also am actually a [10:52:43 AM] rain. I also am actually a fourth concern. I don't see the infrastructure that can sustain this kind of development. Sewage lines, water availability, electricity. I just don't see it in place. Thank you very much. Roy Whaley. >> Hello, this is Roy Whaley, conservation chair for the Austin regional group of the Sierra club. We have signed up neutral on this and I'd like to clarify that a little bit. If I may. It does not mean we support it. It means that we want more information. We want to make sure that the environmental protections are in place. And it does not mean that we oppose our old friends and allies and the eastern crescent and all the residents of the eastern crescent. We do, too. We want to [10:53:43 AM] crescent. We do, too. We want to I can count votes. I know y'all are going to pass this. I hope you postpone it so we can have a deeper discussion about it. But it's going to pass. So we're trying to make it the best that can be. And that is for our old friends and our at Garza and podera and others. I want to thank the previous speakers talking about the heat island effect and, and the flood waters. We want to see that there is storm water protection and hopefully capture and reuse. The code will need to require rain gutters and rainwater tanks at a very minimum. We encourage again our friends in the eastern crescent to continue their opposition on this because that will make it better, which is what the Sierra club is going is trying to do. The idea that it [10:54:44 AM] trying to do. The idea that it will stop sprawl is completely bogus. And this is little missing housing. Not affordable housing. We must also address affordable housing. We have to have real, affordable reality and often and so I know it's a headache if you have to postpone this because you don't want to go through all of this again. But we do need to have a fuller and deeper discussion about this. And thanks to Carolyn Crome, two a Sierra club member that spoke very well and opposition to this and covered a lot of your time has expired. She's a to be Carol Phillipson. Hello >> Can you hear me? Yes hello. Yes my name is Carol Phillips and I'm a district ten. Sometimes a plan may sound like the perfect answer in theory, [10:55:46 AM] the perfect answer in theory, but as we see this plan unfold, it is far from the perfect answer. As it is written, I realize that no one likes to admit when they are wrong, but when it affects an entire city commissioners, staff and council members need to be accountable and admit this plan needs more work. Your decisions will severely affect all residents, including your home, your neighborhood and should not be rushed. The future of Austin is in your hands so all questions and concerns must be addressed, such as sewer lines made for single family dwellings now needing to handle increased amounts of sewage and fire hydrants with the capacity to save only single family homes, plus no consideration has been given to the increased fire risk associated with high density and fire prone areas within the wildland urban interface. With the increase in property values, taxes and the cost of building plus, there is nowhere in this plan that mandates any percentage of new units to be affordable housing. This plan cannot and will not guarantee affordable housing developers [10:56:47 AM] affordable housing developers will be the only winners with this to with this assault to our city as they are the only ones who can afford to build multiple units on a lot this extreme restructuring of Austin housing affecting thousands of homeowners should not be determined by only 11 city council members. It should be voted on. Everyone it affects. Remember the old saying it's all about quality, not quantity. Don't throw away the quality of life we all enjoy and that people move here for. For this massive plan that will destroy the Austin we love. Make the right decisions for yourselves, for your Austin. Do not vote on this proposal today. Respect the fundamental freedom for all to vote on this plan that affects the future of their property. Thank you, Andy. >> Coco. >> Hello. >> My name is Andy coco, district one. I appreciate council member pool stated intent. You're right that something must be done. You [10:57:47 AM] something must be done. You stated that you want Austin to be a special place for generations to come, and we share that dream. So I'm looking forward. Are you visioning mostly middle and higher income people? Are you thinking only of newcomers? Because I'm bookended on either side of this call by multigenerational austinites with hope for the option two. And frankly their right to remain austinites absent real democratic public process and thanks for two minutes today. Instead of one. Today is what we've got these folks are saying postpone and they actually get policy and they're telling you that this initiative as written is not it? Even with amendments, the data I've seen does not keep our communities together in safe displacement can look like the nightmare in palestine. And sometimes it's quieter and well-intentioned, but still unjust. Like these code changes by the way, time for ceasefire resolution is after codenext and smart growth. If you council [10:58:50 AM] smart growth. If you council folks want to plant your legacy as a force for good rather than marked by even more unprecedented, shameful displacement, here are the people. These are the folks who run the city. One deep affordability. First to postpone the vote. Three more public process. This is a huge change for prioritize the voices of the most deeply affected people, not businesses. The people make up Austin and developer businesses are not people know what's best for low income Austin is what's best for Austin. I'd like to assume your intentions are good, but my mom always said the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Thank you. >> Tests Ortega. Hello >> Can you hear me? >> Yes. >>. Hi. My name is Tessa Ortega. I am in district four. I've been living in Austin for about ten years now, and I have seen over [10:59:51 AM] years now, and I have seen over the years prices continue to increase. I've seen friends have to move out of the city, to find more affordable housing. My sibling has struggled with affordable housing for several years and dealt with housing instability. What I've seen of this initiative, it does not actually, solve for the problem that Austin has, which is not a housing shortage, but in fact an affordable housing shortage. And to be clear, a deeply affordable housing shortage, leaving developers to decide and pricing, leaving it up to market rates is not going to result in affordable housing. We see small lots being priced at the same, price as larger single family homes. All of which are unaffordable not only for low income folks, but for middle class folks as well. I am asking [11:00:52 AM] class folks as well. I am asking for the council to postpone the vote to, to allow for more people of Austin, especially low income impacted people of color, to be able to have their public input. And, and be able to come to the table and help come up with a solution. Ann that actually makes sense and helps, Austin, please postpone the vote on this initiative, to make room for a solution that actually is in favor and helps support low income folks in Austin to afford be able to afford their housing and stay in their housing and not be continued to be pushed out as we've seen for many years thus far. Thank you. >> Next speaker is Therese crocker. >> Good morning. [11:01:53 AM] >> Good morning. >> This is Teresa crocker. >> I'm the chairman of the Texas federation of women's clubs, which is housed in the mansion on 2312. >> San Gabriel my seven reasons for opposition to this are, number one, a negative environmental impact which reduces the quality of life due to overpopulation and confined area stress to the aquifers. >> Trust the man animal and remaining tree lives. The destruction of trees and vegetation to accommodate buildings and driveways will greatly reduce air quality climate improvement. Water conservation and soil preservation and wildlife habitat. It also reduces shay that naturally insulates homes, causing increased energy consumption. Number two, decreased safety and security and have adverse effects on public safety and the burden to police force, fire and rescue services, trash collection and other services. Number three, inhibition of medical emergency services. Fire and rescue services and trash collection. The greatly increased parking along streets will inhibit Austin city services such as emergency medical and fire and rescue, causing danger to [11:02:54 AM] rescue, causing danger to citizens. And number four, stress and overload to existing utility. Major stress will be on all of the utilities of water, gas, electrical and internet capabilities, cost of improving utilities to meet the increased need will need to be budgeted and paid for and cost to the citizens of their time, money and convenience to live with. The work needed for upgrades is unfair to existing residents. Number five aggravation of the existing parking crisis and street travel for multiple residences will increase the amount of cars on already very crowded streets, causing even more havoc to travel and time management. Six reduction of property values for current homeowners. Reduction of city tax revenue. Due to the possibility of only one landowner for many lots, many, many residents on one lot who may not even be taxpaying customers. Number seven tremendous cost to recent residents and taxpayers. It the tax increases are going to have to happen cover the cost of nonpermanent residents environmental studies will be needed. The cost of a loss of income for businesses that [11:03:55 AM] income for businesses that require auto and travel and parking, loss of quality of life for existing taxpaying citizens and loss of the beauty of the city of your time has expired. Please vote no to phase one and two Mario a. Good afternoon council. >> I'm from district five. Please do not side on the wrong side of history. We are pleading not to continue with the home act. Density does not equate affordable housing and there's no guarantee for affordable housing in this act. There is no correlation Ann. In contrast, what this act does not consider infrastructure, logistics, waste , plumbing, parking. And you're hearing the myriad of information and logistical nightmares that will come in the long term. All these will become [11:04:56 AM] long term. All these will become your problems. All of these will become our problems immediately. We this is not affordable housing. Consider the long term and acknowledge the demographics who are for and against this act . This act is not for us. This will not give us options or support housing solutions. For alternatives. Postpone and look for more input from the community because they are being very loud now listen as a chair of several community organizations, we implore you to please consider and not be on the wrong side of history. The future is in your hands. The communities are loud right now, and I thank you for your consideration. Barb. >> Barbara Epstein. Zo hello, my [11:06:00 AM] >> Barbara Epstein. Zo hello, my name is Barbara Epstein. >> I live in district nine, north of the university of Texas . I'm asking you today to step back and rethink your plan. Why is your current home initiative the exact opposite of the 2020 resolution, one that would have funded low interest loans to build ads required to be affordable and prohibited as short term rentals as having worked in elder law for 21 years? I was startled that aarp endorsed the current plan. I thought that aarp supported seniors aging in place, not development. Pressuring them to leave paid for homes. I doubt that you expect this initiative to result in truly affordable housing. After reading about councilman Ryan alter involvement, building 18 condos and seeing one advertised for $596,000, the home initiative premise is that if we just build more, prices will go down. But nothing you do to the zoning [11:07:02 AM] nothing you do to the zoning code will reduce land prices. When people build more units, the value of land goes up, so do the neighbors. So everyone's land taxes will go up. Giving owners no incentive to lower rent or sales price. The only way to reduce land prices is for you to use the community land trust program to purchase land. Eliminating land price in the equation. If occupancy limits end, resulting in constant construction, noise, overcrowding, parking and garbage problems, rat infestation means a lot of seniors are going to feel forced to move, but they'll have few options. The current rate for assisted living in Austin is $6,000 a month. Private pay since the Austin area is the fastest growing area in the entire country for seniors. If you think you have a homeless problem now, you should think twice before unleashing unfettered housing market forces here. Thank you for your time. Kyra hill. [11:08:05 AM] Kyra hill. >> Hello. Can you hear me? Yes >> Okay. Hello. >> My name is Kyra hill. I've grown up in Texas, been here my whole life. I live in district one, and I'm here to speak against the homes initiative. I actually rent in a triplex where two of the three units are owned by landlords who collect our rent as passive income. They were initially built as new constructions and marketed as more affordable single family housing. Yet a majority of the triplexes built on our street like ours, are not used as primary residences, which is no doubt what homes initiative will replicate if passed like the rest of America. Austin, Texas does not have a housing shortage . We have affordable housing, quote unquote shortage that is manufactured by investor greed. In 2023, an estimated 27% of all single family homes were [11:09:05 AM] single family homes were purchased by investors in the United States. That's just over 22 million homes purchased by landlords and rented out for exorbitant prices. Or like the triplex next door to us left vacant for over seven months because the landlord would not lower the rent to a reasonable price by not adding any stipulation to the home initiative, ensuring that the people in need of affordable housing receive it. The city council will do nothing for the working class people of Austin, but create even more passive income for investors. Selling out our community to appease the rich by putting even more money in their pockets. Thank you. Our . Third Lichtenberger. >> Hello, my name is Arthur Lichtenberger and I live in the holly neighborhood. >> I want to thank the staff for all the support they've provided in this process. I support these proposed changes as a country and as a city. We have dug a [11:10:07 AM] and as a city. We have dug a hole over decades by not encouraging housing, and it's going to take time to fix it. But this proposal is a great step in the right direction to provide more supply of housing to our city. People have said that it does nothing for affordable housing, but there is nothing unique about the housing market. It's supply and demand driven by voting in favor of this proposal will increase the supply that we need to have housing become affordable. And it's not a silver bullet, but you need to sell these types of problems with many lead bullets and think this is a great start. If we don't do this, we're going to lose the character of our city by pushing longtime residents out, hurt young families, and face increasing problems that inequality accelerates. I encourage the councilors to vote in favor of this proposal and let's legalize this housing and set up our city for generations to come. Thank you, Paula brown. >> Good morning. >> Can you hear me? Yes. [11:11:07 AM] >> Can you hear me? Yes. >> Please proceed. >> Okay. Thank you. I'm speaking in opposition to the home initiative as currently written. It will not benefit low income middle income students and seniors who are all struggling to continue to live the good life in Austin. I do appreciate some of the proposed amendments, but I ask that the vote today be postponed because this has not had enough outreach from the city council or other area into the communities. It will impact the most. This initiative has been rushed through and will have dire consequences to current residents of Austin. We will wind up paying for everything in this initiative so developers can develop more expensive housing that low income middle income students and seniors cannot afford. I agree that something needs to be done, but not a blanket citywide initiative as home as currently written. Our current infrastructure for the water fire, electric gas and trash collection cannot support our [11:12:10 AM] collection cannot support our current homes and development and businesses, much less be able to support it. Are doubling our or tripling the stress on these systems that are over 50 years to 75 years old. And some of our most densely, most populated residential areas of Austin in the center, such as district nine, where I live, permit for building will take even longer and cost even more for it. Income, middle income people who are living in houses now who think they're going to build an is are not going to be able to do that for probably less than 200,000 when you go through the entire process with the cost of construction and permitting and time and contracting, it will also increase response times for ems, fire and police due to vehicles being parked in already overcrowded streets and blocked streets in some cases. In our neighborhood, we have streets [11:13:10 AM] neighborhood, we have streets where fire trucks cannot even get down the street because people are parked on either side . You can't even get a small vehicle down the street. I >> Thank you, speaker. Your time has expired. Deb, doctor Deborah Murphy. Dr. Murphy, please unmute. >> Hello, my name is Dr. Murphy. I have familial roots and Austin ethos and going back three generations, I live in one. I oppose plans that continue to disproportion increase the density and east Austin, the traffic burden, the risks and the event of a disaster and the decrease of our quality of life. We in east Austin are a part of the original history of Austin and no plan should go forward [11:14:11 AM] and no plan should go forward without the input of the actual residents of this community included the original east Austin is bursting at the seams. It has been disproportionately overdeveloped without a clear transport plan or a disaster preparedness plan. We are already trapped in our neighborhoods during rush hour, so I shudder to think what would happen if we had an even worse natural disaster than the recent hailstorm that cost $600 million worth of damage citywide, the original east Austin sustained extensive damages and we are yet to receive media attention. Although Mueller, north Austin and pflugerville are always mentioned and this is even Ann after reaching out for help up and down the chain of elected officials. This is just one of many examples of the continued overlooking of east Austin concerns where land is the only generational wealth that many residents have to pass on to the next generation. Thank you for your time, Brad. >> Brandie Burton. >> Greetings. [11:15:15 AM] >> Greetings. >> Council members. As you know, I grew up here in Austin and very involved in the city and I love the city and I am a huge proponent of diversity of housing types and sizes. I welcome all kinds of housing in our neighborhoods. And as a longtime advocate for co-housing , I think of limits on unrelated people on a property. I also believe that compact development will help our transit system flourish. However, there is a regrettable lack of environmental protection or planning for unintended consequences and no requirements for affordability in exchange for the additional entitlements. I'm afraid that doing this blanket one size fits all will not only undercut any bargaining chips, we have to negotiate for more affordability and environmental protection, but it will cause massive displacement, significant loss to our urban tree canopy leading to more flooding, heat island effect and overrun our utility infrastructure. We can't maintain our tree canopy if heritage trees, which are the only 5% of our trees are protected, which are 19in and above. If we don't place protections or replacement [11:16:16 AM] protections or replacement requirements for the trees that are 8 to 18in, we will drastically reduce our urban canopy and increase our heat island effect at a time that climate change is already impacting our city deeply with extreme heat and weather, speculative developers, it doesn't lead to affordable housing. I want to see smart, careful infill. This proposal is way less nuanced than previous attempts which have been mentioned, including codenext. For that reason I request that you delay this until affordability environmental protection and infrastructure capacity planning can be built into it. I attract the necessary transition to our electric electrifying our vehicles and homes. If we multiply the number of homes to three homes per lot in this phase and up to nine in the next phase, the associated utility demand per transformer will mushroom and even then, if each one of those homes has just one electric vehicle, which draws about the equivalent energy as a home, we won't be able to have the space or capacity to charge and accomplish all of this. I'm deeply concerned that proceeding with this policy without a concurrent significant drainage upgrade or requirements of on [11:17:17 AM] upgrade or requirements of on site water capture will have even more flooding and damage to property and loss of life in different parts of our town. >> Thank you, speaker, your time has expired in areas is drainage is meg Davis. >> Good morning, mayor and council members. Thank you for your time and efforts for our city. I just wanted to voice my neighborhood's opposition to the home initiative. >> I'm president of Millwood neighborhood association and district seven. >> A poll of our neighborhood showed a majority were oppose. And I would like to point out that the medium age of our neighborhood is pretty young as it surrounds a military elementary school with lots of young families. Sign at the Wright place to start their lives. To make this broad, sweeping change, especially on the heels of codenext being voted down by our city's residents is concerning to us. We don't see the data that shows a benefit to middle income housing would occur in addition, [11:18:18 AM] housing would occur in addition, we would like to ask for a few changes to be considered. One please exempt areas that have deed restrictions in place as the neighbors within those areas sign their deeds with understanding of those restrictions. At the time. Deed restrictions are personally enforced at a large cost and time commitment to the owners in those areas. If the home initiative changes, the area's zoning to allow an increase in the units for psf2 and sf three zoning, then it will create costly and unnecessary litigation to fall on the residents of those areas and the court system to please consider stronger preservation incentives to discourage developers from mowing down the older, more affordable current housing to replace the newer and more expensive housing that does not match the look and feel of the area. In addition, this would help perfect fine but older homes stay out of the landfill. Number three, please consider adding a short term rental [11:19:19 AM] adding a short term rental restriction so neighborhoods don't fill with short term people at the expense of community being lost. This shouldn't be a problem if we are looking to accommodate middle income families, our neighborhood has experienced bad actors in the area and it makes living near them very tough at times. As we moved into our community because of the details that made up that community and we felt the city officials and the deed restrictions in times would help us preserve that. >> Thank you, speaker. Your time has expired. Thank you, Xenia Martinez. Hello everyone. >> Good morning. One moment please. Hi, my name is Sonia Martinez. I'm a 27 year old hispanic woman. I have lived in Austin for nine years now, and I consider Austin my home. The reason I'm calling is in opposition to home. I've been a renter since day one, and [11:20:20 AM] renter since day one, and because of just financial and health issues, I have not been able to buy a home. I've been tackling student loan debt and medical debt for years now. The fact that this plan is likely to drive property taxes makes me think that I may never be able to afford a home in Austin. It is not affordable for middle class income people, and people like me. I love living here. I have loved ones here. My job is here and I'd love to have a home here at some point. I'm not the only person who feels this way. How many people have already been displaced under current laws and regulations? I currently earn about 60,000, and about a fourth of my income goes to my debts. City council gave itself, gave itself a raise. Maybe you all can afford to live here now, but a lot of us will not be able to. This passes. I wonder how much money force the forces behind home are contributing to your guys's campaigns. Hopefully you guys can keep this in mind. Respectfully, send. Peter [11:21:21 AM] Respectfully, send. Peter semonite. Good afternoon, council members. >> Thank you. City staff. I live with my fiance and our four year old son in montopolis on the city's eastern crescent district three. It's a beautiful, thriving community and one of the city's most diverse. Many of my neighbors have lived here peacefully for generations and deeply affordable housing. I'm asking you to please join my neighbors and the overwhelming amount of austinites from all walks of life who spoken in opposition or asked for a postponement and a vote. I'm sure you're already familiar with. Austin's not so great track record on land use, especially the impact on the eastern crescent. Still, it seems we're repeating ourselves by ignoring the direct requests of this city's most vulnerable residents who continue asking for specific protections. While the stated intention of helping middle income people with affordable Katy sounds noble, the promise is just too vague. [11:22:21 AM] the promise is just too vague. Without protections in place, how do we know the profits will be shared with homebuyers and not sort of consumed by the developer developers? I keep hearing that the aim of the goal of this initiative is to help middle income people, but nothing seems to guarantee this affordable housing or the initiative also doesn't reasonably address the needs of people who will be displaced by it. The housing department's report on affordability makes clear the speculative development in this is the cause of the run up in home prices and not zoning restrictions. So why are we ignoring that? Why not deal with the root cause directly? If speculative development is the cause of the current conditions, this can't be the solution. The home initiative is supposed to incentivize speculative speculative development, and it seems like wishful thinking to believe that developers will share the profits from the reduced construction costs, or that somehow the supply side will eventually trickle down to [11:23:22 AM] will eventually trickle down to future generations. The housing department's report also indicates that property taxes and displacement will likely accelerate as a result of the measure, further aggravating the displacement of Austin's most vulnerable. I'd like to keep my neighbors, please. So please don't do this. It sounds like the people lobbying for this initiative envision a utopia without cars and with everyone living on top of each other. I personally don't want this, and I doubt this goal will ever be achieved. Thank you, speaker. >> Your time is expired. Derek ensign. >> Hello. Thank you, council, for giving me the opportunity to speak this morning. I'm lucky enough to have been a be a homeowner in district one for the past nine years. Unfortunately I know we wouldn't have been able to afford this home for 2023 prices. So I just I simply want to reiterate that we know the ability to build more housing is indeed proven to lower housing prices and especially in conjunction with [11:24:23 AM] especially in conjunction with transit oriented development. It this will help us reduce emissions. I also appreciate this being a citywide approach and not limited to those areas where there aren't powerful neighborhood associations. Burns to oppose to those who oppose. I am also genuinely curious what your solution is. Instead of increasing housing supply to those who oppose this based on how affect you as a homeowner, let me just say the home initiative is a win for property owner rights. You are now allowed to improve and invest your property even more than before your property. Owner rights have nothing to do with what your neighbor is or isn't allowed to build on their property. I can't think of too big a priorities for this council than tackling the affordability crisis and doing our part to fight against climate change. So thank you so much for your leadership and modernizing our land use code through the home initiative. >> Brian bishop. Thank you. >> My name is Brian bishop. I'm [11:25:25 AM] >> My name is Brian bishop. I'm a homeowner in district three and born and raised in the Austin area. >> I'm calling in favor of the home initiative. You know, when I think about where do cities come from and what it's all about, it's about people. It's a lot of very hard working people to see. So at the end of the day , cities are about people, whether we like it or not. People are coming to Austin and tey like what we're selling here for one reason or another. We should make more of it. We need to make more room for more people. And if we want to do that, if we want to welcome more people and more businesses and more families to Austin, then we need to make room for that and we need to plan for growth. Thank you, Ian Huerta. Okay, you can hear me? >> Yes, yes, yes. Okay I was just going to say that I first and foremost am in opposition to this amend the home initiative. Many of the reasons our stuff [11:26:25 AM] Many of the reasons our stuff already stated such as heat island effect being greatly increased due to this exponentially, we should also be reduced in new constructions. Overall aka degrowth movement. As I would if anybody remembers that. I just also want to say this is quite a land grab. Small houses honestly will become just as expensive. As the ones in years to come. This is just a way to squeeze more money out of a lot and it still raises rates as the traffic is going to still continue to get worse with this. And on top of that, yeah, I would say also to the front yard argument pushing the front yard back and reducing, you know, the driveway. That doesn't solve heat island. That still makes it [11:27:26 AM] heat island. That still makes it worse because the rooftop so the argument that you know, the front front yard being shrunk, it's going to reduce heat island effect that honestly is nil. So anyways, I would also like to say Shea that one of the people in support of this is one of mosques, just to make sure we're on the same page here. Grimes is in support of this one of mosques girl girlfriends at the time and, and it indeed seems to be in line of kind of this haven conquer type idealism. So, again , I'd strongly suggest drop this, not doing it or yes, put it to a vote. Thank you. >> John Gutierrez. >> Yes, I'm here. >> Please go ahead. [11:28:27 AM] >> Please go ahead. >>. Okay yeah. >> So I'm a member of district five. City member. >> I am opposing home the home initiative because there is no guaranteed and intentional affordable city requirements with this initiative of houselessness is a huge problem in the city's already facing. Gentrification is a huge problem. The city's already facing. There's an increasing high cost of living. Austin is becoming a city for rich people, for the elites in many ways, and communities of color are being priced out continually and have been for the past ten years. I I want to also note too, that the people who are proposing this are the Nosek family that comes from silicon valley. They are billionaires. They tried to pass this to get funded and passed through the state legislature [11:29:29 AM] through the state legislature before coming into the city of Austin. And yeah, it's, it's really like again, who is, who is in, in support of this, who is pushing this? And then again, who is this for? Shaw also want to point out too, that less than 1% of the 2023, 2024 budget for the city of Austin Ann is included in allotted in our general fund for housing 0.9 less than 1. So my ask to city council and to the mayor and to staff in general is that we need to be allotting a higher amount of our city budget for housing as a as a huge enough interest, something at the forefront of our planning and budgeting for the city. This is not the way to go. And I please, please ask us to reconsider this. There are amendments from, community powered atx and for that and other organizations with trusted [11:30:30 AM] other organizations with trusted track records as carrying and supporting for community. >> Thank you, speaker. Your time has expired. Matthew Atkinson. Yes, hi. >> My name is Matthew Atkinson. I'm a resident of district nine. I support home and I commend the council for taking on this controversial issue. I think the majority of austinites support affordability density and preservation as long as it's not in their neighborhood. The problem is when you act like with this type of insular thinking, the city as a whole suffers. I built the garage apartment last year and it's great. My tenant is great. She's now part of the neighborhood and the rental income allows me to afford living in central. I'm going to hear a lot of objections today about fire safety, lack of infrastructure and about drainage issues. Although I sometimes question the motive of these objections, [11:31:31 AM] the motive of these objections, I just to stay on focused and remember that the proposed amendments do not change or supersede the fire code. The home amendments do not change current impervious coverage or drainage regulations. Yes, our infrastructure will need to be slowly upgraded as more density is added. However however, this is much more efficient than building new infrastructure at the outskirts of the city. Additionally, the infrastructure and upgrades are paid for by the additional units via permit fees , impact fees, taxes, property taxes and utility payments. Again, council. Thanks for. Thanks for your time and thanks for tackling this issue. >> Arif panju. Arif please unmute. Vicki Spradlin. Yes, [11:32:35 AM] unmute. Vicki Spradlin. Yes, this is a dangerous Trojan horse bringing permanent damage to our city. >> The outside is benignly decorated with the desires for justice, equity and affordable housing, even vows of protecting the climate. But inside this Trojan horse are greedy builders , developers, realtors, investors, speculators waiting to spring out and begin raping our city for profit. They don't care about any of the adverse effects list on street parking traffic, impervious coverage violations leading to flood issues, loss of trees. Yes, builders cut down trees because they say it's just the cost of doing business. They just pay the fine. There's social stress from increased density and most clearly it's breaking the backs of our already overwhelmed city services APD, fire and utilities. There's nothing in these plans addressing any of these adverse effects, and no one is telling you about the increase on land values that will inevitably come. Our property taxes will go through the roof because of this. And who will be driven out? Seniors [11:33:36 AM] who will be driven out? Seniors minority communities? Maybe the government will be glad to have the fat or tax base, but the people who benefit the most from the profiteers who will lose folks like me, whose house structure is actually taxed at zero value because it's fall down. But I pay taxes on over $1 million land sitting under my house. This is going to become even more valuable and taxable if three houses can be replaced by one and the profiteers can get more money. The people on this out who are covering the outside of this Trojan horse include some who know what they're doing. Paid lobbyists, council members who have accepted campaign donations. Sadly, though, many are well-intentioned folks seeking social justice. And affordable housing. But who's not aiding and abetting the profiteers behind these proposed changes? These changes are going to force many of us out of our homes that we've lived in for a lifetime. Seniors and minority communities will be the most displaced. It simply supply and demand a lot. You can build three houses on is worth more than you can build one house on. So the lot value will increase along with the taxes on it. When the lot costs more folks have to build more expensive houses on it to recoup their investment. Nobody is [11:34:38 AM] their investment. Nobody is going to build cheap houses on high priced land and even if all you know about the economics is coming from monopoly, you know that property with three houses can charge you more than one. The one that just has one houses no affordable housing is guaranteed from these changes. There's going to be immense profits for all involved in the building, developing investing groups. There will be destruction of the option for single. Thank you, speaker. >> Your time has expired. >> Saying Jacqueline o'keefe. Hello >> I'm hoping that you can hear me. We can, very good. I just want to echo several people who've already spoken here today . Carolyn graham, Barbara Epstein, Brandie Burton, they've spoken pretty eloquently about the environmental stresses, the unintended and unplanned out consequences that we are incurring. The lack of cooperation with things like community land trust to do a better job and a job that was that is actually guaranteed to [11:35:39 AM] that is actually guaranteed to produce the effects that we want . I think the biggest thing that we are facing here is that we are in agreement with you on the goals of the home. We just think these mechanisms are totally wrongheaded and they are so certain you are doing something wonderful, but you are making a consequential change without taking care of a lot of the details which will which will guarantee consequences. You do not want. Thank you. Bye. >> Thank you, Karen Fernandez. >> Good morning, council members. My name is Karen Fernandez. >> I'm the current president of the Matthews lane neighborhood association, located in district five. >> We do not support this home proposal as it does not guarantee affordable housing and will push out more of our neighbors who already struggle to pay their ever increasing property taxes. [11:36:39 AM] property taxes. >> We do support amendments as put forth by the Austin neighborhood coalition, gave and pojad. We have seen this trick before where developers target low and middle income communities for their centrally located properties and recruit well-meaning neighbors and advocates with promises of affordable housing through density, which never happens. >> We learned the hard way that the intention was never to keep the diversity of the neighborhood and simply provide more housing options. >> The land was developed and the often generational inhabitants priced out for good every one of you who votes for this ordinance as is should be ashamed of yourselves for ignoring the voices of your constituents, the teachers, artists, health care service workers and tradesmen who built Austin have been moved out and their modest home bulldozed to be replaced by soulless boxes, many of them simply investments for the money class, not a forever home for a family. If you really care about housing for middle income families, you would eliminate the strs and you would allow the addition of an Adu for homestead properties [11:37:40 AM] Adu for homestead properties with tax incentives and loan programs making that addition an attainable goal for the average homeowner. You should also respect the existing deed restrictions and neighborhoods rather than putting the financial burden of the on the homeowners to enforce this. Finally, I would ask that everyone who has not yet viewed Steve Mims documentary subdivide and conquer the realities of home to do so quickly so that you have an idea of who's really behind this push. I ask that you not vote on home to postpone it and to be more inclusive, live with who is involved in looking at solutions for providing housing for the middle income and low income of Austin. Thank you for your time. >> Jordan bird. Good morning. >> Can you hear me? >> Yes, thank you for the opportunity to speak against the home initiative. >> I'm a district four resident and several measures included in home are alarming and hazardous to human health and safety. >> In January this year, I [11:38:42 AM] >> In January this year, I looked out our window to see black smoke coming out of the house next door, a house that frequently has eight or more short term rental occupants in it. I was scared and concerned for the individuals inside all of whom are low income. Many of whom are disabled by fire trucks. >> Dozens of first responders battling the flames. My neighbors and I later found out this wasn't the first time this boarding house caught on fire. >> This summer, another short term rental house also caught on fire in our neighborhood at that fire, a resident and several firefighters were injured and had to go to the hospital. >> The home measure to remove the limit on unrelated adults per dwelling unit is an extremely dangerous proposition, given how hazardous many of these homes are with a current limit of eight unrelated individuals per unit. >> What does more than unable unrelated people per lot in no restrictions on rvs look like? >> Today in our neighborhood in north Austin, bedbugs, rats, faulty wiring, people sleeping in garages, closets, tents and sheds with limited access to power, water, heat and cooling, [11:39:42 AM] power, water, heat and cooling, all with little to no enforcement from the city. >> Does that sound safe to you? One wealthy investor family owns 20 of these short term rental homes in north Austin. Does that sound affordable and accessible to you? >> That's today. Imagine how bad the conditions will be for these individuals living in a future state with no limit on the number of people per unit or rvs of shelters. These measures benefit wealthy investors and do little to improve access to affordable housing. >> What they will do is create conditions that are unsafe for individuals staying in these units and for the Austin community as a whole. >> I've expressed concerns to councilman Bella and now to you and expect you to vote no on the home initiative. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Trenton Hendrickson. Hello. >> My name is Trent Hendrickson, a longtime affordability advocate and voter in district [11:40:42 AM] advocate and voter in district five. I'm here to urge the city council to postpone the vote on home and have a serious dialog with community groups like Garza and communities for color united before creating another gentrification mess. Generation of generations of austinites will be affected by. Guess you haven't had the time to read the city's own staff report on home. They concluded the massive increases in home prices were the result of land speculators. Ann not a shortage in in supply and that a market based approach would continue as escalating home prices if you want affordability, you need an affordability requirement for stop further your staff cautioned home could increase taxes on homeowners and incentivize displacement of renters, especially in marginalized communities. You are rushing through laws and early December that your own research can't justify. She's not the season for shady profit driven politics. Pump the brakes and start working with your [11:41:44 AM] and start working with your community again. Happy holidays. Nicole. >> Man. Good morning. >> City council. My name is Nicole. Man I'm a resident and homeowner in district nine. >> I'm a teacher for union Latina and tengo. >> I have a young son who is starting school next next year. I am calling in opposition to the home initiative because I do not believe it will be helpful in creating affordable housing. It will be detrimental to the local environment and communities. It will overwhelm our already struggling utilities of water, energy, energy and waste management. Home will likely further drive up our land value, which translates into higher costs for the current residents that are already struggling to keep up with our increasing property taxes. The [11:42:47 AM] increasing property taxes. The trend in Austin has been that most new developments are for investor Swint and not for home home owner occupied properties. This home is likely only going to expand the reach of developers and will continue to push middle and lower income residents farther out of the city. Because let's be real individuals, couples, families. We cannot compete financially against these developers and large investors, firms. Ultimately, I would like to see you, the city council, prioritize home ownership over housing as investment. I would like to see you, the city council, to find creative ways to ensure that housing sales are made accessible to us teachers, police, first responders, nurses instead of developers and investors. As a resident of this incredible city, I have been here for almost two decades. I am in support of thoughtful and [11:43:48 AM] am in support of thoughtful and inclusive densification action, not a sweeping one size does not fit all. Initially of please vote no. This is a first draft that needs to be reevaluated, broken up into smaller pieces. >> You speaker, your time has expired. >> One piece at a time. >> Elaine baker. Elaine baker. Please unmute. Joyce buscaino. How do I unmute? >> We can we can hear you. Go ahead. Can can you hear me? >> Yes, ma'am. Oh sorry. Good [11:44:49 AM] >> Yes, ma'am. Oh sorry. Good morning. I'm Joyce bassiano. I'm a home owner and I live in district ten and I oppose both phases of the home initiative. This isn't planning, it's plundering. Home will change the number of units allowed in single family zoning to the number of units currently allowed in multiple family zoning for 175,000 single family zoned properties by allowing these additional units and single family zoning by Wright, the city circumvents the state's notification requirement that is triggered by a normal zoning change. To avoid confusion. Ann. And in fairness to the public, let's leave the existing single and multiple family zoning categories as is, and create missing middle zoning categories that a property owner can apply for using the existing zoning change process. The home initiative could easily encumber rather than empower middle income property owners. Our property taxes are based on the [11:45:51 AM] property taxes are based on the highest possible use of our land home increases that use. This will be an additional burden on those with a fixed income, particularly senior citizens who want to age in place. Accessory dwellings can already be built on sf three zoned properties, but they are very expensive to build, so home will be used by those with the financial resources to remove an existing house to build multifamily housing. Lang. This will increase land speculation and will accelerate displacement, particularly in the eastern crescent. The research and analysis called out for in phase two should have been done before phase one was proposed. Item G of mayor Watson's motion sheet. One version two calls for a comparison of the data metrics in his motion up to three years prior, prior to the enactment of home if done before phase one, it will provide a snapshot of [11:46:52 AM] it will provide a snapshot of the city that will help us locate appropriate sites for missing middle housing. In all ten council districts. >> Thank you, speaker. Your time has expired on the home and Gwen rolling. Gwen, please unmute it. Lydia zaidman. Hi, my name is Lydia zaidman. >> I'm an attorney, a real estate agent and a real estate investor. I even own airbnbs, which is something that makes me incredibly unpopular and even I can tell that home is an absolute disaster for the city. When looking at it with even a viewing a modicum of balance, one comes to the conclusion that this will not create affordable housing. The simple solution is that why not make it a [11:47:54 AM] that why not make it a requirement for affordable housing? And the obvious answer is that the intention of this is not to create affordable housing . The intention of this is to benefit the developers and to benefit the careers of our city council, who apparently does not care for what its constituents want. Is the council has received thousands of letters opposing. The council has received thousands of calls. There are hundreds of people here speaking to oppose and yet they don't care. Even on the screen. I can see you shuffling your papers, walking out of the room on your phones, and you know why? Because the decision has already been made. You don't care what your constituents want . You have substituted your judgment for the people who have elected you. You're passing this through during the busiest holiday season of the year, much like you did with the vmu compatibility and the statesman pride. Please please. Down. >> David Fouts. [11:48:58 AM] >> David Fouts. >> Hello. >> Thank you. My name is David Feltz and I support the home initiative because it will make Austin more affordable. But what I'd like to speak about is why so many people think it won't and why they are mistaken. This summer, released a really great podcast about Austin housing market called growth machine in episode six, professor Sarah Braun of Cornell university explains that scholarly research has shown in study after study that when more housing is built, the lower prices tend to be and the areas with less restrictive zoning that enables more housing to be built don't see prices increase as quickly as areas with more restrictive zoning. This is in line with both our understanding of economics and the real world example Ralls such as in Houston, Minneapolis, Portland and the rental market [11:49:59 AM] Portland and the rental market here in Austin. So why do we keep hearing that home either won't work or will have the opposite effect? Episode seven of growth machine provides some very interesting insights. So Stan kalabsha of tulane university, another professor, had a very similar question in his research. He found that many Americans actually don't see a connection in between, and they really don't believe there is a connection between housing supply and demand and prices. Even though this is factually false, he hypothesizes. This is actually a very simple misunderstanding, adding because when people see more homes go up and more density, they also see prices go up. Missile identifying the effect for the cause is and he compared this to people thinking that an evacuation causes hurricane because they see people packing up and then a hurricane comes. Although this was a joke. The problem is, is that that this very common and understandable [11:51:01 AM] very common and understandable misconception has led us to figuratively speaking, ban evacuations to protect ourselves from hurricanes. But the problem is that. >> Thank you, speaker. >> Your time has expired. Thank you, bill zisman Mr. Mayor? >> Yes? Over here. After this next speaker's time expires, I have a request, please. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Hello. My name is bill zisman, and district seven. >> Home is no silver bullet reducing lot size has, in fact, contributed to increasing home values and growing property taxes. In Austin and many other cities like Houston and Portland . To think that our city council has been able to find a magic solution to home affordability when it has befuddled the greatest economic minds is laughable. The commercial markets did not thrive by providing affordability. Home is a plan to displace people and grab their land, just as it did [11:52:03 AM] grab their land, just as it did more than a decade ago in east Austin, where similar where smaller lots resulted in nearly complete displacement of Austin's African community. Austin's African-American community. What home will do is provide a boon for developers to make money. It will result in generous political contribution for supporting city council members. It will displace those that do not have the money to participate in the development of their own property. It will contribute further to the loss of locally housed teachers, police and firemen. It will result in large increase of impermeable cover, leading to more flooding. It will lead to the destruction of Austin's urban forests, which currently reduces summer temperatures by ten or more degrees. It will stress our fragile sewer, water and power infrastructure, which already struggle to keep up the city council are already [11:53:03 AM] city council are already approves developments where staff says that sewer capacity is insufficient. And finally, with the many thousands of your constituents sending in protests against home, I would warn city council members that their political futures are at stake if they force this initiative through today without real community input and support. But put this on the ballot. Let us, the voters, decide. Thank you. Thank you, sir. >> I'll recognize councilmember harper-madison. >> Thank you. >> I'll direct the first part of what I was going to say to you. You didn't have the opportunity to serve alongside my predecessor who I think is probably in opposition to whom I will in fact be voting for the initiative. But my predecessor would probably be in opposition to this and I say that to say I respect our all independent individual opinion on politics. We're talking politics policy, not people don't take it out on the people. Take it out on the [11:54:04 AM] the people. Take it out on the policy and on the politics and I'm saying that to say my predecessor took the opportunity to remind us that every body, every body in this room is just a person, some of the folks in this room who are standing in opposition to policy that I will be voting for, say hello to me and I see you in my neighborhood and I see you around city hall and I see you downtown. And we have the opportunity in those moments to be friendly and kind to one another. I hate that we don't open council meetings anymore with a prayer and take that opportunity to remember that we are for those of us who identify as Christian, we are all born and raised and made in his image and can treat one another with respect and kindness. There's no there's no reason to take that part out of this process. I encourage I encourage the participation. I'd like to discourage anything that comes across as visceral and nasty because it's not necessary. My predecessor would encourage us to do this when we wanted to applaud. And the reason for that is because there are so many people who have [11:55:05 AM] are so many people who have never done this before. I don't want them to have to be here all day in order to testify. But if we have to wait in between every single speaker for the applause to decrease, then that makes it take longer. We all we signed up for this job for us to have to be here today and then maybe again tomorrow and then again next week, that's fine. I got elected for this job. I'm here for it. I drank my red bull, but I don't want people who didn't anticipate being here for days to be able to make their contribution to not be able to do so because of the extended applause. I would like to encourage us to do it silently so we can keep the process rolling. And I'll leave it with this. Some of the folks that especially folks who are standing here today in opposition to this initiative, some of the folks who are calling in there alongside you, y'all are allies. And we can't hear what they're saying. I unlike what one of the previous speakers said, and I'm not shuffling papers, I'm not on my phone, I'm not walking out of the room because I do think it is our inherent obligation to hear y'all out. But I can't hear them because you're too loud. So if we could at the very least, let everybody finish their [11:56:06 AM] let everybody finish their testimony. I'd like very much to be able to hear what they have to say, and I'll leave it at that. And if there's any further conversation that you'd like to have with me or my colleagues outside of what is considered appropriate decorum in chambers, please take the opportunity to reach out to us outside of this room. It's always an opportunity . Thank you for acknowledging me, Mr. Mayor, and thank you for everybody participating. Tis the season and I really, really do appreciate y'all's participation . Thank you for being here today or for Linda Davis. >> Hello. >> Yes, hello. Go ahead. Please go ahead. Yes yes. >> Good morning. Good morning. Mayor and council members, this is Orpha Davis. I am a 39 year resident and homeowner in allendale and I am against this home initiative proposal. I want to preserve the single family zoning in the home initiative proposal will be harmful because of the following three points. [11:57:07 AM] of the following three points. One one there is no infrastructure to support the density you want for either water traffic or electricity. I have already noticed water pressures going down to there will be an increased risk of fire flooding. And if heat islands, if our trees and greenery are destroyed. And three, our quality of life will go way down. If we have no birds or other wildlife to enjoy. And finally, I hope to live in my home for the next 40 years and will be able to continue community support, volunteer ism and gardening. Thank you for your time and your consideration . >> Larry Akers. Yes the home initiative betrays homeowners long standing trust in the [11:58:08 AM] long standing trust in the city's zoning covenants. >> It will result in higher land appraisals and taxes for residents, therefore shifting the tax burden from commercial properties to residents. It will result in an excess of impervious cover for our waterways. Since most homes are well below allowed limits. But redevelopment will max out impervious cover it will make our neighborhood streets more hazardous and stress all aspects of our infrastructure. It contradicts the need to concentrate population along transit corridors to make our transit investment viable. It does nothing to address the root cause of unaffordability, which is the relentless pursuit of subsidized corporate relocation to Austin. The Barton hills neighborhood association voted 45 to 2 in opposition to home. Why not put the proposal to a public vote and impose the changes only in districts that accept them? But if you do vote to adopt, please limit yourself [11:59:09 AM] to adopt, please limit yourself to eight votes in favor or to honor the many individual protests that have been filed to impose these changes over so many objections is authoritarian, not Democrat. Governments. The likes of which I never thought I would see in our beautiful city. Thank you very much. >> Kelsey Hughes. >> Hi, my name is Kelsey Hughes and I am a renter in district nine. I'm a housing advocate because I read the book the color of law. >> I learned how single family zoning minimum lot sizes and other regulations were not designed for environmental or affordability reasons, but to purposefully ensure that certain groups of people are excluded from neighborhoods by restricting housing units and increasing the amount of land a person must own. It's been very successful at that, and it's led to our current housing crisis. Today, I support home because smaller homes are more [12:00:11 PM] smaller homes are more affordable and reduce suburban sprawl. Thank you. >> Drew de los Santos. >> Hello. Hello. Good morning. >> My name is drew de los Santos . I'm with Austin cooperative business association. I live in district one and speaking neutral on this initiative and in favor of eliminating occupancy limits. I've lived in Austin since I was a child. One of the reasons I was able to afford to stay in Austin was by living at a co-op where I lived with 12 people in a large house. We organized ourselves to share house chores, food and expenses in order to cut costs. I still live in a co-op today, and it's still one of the safest cost effective and enriching places to live in Austin. And that is why eliminating occupant limits is important for co-ops, intentional communities and cooperatives are organized ways for working class and low income [12:01:13 PM] for working class and low income people to survive and work together to address rising costs of living. It's important that this type of living style be recognized and respected in this process, and it's unfortunate that the occupants limits got lumped in to this larger vote with home because we've been working to eliminate occupancy limits for co-ops for years and because there are several valid concerns about home and affordability guarantees, which which is why I'm neutral on this item. As for co-ops, we've seen and I've personally experienced how intentional living with a group of people maintains affordability co-ops have some of the lowest rents in Austin, ranging from 500 to 1100, including Singh, utilities, internet food access, emergency supplies and community support co-op living has enriched my life and made it possible for me to pay off my student loans and stay in Austin while I improve my financial health and build skills in meeting facilitation. Project management, conflict resolution, financial management and anti-racist community [12:02:15 PM] and anti-racist community building. And so I urge the council to eliminate the occupancy limits and thank you for your time. >> Frankie Ortega. Greetings, my name is frank Ortega from district seven. >> I first ask that you postpone the vote on the home act. >> Thank you. I've been living in Austin, Texas, on and off since 2019 and the time period that I've lived in Austin, I've experienced many difficulties obtaining and maintaining safe and affordable housing. >> I've also been forced to move back to Houston on two separate occasions of six month periods within the past five years due to housing insecurity. Despite working multiple jobs with hours totaling 40 plus weekly, I've continued to live paycheck to paycheck and struggle to afford my rent in my most recent living situation, I was paying 1200 plus for a single studio space in Hyde park. The ceiling in my apartment had an enormous hole in it due to rain damage that constantly leaked every time it rained my apartment began to smell of mold, and despite having an open leaking hole for over a month without maintenance [12:03:16 PM] over a month without maintenance , I still was required to pay 1200 plus and solely my rent. This is consistent of what it is like to live in Austin, Texas. I love Austin and I love Texas, but due to unaffordable housing and gentrification, I will soon be forced out. Like many of my black and brown friends, family and coworkers, my heart breaks at the consistent and blatant prioritization of affluent white tenants in Austin. I'm in opposition of the home act and any other initiative that makes Austin unaffordable and unlivable for the people who built it. The home that claims to be a solution to Austin's affordability crisis. Yet there are no requirements that make housing actually affordable. The home act will not aid people like me or the austinites who are fueled, cared for and loved Austin for generations. We demand deeply affordable housing through restriction of demolition of current affordable housing structures and lower property taxes. We demand a home that is livable and affordable under a 40 hour workweek, and we demand housing justice. Thank you, Matthew Mccoy. >> Howdy, everyone. >> Ann council members. Mayor my name is Matthew Mccoy and I'm [12:04:17 PM] name is Matthew Mccoy and I'm the president of the university Democrats here at UT Austin. >> I'm a proud resident of district nine. I wish I could join you all in person today, but unfortunately, I got to finally get to in about half an hour before we get started. I just want to take a second to offer our condolences to those whose lives have once again been uprooted by another instance of tragic gun violence in recent days. And thank all the first responders who responded to these attacks. >> Thank you. >> I'm here today on behalf of thousands of students in gen Z who live in the city, who are so often not represented in forums such as this, and to show support, student support for the home initiative to address the ongoing housing crisis here in Austin. >> As a student who lives in Austin and has previously worked extensively in student housing, I know there's a lot of work to be done to address this issue, and we firmly believe the home initiative is another step in the right direction. >> This council has taken by allowing more diverse housing options and more units in smaller lots and more, Austin has the opportunity to reduce the strain currently limiting growth as well as make the city more sustainable and climate friendly. >> Austin should be a welcoming, welcoming place for everyone who wants to live and work here and not just those who can afford [12:05:19 PM] not just those who can afford it. We are concerned with instances of displaced and a lack of affordable affordability, but believe nothing doing nothing is the worst thing that can be done to tackle this housing crisis and allowing more options of housing and construction of missing middle housing is a step in the right direction to address this issue. Not no surprise, but housing costs continue to be a limiting factor for attracting students and professionals who wish to come to UT Austin and any of the great universities in the city. It's not uncommon for places around campus to be upwards of $1,000 a month and or even greater than a full year's worth of tuition. Once they graduate. The next issue is where do they go? Where do they turn to advance their careers? In many cases, students move to other cities where they can afford to live. And we're losing so many talented individuals who could contribute to the thriving culture and workforce here in Austin in order to attract and retain so many talented people and continue to be a top research city and to afford to live in this vibrant city, Austin must attract the lack of housing, restrictive zoning and allow for more housing options to be built. Doing nothing is the worst thing we can do to tackle this housing crisis. And [12:06:20 PM] tackle this housing crisis. And I applaud the work of this council. >> Thank you, speaker. Your time has expired. >> Thank you, Laura Tibor Huerta . >> Hello. >> I am against the home. Initially Austin is at a critical point in its growth. Rapid uncontrolled growth from former city councils has changed the character of the city, and I believe Austin should now focus on quality over quantity, uncontrolled growth is unsustainable in the long term, with what we now know about the environment at Austin should build more affordable and low income housing. The home initiative relies on a type of trickle down building to supply this much needed housing. >> This seems disingenuous to me and more focused on allowing Austin to be sold again to the highest bidder. Very foolish. A skilled, competent city planner along with city council and mayor, should address research and build only these types of housing. We have enough housing for the wealthy, yet in my [12:07:21 PM] for the wealthy, yet in my backyard to more affordable and low income housing. Thank you. And I also want to say to that one member who interrupted and gave a short speech, it's interesting that you've already decided to be for the initiative before everyone has finished speaking and so many are against it. And that's not going to sway you, which I find very interesting. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Adele York. Hello >> My name is Adele York and I live in district three here in Austin. >> I'm a longtime resident of Texas, a mother, a small business owner and an architect and I'm speaking in support of the home initiative as the home ordinance will improve housing affordability and availability in Austin. >> Challenges know austinites can plausibly ignore. >> Additionally, it has the potential to augment our existing sustainability initiatives substantiating our metro rail with population density shortening car payments and increasing the opportunity [12:08:22 PM] and increasing the opportunity for multimodal modal transportation. Adversaries of the ordinance argue that it will adversely affect our tree canopies and watersheds and to those I ask how is urban sprawl affecting our tree canopies and watersheds? Shall we continue to grow outward, lengthening our infrastructure miles adding more roofs per capita, more hard surface and more car commutes? Certainly that solution does not do right by our citizens, nor our natural environment. On the contrary, the home ordinance maintains tree protection and densifies without creating significantly more runoff than it's already allowed. I've lived and worked on both east and west coasts and seen firsthand the positive impact of middle income and medium density housing. To those who are skeptical, I urge you to look at Minneapolis, who has similarly reformed their zoning code and recently published data on the decrease of rents. The home initiative would support Austin's national reputation of a forward thinking, welcoming city. I applaud those who have worked diligently to bring this legislation to the table and believe that if approved, the home ordinance will put Austin on the right side of housing history. Say yes to home. Thank you, Eric Harris is. Eric. [12:09:23 PM] you, Eric Harris is. Eric. >> Please unmute. >> Hello, my name is Eric Harris. >> I'm an Austin resident. Since 1984. I'm a civil engineer and board member of the Millwood neighborhood association, district seven. I'm against the home initiative, as are an overwhelming majority of neighbors. >> I've worked in land development and construction in Austin since 1993, including 12 years with the city and watershed protection and public works. As such, I am very familiar with the development review process and alarmed that the city is promoting this ill conceived plan and dismantling the current. >> I appreciate the urgency of addressing housing affordability, but this effort does not do that. Problems are solved by focusing on specific changes to achieve a goal. Instead, this proposal dismantles important limits to produce or promote harmony in our neighborhoods without any real promise for affordability [12:10:23 PM] real promise for affordability and dismantling these limits. Key planning criteria are either outright ignored or not given appropriate consideration in consideration. Number one is the capacity of existing infrastructure to accommodate the increased density emergency access, parking, electric service, trash recycle collection, water, sewer, drainage. >> These all must be considered before changes of density are allowed. >> The current rezoning process provides an opportunity to address this issue. The proposed does not. I'll remind you that the city spent millions of dollars in the 90s in 2000 addressing sanitary sewer overflows and the city's drainage system improvement backlog is decades long. Consideration two is the desirability of the density in an established neighborhood and the impact to that neighborhood. Our neighborhood is walkable, has a mix of single family townhomes, duplexes, and there are apartments abutting our area. My neighbors overwhelmingly object to this change. We all agreed to single family restrictions. We bought [12:11:25 PM] family restrictions. We bought our homes and our changes are to happen. We should have a say, as we would under the current rezoning process. Our neighborhood has not objected to a reasonable rezoning in our area. Someone remarked that your property rights don't extend past your property. That is an uninformed position. Zoning and restrictive covenants promote harmonious living by establishing limits on what folks can build. >> Thank you, speaker, your time has expired. Kymberley Colas. Hi, my name is kymberley Kohlhoff. >> I oppose this initiative and encourage for a delay for further study. >> I do not see any evidence that it will have the results that you want and instead have unintended irreversible results. >> We will not get a do over. I live in district nine and have watched over the past five years as naturally occurring affordable housing was purchased by developers who consistently won bids with cash over over all other offers. I know this because I'm a realtor and I watched older homes that five [12:12:26 PM] watched older homes that five years ago sold for 5 to 700,000, sell for 1 million plus as a tear down this will only continue. So I work with a neighborhood coalition and we've had over 2000 signed petitions to the mayor and city council members against ruining our neighborhoods. I'm also an architect and adhered to the many rules which were all considered sacrosanct when they were created and suddenly to fit two more families per lot. None of the original limits apply anymore. No one is evil here. The job of the architect, the realtor, the investor developer and even our neighbors, when they're ready to sell, all just want the maximum profit on each property. We are all just doing our jobs. This initiative encourages, does not encourage affordability and instead encourages maximum density for maximum profit. If your mind is already made up, why are we doing this? You're all sitting in those seats because of our votes. If more of us speak out against this, do you care? Thank you. >> Colin Lineberry. >> Good morning or good [12:13:31 PM] >> Good morning or good afternoon. Now my name is Colin Lineberry. I live in southwest Austin and a subdivision of about 1400 single family homes. I'm opposed to the council's proposal to change zoning requirements and allow two or more auxiliary dwelling units or ads on existing single family lots. I'm against the proposal both because it will harm existing homeowners like me and because it will not provide affordable housing as claimed. One definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result by that standard. This proposal is insane. The proposal largely mimics existing California statewide statutes California government code section 65852.2 and 0.22 require California municipalities, all of them to provide two auxiliary dwelling units of approved to auxiliary dwelling units on any single family zoned lot with out regard to square footage. Very much like this proposal that statewide statute which has been in effect for several years, has [12:14:32 PM] in effect for several years, has not made California housing affordable. So there is no sane reason to think that that concept that didn't work in California will work to provide affordable housing in Austin. I have two adult sons, both of whom graduated from the university of Texas, have good jobs but cannot afford a first home in Austin. I would very much favor any constructive changes that would make housing more affordable for them and others. But this proposal will not do that. The proposal will, however, harm those of us thought out good, stable neighborhoods where there are trees, the kids have yards to play in. And you know your neighbors and there's a reasonable distance between houses for short term rental adus will be occupied by individuals with no long term interest in the neighborhood who care little, if at all, about the appearance, property values and amenities of the neighborhood where they are staying. This proposal will greatly harm existing neighborhoods, although the proposal is touted as a means of affordable housing, there's absolutely nothing in the proposal that requires or gives any incentive for any of the ads to be affordable. Increased density of housing does not necessarily mean increased [12:15:34 PM] necessarily mean increased affordability. Residential areas of Manhattan are densely populated, but they're not affordable. >> Thank you, speaker. >> Your time has expired. William hart. My name is bill hart. >> I live in district nine. I want to thank all of my neighbors, whether they're for or against this, for their comments, because it will spare me some of the points I was going to otherwise make. The neighborhoods are part of the fabric of this city's history and one of the last remaining connections to the old Austin. I'm concerned about the loss of character in the neighborhoods. My neighbors have spoken eloquently to infrastructure impacts. I came from New York dense, dirty parking and congestion nightmare. Also you probably agree with me not so cheap to live there. Ultimately, the cost of this and here's my real concern is if I got it [12:16:36 PM] real concern is if I got it right, I think it was councilperson Allison alter who said that the current proposal allows up to 100% of the new construction for like airbnb or short term rental trans residents do not make for good neighbors, nor do remote owners who are investors. There are a lot of alternatives to this. I would ask that the council not do this by decree and engage more closely on the granular issues in the neighborhoods. I'll close with two comments. One, I'm sure remember Vietnam? Some of you do you remember the line we had a destroy the village to save it? I'm a little concerned about that. And the last point and I'll close was I remember when the council or the previous council lifted the public camping ban. After two years, they realized that created havoc. So they reinstated it. If you start to destroy the neighborhoods and tear down some of the old houses [12:17:36 PM] tear down some of the old houses and they don't necessarily have to be historic landmarks, you're not going to be able to reinstate the neighborhoods or reinstate the demolished houses. Do this deliberately with community engagement and by vote. I think all of you, for your time and thank you, speaker, your time has expired. >> Julia, would. >> Hello. >> My name is Julie woods and I. >> Hi. >> I represent the Dawson neighborhood and also am a member of the ANC. I'd like to thank, members of the council and mayor Watson for their leadership, in particular for supporting data gathering that will keep us informed about how these rule changes would work. [12:18:39 PM] these rule changes would work. But my concern is that we also need, a guardrails. We need an automatic pause on permits in areas at risk for displacement, especially communities of color, perhaps a circuit breaker would be a better way to describe it. I'd also ask that we not just gather data on flooding and potential flooding, but that we have a moratorium on increased impervious cover in flood prone areas. Otherwise we'll have all the data right in front of us as we watch people and watch people swept away in their cars and in their homes, which I think we can all agree we don't want the home initially give will not solve housing supply problems for the missing middle and we want to see our first responders, members of our community be staying in this city and living amongst us. I recommend better ways to enforce [12:19:40 PM] recommend better ways to enforce the short term rental limits so that we don't have housing that sits empty for months at a time in fact, perhaps we should investigate taxi and increase taxes on vacant residents properties because many developers with deep pockets are able to let a unit sit empty rather than rent it at what they consider to be below market rent . Again, I'd like to thank you for your time and consideration and please thank you, speaker, your time has expired. >> Paul. Paula Von. For Paula Von. Hello. >> Please go ahead. >> Yes, I'm Paula Von and I live in district eight. >> I also work with many of the communities that face housing shortages and affordability crises. And so I'd like to propose that you at least [12:20:43 PM] propose that you at least postpone today, please vote and that it be considered for broader review and detail and setting out the reaction of the different communities that are impacted. >> I was very concerned when I was trying to review the website that had the questions and answers about home because what I saw was all the transportation issues, the infrastructure issues, the green space issues, impervious cover and flooding issues generally had a response. >> That was we don't believe the development will be quick enough to have a severe impact. >> So the question would be, if you don't believe the development is going to be quick enough, how is it going to solve the middle income problem? The other question would be, and I am glad to hear that there metrics that are being [12:21:43 PM] metrics that are being considered for in place after this whole activity. But we really should know, best case and worst case, probable case on some of these impacts areas, especially for our transportation and all our infrastructure, our situations. So I think we need to understand that before we go to a vote on something that blankets the whole city with one solution. I am in favor of having Adu availability for people that need that, but I'm concerned that we're not really assessing the impact. And once we get these measures. >> Thank you, speaker. Your time has expired. Gwendolyn Julius. Gwendolyn, please unmute. Mary Chisholm. Hi my name is Mary [12:22:49 PM] Chisholm. Hi my name is Mary Chisholm. >> I live in district four in the skyview neighborhood and I am against the home initiative mainly because the city has no infrastructure for building the dense the density that they're talking about. I'm not against density, I am for that. However for specifically in my neighborhood, it's a pocket neighborhood. >> We can barely get out of the neighborhood that is. >> And if this comes to fruition , I mean, so it doesn't matter mean cars can't get in and out of the neighborhood or it takes forever. >> So you know, one, there's no infrastructure to the, all the environmental concerns are something that could be thought about and that there is no requirement for affordable [12:23:50 PM] requirement for affordable housing. >> You are when you say this is going to help ability, it is not there is no requirement for affordable housing. And I hope you consider postponing the vote. >> And I hope that councilman Vella listens to the number of people calling from his district against this initiative. >> Thank you for your time. >> Thank you, Robert Nash. Hi, Robert Nash, district ten. >> Appreciate the opportunity to speak. Mister mayor, council member rather in the interest of time, I'll just echo the comments of brandy Burton. >> Barbara Epstein and others so articulately described why this is a really bad idea. >> It's a bad one size fits all idea that I think we should slow way down and have meaningful public input regarding not just a little purple postcard. Thank you very much. Cassie Sodergren. [12:24:52 PM] you very much. Cassie Sodergren. >>. >> Good afternoon. My name is cassie Sodergren and I'm a resident and renter living in a duplex in district nine. I'm speaking today in opposition of the home initiative. First I want to say it's really disengaged, tenuous to hear councilmember Harper Madison say how she values community input and hearing people out. But it's already speaking to how she's going to vote. It's also not okay to use your religious beliefs to bypass and suppress the expression of how home is personally hurting people you represent and to think that policy isn't personal is hugely problematic. So with that, I want to say it's hard to do the right thing, but it makes your life easy and it's easy to do the wrong thing, but it makes your life hard. Home will make life hard. The home initiative is driven by greed and profit, not what's actually best for the members of our community. It's shortsighted to believe that [12:25:54 PM] shortsighted to believe that this initiative will drive down housing costs for middle and low income homeowners and renters. Middle and low income homeowners can't afford to demolish and redevelop their home or build an Adu. Only high income individuals and investors can do this. This means investors will buy up housing from low and middle income homeowners, and homeowners will feel the pressure to sell because property taxes will increase. This is gentrification because home is investor driven, there are no affordability requirements. Money is what's fueling this initiative, increasing the supply of housing only causes housing costs to go down when there is a supply of deeply affordable housing and home is missing this key ingredient we need community based development without displacing it. We need a density Fauci, not market rate density. And we need these plans to align with our climate equity plan goals. Please postpone this vote or vote no to make room for public input and real solutions. Thank you. [12:26:55 PM] Thank you. >> Candice swarm. >> Hello, my name is Candice swarm and I am a college student who is actually homeless. >> I think that the home initiative has some good aspects to it and I think that it also has some bad aspects to it. The one thing that I look at and is very important to me is affordable housing. And when I say affordable housing, I mean housing that is affordable to everyone. Before I moved to Austin, my dad had already moved down here to work at the Samsung plant and he told me six years ago that I did not need to move to Austin because I could not afford it. And that was six years ago. And since then it has only gotten more expensive as a homeless college student, I think that it is very important to bring affordable housing to [12:27:55 PM] to bring affordable housing to Austin and also to minimize the risk of displacing families and individuals while it is important to bring affordable housing to Austin, I'm not too sure that this is the way of doing it. I have been trying to establish my own nonprofit, which aims to build a self-sustaining community here in Austin. I believe that there is a great need for true income based rental units as well as sustainable community us and it's a much better means to bring affordable housing than rezoning the current Zones. While many have stated that the home initiative runs no risk of raising property values or leading to gender bifurcation or displacement of current residents in these Zones, but the truth is, as an average citizen in America, I know as well as most that the governments do not always do. They do not always tell the truth. And those who are in the upper class do not want to lose the money that they have. If they can make more, all the better. The city of Austin is a [12:28:55 PM] better. The city of Austin is a beacon of growth of hope and a wide variety of people with a large range of social classes live here while they hold the power. There are fewer of them than the average austinite. While I am homeless, my sister is not, and I watch her. >> Thank you, speaker. Your time has expired. >> Struggling anastasia Baldwin. >> Hello. >> Yes, you can be heard. Hello >> Oh, thank you. >> Hello. And good morning to everyone. I wanted to speak in favor of amending the occupancy limits for homes for individuals that are unrelated. My point of this is that it encourages connection between individuals that aren't considered a nuclear family. And the term family does not necessarily ensure safety like family members relate to each other. It's not ensure safety in an environment and doesn't encourage individuals to, to, to participate rate in [12:29:59 PM] to, to, to participate rate in the city and be financially stable. I believe individuals being able to share a home outside of the occupancy limits promotes community and eliminates isolation, especially for people that can't or are unable to generate income and will increase care for elderly and vulnerable populations. I can speak from my perspective. I'm coming from Milton, Florida as a single mother and I was allowed to live in a co-op which it had multiple individuals and we are unrelated and it was very sustainable for me, very affordable for me because I could not afford, child care at the time. So I believe that individuals being able to share a home, can circulate resources and, and just offer support for people that can't, that can't reach that financial bracket [12:30:59 PM] reach that financial bracket like 60,000 plus, Austin is in a process of catering to a specific class of people, the economic class of people. Right now. And I believe that this, this item, is encouraging Wright growth and encouraging people to come here and make a living for themselves and eliminate homelessness because I believe homelessness is a big, it's shocking how big of a issue it is in the city. And also the mental health crisis that comes from that. Thank you, speaker. >> Your time has expired. >> I believe. >> Rob Schneider. Rob, please unmute. >> Hi, I'm Rob Schneider. >> I'm a volunteer for member of the aarp Texas executive council . >> I'm also a former member of the city planning commission. >> And I'm speaking in favor of [12:32:01 PM] >> And I'm speaking in favor of the home initiative. >> There's a couple of common elements for people as they age. >> Most people will need some kind of caregiving support as they get older and become more frail and most people want to remain in their homes and in their communities. >> So the home initiative gives people options as they age. >> For example, they're able to build housing on their property that they own to provide income and support for themselves. They're able to provide caregivers, family or chosen family a place to live to support their caregiving. They're able to move into a smaller home to save money. >> I live in district five. >> My neighborhood is full of duplexes, small apartment buildings, small scale condo complex, as well as single family homes. There are problems that need to be addressed. >> For example, sidewalks, sidewalk infrastructure. >> But it's a great neighborhood [12:33:01 PM] >> But it's a great neighborhood with things to do in walking distance and a real feeling of a neighborhood with its own character and sense of community. The home initiative can facilitate more of the kinds of housing that I have in my neighborhood. It can help people support themselves as they age so that they can continue to live in their communities and in their own homes. >> That's a good thing for people as they age, and it's a good thing for Austin. Thank you . >> Rodrigo leal. >> Hello. >> Can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Please proceed. >> Hello, my name is Rodrigo leal and I'm a resident of district one. I serve on the city of Austin's joint sustainability committee and was a member of the steering committee for the Austin climate equity plan. I would like to urge city council to please take a moment and seriously reflect on the concerns and issues that those community members that are most at risk of displacement have raised many of these community members and allied organizations have shared [12:34:02 PM] organizations have shared stories about how families are struggling to make ends meet due to limited incomes. Lack of real affordable housing options and rising costs. Many have been pushed out of the communities that they grew up in. Some are even without shelter. Many other folks are not able to be here today because they are part of our city's working class. They are the custodians, the teachers , the construction workers, the restaurant workers, the single parents living in rental housing. They're the ones that keep this city running that make this city's prosperity possible, especially during the pandemic. We talked about how these folks are, quote, essential to our community. We reflected on our city's history of disenfranchized easement of racism and the casting aside of entire communities for the benefit of those with privilege, power and access to city politics. This, if we are truly committed to anti- racism and housing, justice. If we truly want folks to trust in city government, if we want low income communities and communities of color to feel like their voice actually matters, we shouldn't simply disparage them by calling them nimbys accuse them of being [12:35:03 PM] nimbys accuse them of being anti-housing or dismiss them by claiming that they do not understand, quote, simple supply and demand. That is at best patronizing and at worst insincere. This attempt to discredit their concerns. Please come to the community, negotiate table, collaborate with these folks and the community based organizations that support their needs. They're the ones who carry the burden of growth and development on their backs. They have seen what hasn't worked. They have aspirations for what could work. Please postpone the passage of this proposal and work with your most marginalized neighbors in the eastern crescent. They know their communities best. >> Abraham Martinez is. >> Hi. Good afternoon. >> Afternoon. Council thank you for this hearing today in district seven, a resident allendale and an urban planner and ask council to consider the bureau's projections of a potential population plateau or decline by the century's end. [12:36:04 PM] decline by the century's end. >> I think it's important for the council to implement policies promoting gradual urban density increases over time, like those in the home act. This isn't just about current housing needs, but also preparing for a future where a stable, deeply rooted population Ann can prevent urban decline. In Austin. Encouraging density fosters organic community growth and deep resonant connections with the city. Learning from cities like New York in the 70s and who experienced significant challenges as a result of population decline. Austin can proactively build a strong community, resilient against future demographic shifts. The council should support increased housing options in denser development, maintain Austin vibrancy and resilience for future generations. I'd ask the council to consider passing these amendments to start to start preparing today. Thank you to the council and staff for considering this perspective and allowing democratic participation in this process. I . Tom Polk. This is Tom. [12:37:06 PM] . Tom Polk. This is Tom. >> Let me get my screen on where I can talk. >> Oh moment. I'm Tom Polk, district eight chairman, former chairman of the Austin board of realtors and acting president of the south cave woods neighborhood association. >> I'm speaking for myself. >> I don't think that home is ready for prime time because it relies so much on hopes and optimistic assumptions. It needs additional due diligence. First, home needs to state clearly that it does not apply if it conflicts with deed restriction, [12:38:07 PM] conflicts with deed restriction, as city council sponsors have asserted that existing homeowners would be protected by deed restrictions. Actually, this isn't the case. As a realtor, I personally know of two cases where deed restrictions were attacked and where the attackers prevailed, and litigation is the typical way to decide who wins. The parties who got their way had the deepest pockets. Mr. Mayor and council members, if you honestly believe that deed restrictions alone will protect the individual homeowners against wealthy developers, then you can accomplish. You can accommodate both sides of this issue with no loss to your cause. Simply make sure that home clearly states that it would does not apply. It conflicts with deed restrictions . This would ensure that your deed restriction promises come true and you would prevent myriad possibilities. Litigation. Second, the planning commission present a rendering of a sample of home three unit residents. What we've not seen are the actual cost of building [12:39:09 PM] are the actual cost of building and selling it before before proceeding with home knell necessary due diligence would include the city council getting at least one builder to actually bid this project and tell you exactly how much you'd have to sell it for speaker. >> Your time has expired. Austin Talbot. Austin, please unmute. >> Hello. I'm here. Sorry. Thank you so much. Council mayor, for what you're doing. Huge supporter of the home initiative . Look forward to it. I just want to address one thing in the draft that there's a provision that's going to eliminate not clarify the accessory apartment provision. I've sent some stuff to council offices. This is actually a really good opportunity to provide the cheapest, easiest and most affordable housing for existing [12:40:09 PM] affordable housing for existing homeowners and residents by converting existing space in their house, including garages, into what we sometimes call granny flats or other unit that are in the house. They utility hookups and there's someone that's built an Adu. Those are what make is incredibly expensive. >> So this is a huge opportunity to add additional flexibility as we add units. >> It's also important to think about current homeowners and ways that can make it again easier, more flexible and affordable. So just removing those restrictions of having to be over 65 or disabled, these are things we talked about in multiple rounds over the last four years. >> This amendment had passed in the last round and also it was addressed in the ordinances. It just somewhere in the translation Ann it got clarified as a removal and not a clarification. So I would encourage you all to look at [12:41:10 PM] encourage you all to look at that and talk about how we can make as we're adding entitlements, how we can make it more flexible as well with the current entitlement that we already had with that accessory apartment or internal suite provision. Thank you so much. By Valerie zandt. >> Hi. Can. Please go ahead. Can you hear me? >> Yes, please go ahead. >> Yeah, hi, my name is Valerie. >> Hi. My name is Valerie. I am a resident of district five. >> I'm calling in support of the proposal. >> I think one of the things that I've noticed is that a lot of the people here are much older, and there's not as much of a gen Z voice. >> I am 24. >> I'm a recent college grad and I think that for many of the people my age, we're really unsure of how we'll be able to afford housing in Austin. >> And I think the proposal is [12:42:12 PM] >> And I think the proposal is like a really great way for people my age to like have like a hope or like a vision of how we'll actually be able to afford a house one day. One of the things I one of my friends recently had to move away from Austin with her husband and her kid because they didn't couldn't conceive of the possibility of owning a home. And I think that, like the home proposal will address a lot of these cases where people who are lower income and don't work in tech or finance will actually be able to stay here and be able to have a home next. >> Thank you. >> Andrew Pyle. Hi >> Can everybody hear me? Yes hi . [12:43:13 PM] . >> My name is Andrew Pyle. I'm a native austinite. I am a member of district nine and I want to voice my support for the home. Mac. I support the increased number of triplexes duplexes and multiple forms of housing in the city. I would like to like to see more options for everyone. Especially those who are looking to buy their first home and that's all I have to say. Thank you. >> Cutter Gonzalez. Hello I'm cutter Gonzalez. >> I'm a resident of district nine and recently moved back to Austin because I'm a musician and I was a grad student at the university of Houston. And I wanted to voice my strong, strong support for the home initiative, housing in Austin. The housing costs in Austin is actually what initially drove me [12:44:13 PM] actually what initially drove me out. I went back to school for music, which here Austin claims it's famous for. But by not allowing housing for folks like me, it made me and others have to move away. And likewise when I went to grad school, luckily I ended up in Houston and I was able to live in a place in montrose, which is one of Houston's premier neighborhoods because Houston didn't have extensive restrictions on the number of homes. So I was able to find an affordable apartment in the middle of town that allowed me to bike and take the bus and live my life as a musician in a world class city. Austin is a place I love and was ready to return to. And it wasn't until this city council, took the helm that I felt confident that I'd have a long term home here. Once I started to hear some of the things about reforming parking, reforming the number of homes that can be built and all these things, I had the faith that this would be a place affordable to me and to my creative life for many years to come. So all that to say, super, super grateful for the [12:45:14 PM] super, super grateful for the courage to do this. I know it is hard to do in the face of such opposition, but people like me deserve a home here too. I'm a seventh generation Texan and that shouldn't even matter. But if people like me can't make a home here, imagine all the creativity that we're losing by being so restrictive. So I encourage you to pass it. I'm excited to watch this happen. And thank you so, so much for your service to our city. >> Yorgos Economos. Hello >> I'm in favor of home as an incremental step to create a more inclusive city that's better connected by transit. The affordability challenges facing Austin are not unique, and the blueprint is out there to limit environment destroying sprawl. The proposed changes in home are very modest and have been thoughtfully considered and researched, and these changes are very personally personal to me. My father struggled with dementia for years before [12:46:16 PM] dementia for years before eventually passing away. I was his caretaker for the last couple of years of his life. To me, home brings options to families struggling with issues that arise. Parents age and will bring the ability to have multi-generational living or extra income generating capability that supports Burt care. I've watched my neighborhood of Travis heights see humble duplexes and affordable housing demolished and replaced with lumbering mansions. Friends of mine have mostly fled central Austin due to skyrocketing home prices as ownership has swept out of their grasp. While not a panacea for all of our city challenges, home is the least we can do. After years of inaction, and I welcome more gentle growth policies that better integrate our city. Thank you. Alan baker. >> Alan, please unmute it. Tammy [12:47:21 PM] >> Alan, please unmute it. Tammy Eason. Tammy, please unmute your . Yes, hi, can you hear me? Yes >> Yes. Okay >> My name is Tammy Essen. >> I have an sf three in district eight right on the border of rollingwood for the past nine years before going into my reasons for opposing this code, I want to remind everyone on the council and mayor Watson that you are a civil servant and you have an obligation to represent what the majority of your constituents want and think. It's fairly obvious that the majority of your constituents do not want this code to be passed as is given the strong number of objections, you have a duty to postpone this ordinance until further discussion and research has been done. Ultimately, if [12:48:22 PM] has been done. Ultimately, if you honestly care about your constituents. And their needs for the decision to be able to a vote at the next election election, I applaud you for your goal of creating affordable housing, which I would love to have as well. However, you have no proof that this will create that goal. I have no idea why you would potentially pass a code of this certificate at a public vote and without first testing it out 1 or 2 neighborhoods while you think this will create an affordable housing, we think this will be a gift you are giving to developers that will have devastating effects on over 150,000 people. How do I know that? Because I'm a developer myself, and as a developer, this sounds like a great law, but before I'm a developer, I'm a civil, I'm a member of an and a member of a community. I want to make sure that my self and my community are protected. This code will not help middle class [12:49:23 PM] code will not help middle class income families. It is a code that will put more money into pockets of the wealthy buyers and investors. The biggest problem I have with this code is that how it will. It is clear cut not handled population since it's barely hanging on now. Every hotspot in the hundreds I receive a note asking utilities, pleading with everyone to decrease electric city and raise the inside temperature. >> Next speaker is Terry McGinty . Terry McGinty please unmute. Next speaker is Gwendolyn jewish . Gwendolyn yes, hi. >> Get to get unmuted. I apologize. So, mayor city council members and fellow citizens of Austin and I [12:50:26 PM] citizens of Austin and I appreciate this opportunity that we're having to finally discuss this in a real open Ed this is a taking we all, when we purchase single family homes or whatever type of homes we're living in, we bought them with certain deed restrictions that we understood. We were able to find out what's really going on with our property. This is something that really needs to have three things we need to postpone on the civil until we have more data. We need to do more research testing it in a small area rather than blanking it citywide. And we need to communicate and communicate with the individual neighborhood groups. I'm a member of my neighborhood contact team and we need to have the city be more transparent. There is nothing in this home initiative that's going to preclude an urban sprawl. There's nothing here that forces new developments to [12:51:26 PM] that forces new developments to have a certain level of affordability be the greenest home and the most affordable home is the one that's already there. There is no economics that allows somebody to demolish something, build from scratch and make it more affordable. That's just a pipe dream. I'm sorry to say. And I really feel like our infrastructure is not going to be able to support this. There's too houses near me where we already had with our current three zoning, one house caught on fire and it caught the second house on fire. Now two families are out of homes. And once we get six homes on a three, an existing, you know, our today's three lot there's no way that the fire department can get to those houses. We're just creating a bunch of unintended consequences without having thoroughly investigated the whole thing. It's really your time is expired. [12:52:28 PM] time is expired. >> Nothing for next speaker is tain ward. Hello >> Thank you so much. Council. My name is Tony ward. I'm a cultural worker. I live in district five. >> I have lived in district one and for and saw that there was so much increase in density at the same time as increase in price. >> And it seems like every time there was a duplex that was put on a single family lot, that those duplexes would sell for even more than the single family homes would in most cases. And I'm wondering if all the data that the mayor intends to collect after after the passage of home for a three plexes could not just be applied to already what's happened with duplex houses. I think we'd see that it would be that this actually increases the price of housing, which is why am opposed to the home initiative and I can't really figure out why. Besides a deep faith in trickle down economics, no one here has seemed to explain exactly how [12:53:28 PM] seemed to explain exactly how this is going to make Austin more affordable. >> But so many people have described exactly how it will make it less affordable and I think with so many brilliant people on all sides of this issue here willing to discuss and how to make this better, why wouldn't we take the opportunity to bring people together during the spring and come up with some great proposals? >> Ralls in good faith with everyone in the community working together? >> Maybe cut out the billionaire investor for a moment and try to work on what the community actually wants. >> And so we don't remain divided on these types of issues. >> We could potentially come together and create real solutions. >> I've heard a lot of amazing things from a lot of amazing people already today, and I want to thank each and every one of you for coming out. And thank you all for your time. Peace >> Jazz bell. >> Hello, my name is jazz bell. >> I'm in district one. I am have lived in Austin my entire [12:54:28 PM] have lived in Austin my entire life. I am here to oppose home and to ask for it to be postponed. >> I am also a homeowner here. >> I don't have faith based on what people have described that this is not going to make prices shoot up. There's really it doesn't really address the housing affordability crisis. And I've heard a lot of other people say the same with as the previous speaker described, like concrete reasons. And we haven't heard concrete reasons, for how this will actually make it more affordable. So I'm asking you to postpone this, asking you to vote no on this so that we can actually come up with those solutions. Thank you so much, Gary babits. Hi my name is Gary and I was born in 1989. >> District three resident in [12:55:28 PM] >> District three resident in montopolis speaking in support. I'd like to start by expressing gratitude, gratitude for living in the greatest city in the world. I'm grateful to be able to afford my single family home. I'd like to say thanks to the council member who introduced this measure, changing her policy mindset from one of scarcity and restriction to one of growth. Thanks to the council member who called for civility, humanity and open discussion even as she exercised her first amendment rights to religious liberty and free speech. It's amazing that just a decade ago this body would meet and discuss whether a single resident would be allowed to install a garage door on their carport. And it would be an emotional experience for all involved and now we are deciding to make a big sweeping change like this to allow people to build more on their lots. Change is hard. It's difficult, it's emotional. But I think this is the right move for the city [12:56:30 PM] is the right move for the city to allow more people to live here, be able to afford and the great city that we have. Thank S . Terry McGinty. Hello, my name is Terry McGinty. >> I live in newnan, near 34th street. And Duvall and a historic home that we have lovingly restored over the years . For a long time I was on mayor Watson's exercise route as he walked by our house. >> I would like to specifically address the elimination of six unrelated adult limits adults living in a unit I live near. >> Three student group housing developments. Each of which supposedly have a six person limit. >> There are seven super duplex type units on my block, which would be a total of 42 adults living in these houses, although I believe likely it is more we [12:57:30 PM] I believe likely it is more we constantly deal with parties, live bands, djs, trash, illegal parking, drunk driving, trespassing and graffiti. >> We have been treated to ah, what the stek house referred to as the Halloween festival where there were more than 100 attendees about eight weeks ago there was a live band at one of the houses. One day there was a dj who played amplified music until seven in the morning. We've had kids shoot bottle rockets at our house will be complained. We've been told by city staff that there's no recourse except to go to municipal court. That puts the entire onus on the homeowners. >> We do go speak to tenants. >> We call 311 and 911. We contact owners, we contact rental agents. Sometimes we get released. Most often we do not. >> If you do away with the six person limit, our neighborhood will become a de facto frat [12:58:30 PM] will become a de facto frat house party area and most of us will not be able to survive. >> I have lived here for 35 years. My husband for 50 years, and we implore you not to do away with the six person limit. Thank you, Terrell wydermyer. >> Yes, I just wanted to know if everybody can hear me. >> Yes, go ahead, please. >> Oh, yes. I just I'm I was born and raised in Austin. My grandmother and grandfather owned a house on east Austin and , basically, Austin is home for me. A lot of the people that grew up around east Austin are family and, and we developed like a love for each other. One thing that I really appreciate [12:59:32 PM] thing that I really appreciate about Austin, especially east Austin, is that even through everything, you know, we have love and I think a lot of people that are now coming into the city are causing a lot of financial strife for one another. And you know, it's been a lot of on our shoulders. I think. That I'm just grateful for this moment to be able to, to, to speak for our community and to get anyone who is possibly to focus on like the financial side of, of life, to kind of ground themselves a little bit right now and to think about those of us in the community that grew up in Austin and about how this will affect the love that we have for one another. And we're trying to basically keep our community together because this is what our ancestors started. This is what the ones that went before us started. So this is kind of [1:00:32 PM] us started. So this is kind of like us coming together with our voices. They may not have the resources financially, but we're coming together with our hearts and I really appreciate Micah Arnold and just pretty much my entire community for just coming in together and just, you know, sharing their voices and their opinions and their love. And I just hope that, you know, anyone on the opposite side, you know, anyone trying to basically push forward with this agenda, can just kind of have a little bit of compassion for people who are more so in their hearts with life, you know, because this is causing a speaker. >> Your time has expired. That concludes remote speakers. So this session is ended. I'll now go on to in- person Ann. So as the mayor mentioned, there are two podiums I'm going to call five people at a time. Please use either one of the vacant or open podiums. Your name will be [1:01:33 PM] open podiums. Your name will be called once and then we'll move on to the next. The first speaker is Anthony Lusardi, followed by Cyrus, Tasha, Corey, Lee gray, Lisa Wimberly, and Tina Barrett. Please state your name when you begin your comments. Thank you. >> Ready? Go. Go ahead. >> Good afternoon. My name is Anthony and I'm a resident of district three. I'm speaking in today as a support of home. >> And thank you to all of you for supporting this wonderful bill and to council member pool for proposing it. >> I also want to give a special thanks to council member Velasquez and harper-madison council member Velasquez for your incredible speech opposing the I-35 expansion. Ann because we need voices like yours to speak truth to power and council member harper-madison for your ability to be direct and to call out misinformation Ann and is a rare quality that is sorely needed in our political discourse. My wife and I are huge fans of you and we should [1:02:34 PM] huge fans of you and we should all be so brave today. >> Austin is in a housing crisis because of outdated and often racist land use policies policies that are not unique to Austin but are endemic across the country and their sins that we continue to perpetuate and pay for. >> But we are not only facing a housing crisis, instead, our housing crisis is playing a large part in unraveling our social fabric. >> Without realizing it, we've been placed in boxes. >> Our homes are distant and they lack sidewalks, cars speed down wide residential streets and kids can't play safely outside. >> Houses are getting bigger and bigger and they're holding less of us. >> The average new home in Austin is over 3000ft S and holds two people. >> People we've pushed out of Austin now drive their dogs to parking lots to walk them, and parents drive their kids 30 minutes to an hour each way to attend school, visit a park or see friends. >> And this is not normal behavior. We have altered our cities to be inhumane, cold and distant. >> But we our actions cause our world to heat up while our personal lives grow colder. >> We are collectively lonely, polarized. As you can see, and poorly housed. But it's not all doom and gloom from Minneapolis [1:03:36 PM] doom and gloom from Minneapolis and Saint Paul to Charlotte and Raleigh, Arlington, Houston, Oregon and Montana, good people there and elsewhere are doing the work to heal this bitter legacy. And so should we. Home is one of many, many necessary steps towards repairing our city. It's not the only one, and there is still much to do. In no time to waste. We will succeed in this, and we must succeed in this. Thank you very much for hearing me. Thank you for your testimony. >> And before we go to the next speaker, I just wanted to mention to the audience that there are TVs behind us, too. So if you see people step off to grab a soda, we can still hear the testimony. I just didn't want you to think because people are moving around that we can't hear you go ahead. >> Hi, I'm Lisa gray. >> I am for the home initiative. First, I want to thank council for looking at this. I know you've all done your research and this is not a flippant vote for any of you. >> A lot of the opposition talk about not being affordable enough, and I actually agree with them. >> But that ship has sailed. >> We needed these changes. Ten years ago to keep up with the people moving here. What we need to do now is to keep up the low end of the price range, to keep [1:04:38 PM] end of the price range, to keep it down and try and lower it. If we do nothing, it will keep going up. >> So let's look at some data. Yes, one did a search of the brentwood crestview neighborhood because that's where I lived for many, many years. >> And I'm very familiar with that area. I tried this in many different neighborhoods to and it's the same thing. For example, here I looked at the last three years for single family homes under $450,000. The good the next one, this is the area and anybody that wants to reproduce this can do this. I didn't do any tricks and these are the results of the 25 results. Excluding the floodplain, which most people do not want to live in. It's difficult to do any repairs in the floodplain. And it's a floodplain. So anyways, excluding the floodplain, the top are in are the shared lots. You can see I have to mark it out because it's data, but the you can see the b1 b1, all those are shared homes, those shared lots. Two homes on a lot. So we [1:05:40 PM] lots. Two homes on a lot. So we are doing this right now and it is working zero of those first 15 are homes on one lot. So this is providing the lower end of the market for a neighborhood. And so then I thought, okay, well let's look at something more recent, because crestview has gotten more expensive. There's nothing for that price anymore. Can you go the next one? I'm sorry. Can you go back? I think we skipped around here. Sorry. Go forward. Guess you skipped the data part, but that's okay. This is current active family homes right now. That was my time up. >> Ready? >> Okay. >> I'm calling up the next five speakers. If your name is called, please make your way to the podium. Either one. And state your name when your name [1:06:40 PM] state your name when your name is called. Cindy reed, who has donated time by Bobby Levinsky. And see Mr. Levinsky here. So Cindy gets. Four minutes on deck. Is Kirk. Mark, Leah, mayor apathy soccer. Dave Whitworth and Aileen Virani trying to catch her. >> Did you need the last wanted to ask miss miss gray? Could have you shared that information with our offices. Would you mind doing so? Oh, well, you could share it with the clerk who could share it with us all. Or you could send it to us electronically. I'd appreciate that. Thank you. >> Thank you. And if your name has been called, please come on up so that as soon as one speaker is finished, your next in line can go. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Growing up, the east side was a bustling community that no one else desired. But people like me. >> I'm sorry. Can you please state your name? >> Cindy reed. I remember crossing the freeway while attending UT and miss Albert, who owned a makeshift beauty [1:07:42 PM] who owned a makeshift beauty shop across from downs field, would reminisce about her former friend and client, the great Barbara Jordan. >> Now that little shop is gone and what stands are luxury homes . The history erased my memory of our chats makes me think of this quote from Barbara Jordan. If we promise as public officials, we must deliver. If we as public officials propose, we must produce. You are proposed using a plan without producing any studies or evidence of its impact. But as public officials, you should never implement plans that impact people's lives based on hoping the plan will work out. It should be based on sound data studies and countless research. The problem with this plan is that there have been no studies on infrastructure equity, gentrification and unintended consequences and adding amendments. The day of the vote is not being transparent. You don't do studies after implementation. You do them before. That's what forecasting is for. This plan is not about housing, though. It's about land and by rezoning almost the entire city, from single family to multi-family, you are effectively colonizing the land [1:08:42 PM] effectively colonizing the land through rezoning, taking it out of the hands of single family homeowners and renters, and giving it by legislature force to developers. That is wrong. Speculators are already circulating, and as a realtor and someone adept at competitive market analysis and comparative sales, I know what will happen as folks start to sell. The land value will go up and that's the only thing you can't protest on your taxes. Landlords will have to raise rents and homeowners that can't afford the increase will have to sell the Austin median income is 86,500, making 80,000 the max. You can afford at 252,000. A teacher makes 55. Firefighter 54. Police officers 65. Our waste pickup profession equals 39. So this is for the middle income. The people that make our city tick. The new housing built will not be for these folks. Right now, a 500,000 home in d4 with 20% down would have a mortgage payment of $4,000. You would need of an income of 142 000 to afford it financial website motley fool [1:09:42 PM] financial website motley fool states that the upper class top 20% of earners make 149,000. This is an upper class plan, not a middle income plan. We have an undersupply of truly affordable housing and to get that done, it will take targeted policies and money from the government to make an impact, a deregulation and trickle down home economics does not work. Do more affordable projects with city land trusts and housing partnerships. And my friend Emma, a teacher at and single mom, participated in one of these programs and now she can live closer to her school except band these programs maximize what's already capable. Today, almost every single family lot is allowed in an Adu. Homeowners aren't taking advantage because the process is mired in red tape and prohibitively expensive. Bring down permit costs, simplify the process. Pre-approved 10 to 20 Adu plans that can be fast tracked through permitting and inspections. It's ironic that you're managing the occupancy of this room, yet you want to remove occupancy safety for residents. We what we'll see are hipster co-ops where you eke [1:10:42 PM] are hipster co-ops where you eke out more profit per bed aka pods , and that will be more money than airbnb could ever dream of. 500 per bed, 200 bunk beds. That's 6000 a month in a three bedroom house. Who's asking for that? The people that will be most impacted are the laborers and the people who are working. And I'm here for my people. The low income, the laborers, the black, the brown, the elderly, those on fixed income don't ruin and displace your constituents when impact hasn't been studied. I cannot justify pushing out the poor so that high income earners can feel empowered to take people's land. This is wrong. Vote no and postpone. Do more studies as. Please proceed. >> State your name at the podium . >> Thank you. Let's go to our next speaker. And as as asked earlier snaps also get your point across and get us moving so that everyone has a chance to [1:11:42 PM] so that everyone has a chance to speak today. >> Okay. >> Hi. My name is liza Wimberley. I live in district seven and I'm here in support of the home proposal. I've been living in my house for nearly 30 years, and in that time I've seen many initiatives that are meant to move our city forward toward progress like bike lanes. Adus codenext, and even sidewalks and these are always met with the same negativity and almost always from the same people who have been trying for years to stop progress at every step of the way, often resorting to scare tactics, fear mongering , misinformation, conspiracy theories, even lawsuits such as the mind boggling lawsuit against affordability, unlocked. I've come to the conclusion that it doesn't matter how much time we spend discussing, listening, trying to convince, showing data and science and vast number of academic studies that support any given step toward progress, we will never convince people who don't want to be convinced, who use fear and unscrupulous scare tactics as a method to get their way and are only interested in their their own [1:12:44 PM] interested in their their own myopic, self-serving view. I'm here to encourage you to look past this and to see how much support there is for the home ordinance. It is vast. It our city, our constituents. Your constituents need this objective speaking relatively modest proposal change proposed change. If you don't take advantage of the momentum and this overwhelming support now, we may have to wait a generation to make it happen. And your constituents will suffer for it. Please don't let the usual detractors sway your resolve. Do the right thing for the city, for the climate, for the young generation, and pass the homes proposal. Thank you. >> Hello, my name is Tina Barrett. >> I'm a 20 year resident of rosedale in district seven, and I'm happy to admit I'm also a developer. >> I've build urban homes on small lots in the city core. I really want to keep doing this to make a living and support my family. So I am in favor of the [1:13:45 PM] family. So I am in favor of the home initiative. City council and staff have said we need a lot more housing to support our growing city and stave off rising housing prices, not only that, but we need to have more diverse housing types to make housing more affordable. The state of Texas isn't going to do this as ordinary citizens aren't going to do this, and the city can't do this alone. >> We, the developers, are the ones who you are depending on to make this happen. >> Yet my central Austin neighbors want to make it harder to build small houses on small lots. They believe the only that only single family homes belong in central Austin. And sure, single family homes are the easiest, best and cheapest thing to build. I can easily build more homes now that sell for well into the millions, like the ones going up in my neighborhood in rosedale. This is not what I want to build. Give me the tools to build triplexes fourplexes cottage courts and townhomes. The more barriers that are in place, the more developers like me will throw up our hands and give you multi-million dollar mansions and keep our neighborhoods only for the rich. But affordability isn't the only issue. I think many of my rosedale and allendale neighbors [1:14:46 PM] rosedale and allendale neighbors would agree that climate change is a major issue facing all of us. According to analysis by the New York Times, average neighborhood density in the Austin metro area fell by 5% in recent years. The second highest decline in the nation. San Antonio is first because of all that sprawl. Austin leads the state's major metro areas in the average number of miles driven daily, according to txdot. And the zoning laws we have now only push homebuyers further and further to the suburbs, where the miles driven daily will only go up. Our city is an affordable. Our planet is on fire. We cannot keep the status quo. Thank you. Mark Kirk. >> Good morning. I live with my wife and ten year old son in a 1952 home, complete with a crumbling foundation in district seven. We desperately want to remain in Austin, Ann we all want affordable housing, but there are no provisions in this ordinance to ensure this. When 9 to 12 units can be sited on a [1:15:49 PM] to 12 units can be sited on a lot at land values and property taxes will skyrocket, displacing Austin residents, especially families and community of color. Those 9 to 12 units will mostly be Reynolds, owned by investors, not individuals or families. This is not the path to increased home ownership or affordable housing. There's nothing in this ordinance to prevent this. And we know from the last 25 years of Austin real estate development that this is what will happen when deregulation is always exploited by a free market, when the effects become apparent. Three groups are going to be extremely angry. First, communities of color in east Austin who are being displaced by the extraordinarily development, extraordinary development pressure, aspiring homeowners who find that they are still paying exorbitant rents for those investor owned units and middle class homeowners and families like my own who are [1:16:50 PM] families like my own who are being forced out of Austin by crushing property taxes from being comped against an existing home that was sold, demolished and turned into 12 units. Mayor Watson and council members I beg you to think about the people who live, work and raise families here. If you approve this ordinance as it stands without addressing the investor exploitation that will occur, you'll be known as the mayor and the city council that created an unprecedented investor handout at the expense of austinite, particularly people of color and middle class families. Please take a step back, postpone Ann and work towards a better solution. Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you. Let's hear from our next speaker. >> Thank you. Next speaker. >> Good afternoon. Council thank you for letting me speak here today. >> My name is Alan Virani. >> I am a proud renter in district nine and I'm an [1:17:51 PM] district nine and I'm an enthusiastic supporter of home. I want to thank council for their leadership, especially the co-sponsors of home, including council member Leslie pool and mayor Watson on this on taking the initiative to tackle the affordability crisis. My parents immigrated as refugees after they were kicked out of Africa because of the color of their skin and their first home was a duplex. They rented. And in that duplex they made a home for themselves and my family. That duplex was our home. A duplex is a home. A triplex is a home, an apartment is a home in a single family is a home. A home is a home is a home. And am wondering if my family instead came in 2023 to Austin as refugees, if they could find a home for themselves here. And if not, why are we not building homes for people like my family? And where will we be? Build them. Will you allow them to be built in your neighborhood? So I'm asking council today to support this initiative for people like my [1:18:51 PM] initiative for people like my family and the people who come to this city for various reasons, either as refugees or as aspiring artists or as entrepreneurs or people who want to work in our city. And make it great. Let's build homes for them. Whether those homes be duplex is or triplexes or apartments or single family homes. Thank you. >> I will be calling the next five speakers. Please listen for your name. You're only being called once. Rey Riley Patterson Nora leonidas Mueller. Kim cook. Duane reade. Owais. Azhar. Please state your name at the podium and approach any of the available podiums. >> If your name was just called, please feel free to come on down so you're close to a microphone. Go ahead. >> Hi, I'm Riley Patterson. >> I'm a resident of tarrytown in district ten. Thank you, mayor and council for considering this measure in [1:19:51 PM] considering this measure in front of us today, as we are all too aware, home ownership is slipping out of the reach for an increasing proportion of austinites. I'm here today to encourage you to support home and the phase one as a critical first step in tackling this affordability crisis. I love my neighborhood. The block I'm on has a number of ads and smaller homes, including mine, on a 2700 square foot lot that have provided opportunities for newer residents that otherwise might not have been able to afford to join this neighborhood. It's the most walkable part of tarrytown. It's near DPD, a number of restaurants, a number of shops and a number of other units in the area are unable to be built because they weren't built before the 1984 code or because we you're already built an Adu and there are only two units there already. Two units on the lot. This phase one would allow for more density in this area that obviously could benefit [1:20:52 PM] that obviously could benefit from that density where it's a it would allow access to for people that otherwise might not see homeownership as a possibility for them in 2023. Austin it's I'm I'm also looking forward to this enabling phase two and allowing for more lots to split like ours have before the 1984 code because think that the current lot size just doesn't make sense for what the current land values are in Austin. I appreciate your consideration today and yield the rest of my time. Thank you. Drew. Hi my name is Nora Leonardis Miller. >> I'm the executive director of housing works Austin. >> We are a 500 and 1c3 organization that focuses on research, educational initiatives and advocacy around housing, affordable Katy in the in this town and in the region. >> Housing works, Austin [1:21:54 PM] >> Housing works, Austin supports adoption of the proposed amendments to the land development code to implement phase one of the home options for middle income empowerment. The home initiative and the removal of dwelling unit occupancy limits. These amendments would allow for the development of a greater diversity of housing types and living arrangements than currently allowed in single family zone districts, which would increase access to attainable housing opportunities for households at a range of income, especially for first time home buyers and seniors. For our essential workers, teachers, firefighters, police officers wishing to remain in their communities and increase housing opportunities and high opportunity areas. We further recommend that the council consider providing direction to city staff to increase access to programs that ensure low and moderate income homeowners are able to avail themselves of increased development potential of single family lots and are protected from predatory real estate activities. Housing works [1:22:54 PM] estate activities. Housing works tagline is all kinds of homes in all parts of town for all kinds of people. The home initiative speaks clearly to this tagline and we urge passage of this important effort. We thank the council and council member pool for moving forward on your leadership on this initiative. Thank you. >> Go ahead. Please state your name. >> Hello. My name is Kim Tyson cook. I'm here in opposition of home. I've lived in Austin for more than 40 years, including 31 in my house in northwest hills. For 20 years. I was a business reporter covering Austin real estate. Like many homeowners, when I received this lavender postcard in the mail with my junk mail, I didn't think it was much of consequence. I would look at it later and that was all the notice that I and 175,000 homeowners in Austin have received about what is a very consequential change. I would venture to say 80% of Austin residents probably have [1:23:56 PM] Austin residents probably have no idea what's in home and all the details and how it's gonna affect their neighborhood. There was no citywide vote on something that would affect every single lot in this city. There was no outreach to neighborhood associations to get their feedback. My neighborhood group only had its meeting the day after the planning commission hearing on this. I came down to that November 14th planning commission meeting fully intending to speak, but instead decided I'd listen to the five hours of testimony. What I heard was city council staff saying no studies have been completed to understand the impact of this on the environment, on utilities, on fire, on schools, as the city would have no power for, to enforce deed restrictions and homeowners would be left to fend for themselves, suing their neighbors. As I heard, east side residents worried about potential for future flooding, that they had no deed restrictions. There was nothing in home to ensure the actual affordable housing would be built, dug more and found there was no studies of whether this [1:24:57 PM] was no studies of whether this kind of urbanization actually produce this affordable housing. I have realtor friends who tell me they've done the numbers and it still does not result in affordable housing and urban institute report in March looked at 1136 cities that tried something like this. We find no statistically significant evidence that additional lower cost units become available. >> Thank you. Thank you. Your time is expired. >> Let's go on to the next speaker. Thank you. Please state your name. >> My name is Duane reed from district four, Mr. Chito Valdez district. >> There isn't. >> There isn't a coverage that is fair for on this issue. >> I don't see Casey clairborne or keita Johnson talking about the other side when there are so many things that this this plan has going against it. It's [1:25:57 PM] has going against it. It's exclusion. It doesn't have community input. It it is a you there is arbitrary. There's arbitrary. Sorry. Three there's going to be a strain on infrastructure. I'd like you to do what you said first, which is limit airbnb, encourage affordable and punish with and punish those that do not do not have affordability in their plan . This will allow the wealthy to get wealthier because all you're trying to do is take their land, make it more expensive. Therefore are pushing out the people who already live there, increasing the rents of renters. Is this is this is more purging of the remaining soul of Austin with these where short term rentals will be will be the norm and probably overtake overtake what's already there. When we look at the amount of airbnbs [1:26:57 PM] look at the amount of airbnbs that are out there, they outstrip the amount of available , the available housing. Many of these plans have been talked about and people will talk about it more here. What I want to say is that given all the things that are wrong with this, how can you go forward with this? We're talking about community engagement. This is a public forum, not Tasha has said that she's already made her mind up. Why why are we here? What are we doing? I don't understand it. How can you how can you make your mind up when there's tons of people here talking about what's against what's what's wrong with it? And you said you're done. You said you're done. Thank you. Your time has expired. >> Mayor pro tem. Thank you. Thank, thank you. >> Thank you. Council member alter thank you, mayor. >> I just wanted to let my colleagues know and those in the chamber know that I have posted [1:27:59 PM] chamber know that I have posted three additional motion sheets. I'll pass them out here and they're in the back up online, their motion sheet, two, three and four. They relate to what I raised this morning in terms of the far exemption burns the front yard setback and the data collection. Thank you. >> Next speaker good afternoon, mayor. >> Mayor pro tem, council members thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak with you today. My name is Alyssa and I'm an affordable housing advocate. I'm speaking today in support of the home initiative. First, I want to thank council member Leslie pool for bringing this initiative forward with affordable housing advocates, labor groups, preservation advocates and folks working to expand and support for seniors and making sure that those folks are included in these conversations as this moves forward. I also want to thank all of council for their leadership on affordability and increasing housing opportunities for all in Austin. I want to thank councilmember vela qadri and Fuentes for bringing forth amendments that address concerns raised by staff in response to [1:29:00 PM] raised by staff in response to the planning commission's amendments on far setbacks. Preservation bonus and the sustainability bonus. These amendments meaningfully address all concerns raised by staff and ensure that the focus of home remains on affordability, preservation and sustainability. I ask at this time that all of council support these amendments from these council members. I also ask that you support amendments from the mayor and council member pool to ensure that we're implementing this order ordinance in an effective way and tracking outcomes in in addition, I support the amendments from council member Ryan alter that further our environmental goals as a community. We home will expand housing opportunities, particularly ownership opportunities for those who do not have access to such opportunities. Today this initiative can allow seniors to age in place and access housing that better fits their needs over the life cycle of their households. The preservation bonus, as championed by preservation Austin and other preservation advocates, can help protect historic character and minimize the teardown of homes, thereby advancing environmental [1:30:00 PM] thereby advancing environmental goals as well. There is no doubt that home alone cannot address all of our affordability challenges, and we have a lot of work ahead. However, the home owner initiative can play a key role in advancing our communities. Affordability and housing goals. And that is why I'm asking you to support it. On a personal note, I just want to say councilmember harper-madison , welcome back. It is great to have your voice on this dais. Thank you all. The next five speakers are jazz min. >> Kelly, Jasmine, Kelly Marshall, Geyer, Vivian Patterson, Carlos Binion, Betsy Greenberg has time donated by Helen Pavlovich is miss slavic here. Thank you, miss Greenberg gets four minutes. Please state your name. Make your way to a podium if available. Please don't sit down. Please make your way to the podium. >> Just called. Go ahead and come up to the microphone. >> It doesn't matter. Just go [1:31:01 PM] >> It doesn't matter. Just go ahead and make you have slides. >> Thank you. >> My name is Betsy Greenberg and I live in district nine. >> I'm opposed to the home initiative and I hear the words about intent to make housing more affordable for those with middle incomes. >> But it seems like lip service to me. >> If you really want to help with affordability instead of giving away entitlements, you should consider increased entitlement to be a density bonus. >> If and when the density bonus is used, there should be a required contribution into a housing affordability trust fund that is used to build, preserve and rehabilitate housing for people with the lowest incomes. If you consider the affordability me, I would believe that was really a goal here. >> Right now, I don't. >> I will spend the rest of my time. >> How do you get this to go forward? >> Okay. >> Oops, it's gone too far. Sorry [1:32:03 PM] Sorry >> I will spend the rest of my time talking about the removal of occupancy limits. The proposed code change reads as if the occupancy limit will change from six unrelated adults to 16. If you live near a house with six unrelated adults as I do, you'd know that this is going to cause big problems. If you read the words carefully, you will see that the code change will also allow an unlit permitted number of residents in a single family house. Unless food is provided by a third party. The requirement for third party food is inappropriate and should be removed from the draft language. Today the resolution for removing occupancy limits for unrelated adults referenced language about occupy ac limits in other parts of the code. The property maintenance code provides some limit on occupancy based on the size of bedrooms. And Texas property code limits occupancy to three times the number of bedrooms in a house. With apologies to real architects, this drawing [1:33:04 PM] architects, this drawing illustrates a 2300 square foot house with 11 bedrooms that 33 adults could occupy and comply with. Both of these codes. The house is allowed today, and if occupancy limits are removed, there will be an economic incentive to build it. Relying on an international standard like the property maintenance code, which also allows bedrooms with out windows, does not provide the housing. I believe we want in Austin currently, Austin code inspects rooming houses and boarding homes to ensure that properties are clean and safe. Austin fire department provides fire and life safety inspections for all multifamily properties. Currently, homes with seven or more unrelated adults are inspected by code and the fire department. If the new group residential definition is adopted, only homes with more than 16 rooms, all adults. If third party provides food, will [1:34:05 PM] third party provides food, will receive inspections. This means occupants will receive no protection from the city, as part of the code change family and group home definitions are being removed and these are homes that provide care for ill elderly and disabled as well as foster children and juveniles. Unless there are at least 70 teen adults, foster children and juveniles never qualify and food is provided by a third party, there will be no limit on the number of residents and no fire or safety inspections as these facilities are often run by for profit companies. Regulation is crucial for this code change will subject our most vulnerable populations to abuse neglect and even exploitation is not what we want. >> Thank you. >> Your time has expired. Next speaker, please state your name. >> Hi, my name is Marshall guyer [1:35:07 PM] >> Hi, my name is Marshall guyer . I've lived here for 17 years and my wife and I are fortunate enough to have recently become homeowners in district nine. Most of my peers, however, have not been so lucky. I'm here to voice my support for the home act. So in Austin, we have to make proactive decisions to move beyond the status quo that so many with privilege fight here to preserve and think about the future of our city. This means priority setting the environment, preventing more sprawl, promoting residential diversity, and helping our young and working class neighbors find a way to establish a home here for their families. The home act will be a fantastic start to providing more housing in our city through urban infill, which we are in increasing need for as our city approaches its maximum capacity for the amount of daily cars driving around, we have to focus on reducing sprawl and making smart choices for the environment today and not tomorrow. The home act will provide helpful progress on both of these items as we head towards project connect's establishment and make other [1:36:08 PM] establishment and make other strides towards having better transit in the city. When I look around the room today of people coming to testify for the most part, I don't see the future of Austin represented here. Our local political system, more often than not, favors folks. >> Hey, hang on. Hang on. >> Thanks, everybody. Okay stop his hold his time for a second. >> Really. We need to have a respectful hearing. And even if you disagree, please, please do not cry out like that. It that's inappropriate. That's not the way Austin wants to do its business. Even if you don't agree with where things end up, we ought to be able to have a public hearing where someone can say what they think and you respect the fact that we're going to listen to what they think, as opposed even if you disagree with them. So act like you would want your kids to act. And I suppose that's it for some [1:37:10 PM] And I suppose that's it for some of you, right? >> Our local political system, more often than not, favors Austin homeowners that fight against more housing being built because it relies on young people not knowing about city council meetings and their voices not being heard. >> Ultimately, if we continue to uphold the artificial home scarcity via legislation, we will price out even more. Austinites in favor of enriching the homeowners that are already sitting on massive investments. Thank you so much. Thank you. >> Please state your name as you go ahead. >> Hi there. My name is Vivian Patterson. >> I'm a resident of Austin in district ten with councilwoman alter. >> And I'm here to today to ask the council to support the home initiative. My husband and I live in the deep Eddie part of tarrytown and our house is a 1600 square foot house on a pretty small lot. That's been grandfathered in. You basically couldn't build a house like that today. And we love it. It's less long to maintain, it's less [1:38:12 PM] long to maintain, it's less house to maintain. It's but it's big enough to accommodate our growing family. So we love the location. We take the bus downtown when we walk to the lake trail, the neighborhood really can't wait to have a baby and take her to as well. It's in a good school district and, we're not car dependent. And our neighbors aren't either. We could only afford buying in this neighborhood because the house and the lot are small. And we got really lucky. The home initiative would give more people and future generations, you know, our children and our grandchildren opportunities to live where they want to live. And that can only happen if we start allowing the option of higher density housing today. So thank you for all the work the council has done so far. On considering the initiative and doing studies and putting in lots of work and please support the home initiative. Thank you. Thank you. [1:39:16 PM] Thank you. >> Please begin. >> Good afternoon, mayor Watson and council members. My name is Carlos pinion. I'm a renter in district five and work at pool, which serves district three. I've lived in Austin from 2015 to 2019 as a student in environmental science at UT and returned just this past April. But seeing what you planned with the home initiative as is, I don't know how long it will be possible for me to stay home. Literally has no affordability requirements. So I question how this will create opportunities for low and middle income. Austinites market rate housing only produces housing for buyers and investors, accelerating gentrification and displacement of low income homeowners and renters of color by driving up property taxes, rent and incentives for developers to take over neighborhoods and demolish affordable housing. In organizing what podera community powered and the working class communities of color, that home will inevitably force away from Austin. I've become familiar with the city's long standing history of systemic displacement of communities of color, specifically in the eastern crescent from the 1928 master plan and redlining to urban removal and the failed codenext home is perfectly poised to be another peg in this shameful lineage. Note that this isn't a fight against density. It's a fight against density without [1:40:16 PM] fight against density without regulation. If you paid attention, you've already seen it happen. As profit margins are highest in the eastern crescent, developers will demolish homes to build luxury apartments in eyesore. Townhomes like they've done in the past. We've been told by several city staff that there's been meaningful engagement with the community. But since the last hearing, it's been clear that the city's outreach did not reach most of those who will be impacted if you're really interested in having the community participate in this decision, why is a decision that will completely upheave the city being made during the work day two weeks before everyone leaves for holiday break? Please vote no on home or at the very least postpone the vote so that we have time to craft real resident led solutions, ones that ensure citywide neighborhood stability actually require affordability and protect neighborhoods vulnerable to displacement. As council members, you must think about your legacy and how later generations from the families that home will displace consider you years down the line. Stop speaking the language of profit and listen to your community, your constituency, the vulnerable, working class communities and communities of color who voted you in? Stop home now! Thank you. Good afternoon, mayor and council. >> My name is David Whitworth. I [1:41:19 PM] >> My name is David Whitworth. I have been a small infill builder with my wife in central north Austin for 20 years. We had projects where we built three homes in place of single homes. Those neighborhood appropriate family homes serve as on the ground. Examples should you want to reference them. We built them under a separate section of code called small lot amnesty. But on the ground they are similar to the home initiative in dwelling count and size. They were three homes at 63, far just regular looking neighborhood appropriate family homes where they deeply affordable. No, they were new market rate, but they did sell below the average home price in the area and they sold well below the other new housing products in the area. Alas, there were neighborhood concerns and council shut down that section of code in response. It was prudent and it respected the wishes of the neighborhood council member pool. As a matter of fact, voted to stop small at homes in an abundance of caution. But what's really interesting is the north loop neighborhood now support multiple smaller homes again, [1:42:20 PM] multiple smaller homes again, what they learned was that they got single million dollar homes instead and as owners they had less flexibility with their own properties. You recently passed the villa rezone motion unanimously and on consent to bring that section of code back. Nobody signed up or pulled them. Pulled the item. Builders are just the delivery mechanism. They'll build what is allowed an affordable housing option was removed and builders kept on rolling with expensive single homes. This is public policy. What do we want to see? This is not for the builders. It's for the buyers, working professionals and families beside the mega-rich. Besides the mega rich are not building corner triplexes is that capital needs to find huge deals. This is not a giveaway. This is not a zero sum game. Many of the families we sold homes to over the last 20 years made more money when they sold their homes than when we sold the home to them, which is great. This policy provides housing options and value through home equity to the residents of Austin at a middle price that doesn't exist today. Thank you very much. The [1:43:22 PM] today. Thank you very much. The next five speakers are Adrienne Macias, lennar Weiss, Benjamin Woosley, Roger coffin and Jake Wegman. >> With time donated from Zach Faddis. Is Zach here? Thank you. And from Miriam Schoenfeld, thank you. So miss Carter, please make your way forward and state your name for the record. Mr. Wegman gets six minutes. >> Good morning, mayor and city council members. My name is Adrian Macias. I'm the young scholar for justice coordinator for porta. The recent proposal home is unaffordable for the lower middle and working class people with this proposal resolution developers and investors will build for the wealthiest buyers. >> This will pressure the people that live paycheck to paycheck to sell their homes to investors due to the rising property taxes. >> As youth coordinator, I teach kids that come from working in lower middle class families. If home is to go through. I'm [1:44:24 PM] home is to go through. I'm frightened that one day I will hear from one of my students of their parent or their parents that they will lose their home. I'm also afraid for my students future with all the home, with all of them growing up in Austin , I'm worried that they will have a hard time finding a place or let alone stay in the city due to the high, high prices on housing homeowners and renters in the eastern crescent need low income housing and not high priced townhome homes. So please, mayor and city council members, with the holidays coming up, I'm asking you to postpone the vote on home and hopefully with the postponement on home will ask all of you to reconsider your decisions and vote no on home. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, mayor and city council members. >> I'm Roger Colvin. >> I live in the downtown neighborhood, but I'm here representing friends of Austin neighborhoods, a coalition of neighborhood associations and residents reclaiming the word [1:45:26 PM] residents reclaiming the word neighborhood to include the full diversity of voices moving beyond neighborhood protections. I'm currently it is illegal to build a diversity and abundance of homes in much of Austin, thereby excluding Singh families from our neighborhoods and city. We believe including more neighbors and a greater diversity of neighbors enriches our lives. But beyond enriching our lives, abundance and diverse housing and neighbors make for a more sustainable city. Urban sprawl and the cost of public services found that the per capita cost of most services declines with density. The influence of urban form on greenhouse gas emissions in the us household sector found that increase density is associated with reduced CO2 emissions and reduced residential energy consumption. High density development and water protection from the EPA found that higher [1:46:26 PM] from the EPA found that higher density growth generates less stormwater runoff per house at all scales. Higher density development produces less runoff and less impervious cover than low density development. And for a given amount of growth, lower density development impacts more of the watershed density, zoning and class segregation in us metropolitan areas found that restrictive density regulations prevent the construction of high density multifamily housing and thereby limit the supply of affordable housing by increasing the average price of units in affluent neighborhoods to the exclusion of lower income people . Friends of Austin neighborhoods enthusiasts supports the home initiative as a modest step towards legalizing the full diversity of housing types. >> Thank you. >> Hello. Hello >> My name is Benjamin Woosley. >> I'm a renter in district nine [1:47:26 PM] >> I'm a renter in district nine and urge support of the home act . >> Run the local chapter of the American consul nation coalition, which is a pro people , pro planet environmental advocacy organization. >> Ann. You can find us at eco. >> When a city grows in population, it has only two options for accommodating new residents to increase its housing density with infill development or to sprawl outwards by enabling infill development. The home act will greatly reduce the environmental impact of new residents by reducing the distance they need to travel for their daily commute and placing them into areas with more amenities that they can walk to less driving and traffic compared to the alternative and which also may enable them to commute by scooter bike or bus, further reducing their impact on the environment and on traffic finally increased density means that more transit projects will become viable because the ridership exists to justify expansion. But there's another aspect that is important to me the future of young people in Austin. If young graduates and professionals cannot afford to buy a home in the places that they prefer to live because they do not have the privilege of having bought them long ago, some will leave depriving us of their energy and vitality. [1:48:27 PM] their energy and vitality. Others will instead rent forever and never enjoy the benefits of home ownership, which include financial and housing stability and an increased likelihood of family formation. This act produces a pathway for more young families to exist in and participate in this city that we love. Thank you. Thank you. >> The next five speakers are Rita Thompson. Chris Gannon, Edgar Handel, George Cofer. >> If your name has been called, please come up. And if there's an empty podium, go ahead and step up to the podium. That way we'll know that you're here. So please go ahead. State your name for the record. >> Good afternoon. >> I'm Jake Wagman, and I'm speaking for six minutes. I'm a resident in council member pools district and a faculty member in community and regional planning at UT. >> Right off the bat, I want to note that I'm one of the authors of uprooted, a 2018 study commissioned by the city about gentrification and residential [1:49:27 PM] gentrification and residential displacement. It's important to point out here that uprooted doesn't really say one way or another whether the home initiative or something like it would either speed up or slow down displacement of incumbent residents and gentrifying neighborhoods. >> I'm personally very much in support of the home proposal, but just want to be clear today that I'm speaking only for myself, not on behalf of UT and not on behalf of the two other authors of the uprooted report. Okay, so what do we know from research about what happens after you make it easier to build on single family zoned parcels? Not much, actually, and for a pretty simple reason. Ann, which is that for almost a century since single family zoning became widespread in the 1920s, we've had practically no examples in the us of loosening it up. It's pretty hard to study something that for most of our lifetimes just hasn't happened. We might not know much, but luckily we know a little bit more than nothing at all. Now, this is because a small handful of other cities have just begun to pass reforms along the lines [1:50:29 PM] to pass reforms along the lines of home haam, although all of them in just the last few years with one big exception, which I'll get to in a bit of the recent reforms, may be the most instructive for Austin is Portland's residential infill program portals land is a decent comparison for Austin because its median house price is almost identical to ours at the current moment, according to a city commission report that looked at the effects of the first year of that reform, which took effect in summer of 2021. The reform was working largely as intended and like home. Portland now lets you build more. If you build multiple smaller units on a parcel rather than one enormous house. The progress report found. Indeed that mansionization has been greatly curtailed by the reform. Now now 2 to 6 unit projects are being built in residential neighborhoods sprinkled throughout Portland rather than concentrated in one particular area. Many of them are delivering much more reasonably priced homeownership opportunity than was previously available in [1:51:30 PM] than was previously available in those same neighborhoods. The report includes an example of a 12 unit project built on multiple adjacent lots that took advantage of the reform arm. It's in a neighborhood that is roughly as far from Portland's downtown as Hyde park is from where we're standing here. The average unit in the project is two bedrooms, 1000ft S and sells for $420,000. The other example that I think is most relevant for us is Houston. Now, this one's interesting not only because it's so close to us, but because it was passed in the late 90s. So it's been long enough so that we can see its effects. And here I have to point out that while it's true that Houston is famously the only big city in the us that does not have zoning, it's certainly not a wild west place where you can do anything you want. Houston does in fact have land use regulation. It just does it with a bunch of separate laws rather than with zoning. In 1998, Houston's mayor and council chose to change one of those laws, and they reduced the minimum lot size for a house from 5000ft S down to 1400 under some circumstances as so this [1:52:31 PM] some circumstances as so this was somewhat parallel to what might happen next year here under home phase two. This point I want to bring up a peer reviewed study that I authored along with two of our talented phd students, Abby Roman barchi and Josh Conrad, on what happened on parcel where single family houses on large lots in Houston were replaced by small lot townhouses. We identified just over 5000 such townhouses that were built between 2007 and 2020. They were mostly built in close in neighborhoods that in 2000 already had median household incomes well above the citywide average or to put it another way, we did not find that Houston's minimum lot size reforms fueled gentrification. Instead, the new build townhouses ended up in predominantly affluent neighborhoods in the urban core. We also compared the townhouses built on single family lots between 2007 and 2020 to all single family houses on large lots built in Houston during that same time period. As of 2020, the median new townhouse [1:53:32 PM] 2020, the median new townhouse built on a lot, subdivided from what used to be a large single family parcel, was assessed for $235,000 less than the median new build. Large lot single family house built in the same time period. And this is not a case of the townhouses being cheap because they're small. The median one is over 2100ft S. And so on the whole, these new townhouses are providing much more affordable home ownership opportunities. If you want to see our study, just type tall, skinny houses. Houston into your search engine and I'll come right up on the nyu Furman center website. And if you want to see the Portland study done by cascadia partners type Portland residential infill cascadia and you'll get to a city of Portland website where you can download that study. And let me close with an observation. I've paid really close attention to proposals similar to home that have begun to surge in the us in these last few years. But one thing that I see really rarely as an elected [1:54:33 PM] see really rarely as an elected official who has the intellectual honesty to truly change her mind. That's why I think council member pool sponsorship of home is so notable. Unless I'm missing something. She and the mayor of Berkeley, California, are two of the only elected officials who've made a complete switch toward fully embracing small lot multi-unit development. But the turnabout in Berkeley, which was long famous in California for resisting housing, has been dramatic. I think the same thing can be true here in Austin. Thank you. >> Please go ahead. >> Good afternoon. I'm Rita Thompson. I've been a resident in Austin for over 40 years. >> My husband had worked at for 40 plus years. >> I've been a social worker in Austin for 40 plus years that afforded us the opportunity and privilege to work with various communities throughout the city. And one thing I know is that we [1:55:33 PM] And one thing I know is that we must have humility, not all neighborhoods are the same. And that is my concern with this. It is far too sweeping. At one point I had the privilege and opportunity to serve on the planning commission and at that time, who appointed me was a council member, Jackie Goodman. And there was such a respect for neighborhood planning and there were bridges to be needed that needed to be made with east Austin. So I say this to you today with humility how much more will we take from east Austin and when do we begin to make our amends to them? >> The tank farm, holly plant, onion creek flooding, Rainey street. >> It goes on and on. Ann. We must listen to those neighbors. Not all neighborhoods are the same. They're fragile. And this plan is a no plan. Plan no plan for affordability. That it is [1:56:34 PM] for affordability. That it is key to me, no action sense of affordability. It is not there. No plan for infrastructure here, which means increased flooding and with due respect, Houston has a flooding problem. No Brodie road improvements. I live in a subdivision. Many of you won't know these streets, but paisano trail, Harper's ferry. Longview these houses are already up on a subdivided road that crumbles if you put more density there. Fire trucks, police not get through. Thank you, but no. >> Good afternoon, mayor. Council. >> My name is George coffer, lifelong resident of Travis county. >> I urge you with the appropriate amendments to vote yes on the home initiative. Let [1:57:35 PM] yes on the home initiative. Let me repeat that. I strongly, fervently plead with you to vote yes in the 34 years in which I've been involved in this conversation, it's not a new conversation. >> What caused me to change my mind was when former city manager Toby. >> Futrell started her annual state of the city comments one year with her friends. >> I know there are two things you hate density and sprawl, and I realized I've been on the wrong side of this issue. And so now I think to go forward to achieve everything and everybody in this room wants thank you for taking this first step. >> Hi, my name is Chris Gannon. >> I'm an architect with the aia housing group and I'm here to support the home resolution. So you all have heard a lot from us over the last couple of weeks, [1:58:37 PM] over the last couple of weeks, especially as it relates to facts and figures. And I'm happy to keep talking caps, floors, parking exemptions, attic exemptions, basement exemptions, impervious cover, setback, infrastructure concern and the precedents out of Minneapolis or Portland. And I'm happy to speak to anyone here. You can find me in the lobby. I'll be here today , though. I'm going to keep it brief. I'm I'm here only to express my gratitude. >> I want to say thank you to everyone here, both those in support and those in opposition. I think the common ground we can find is that we all care deeply about the city and want to see it the best that it can be. >> I want to say thank you to the council. >> All this is an important step. >> We're taking as a city. I've spoken to city planners across the country and they all have their eyes on what we're doing here today as an architect, hoping to see a better code with better resulting building form. [1:59:39 PM] better resulting building form. As a long time resident who loves this city and as a father of three young austinites hoping that there's a place for them in this city when they grow up. Thank you. And we at the aia fully support council member vela's amendments. >> Hi, my name is Edgar Handel. I live in gold valley in district three and I'm here to support the home initiative. This past Thanksgiving, I visited my sister's home for the first time. She had moved into a new townhome on a very small lot and I'd asked her why she had chosen that type of home. She explained to me that the alternative was a larger home in a far flung suburb, but she chose the townhome to be closer to work. I'm very glad she chose that home because it was also in the neighborhood where we grew up. For context, we grew up part of a working class immigrant family in a working class neighborhood, both our parents were born in Honduras, though my dad comes from a family of Palestinian immigrants. As our neighborhood has median income of $42,000, it's half hispanic, a quarter black and only 6% white. Half its residents are us [2:00:39 PM] white. Half its residents are us born. That townhome built in our neighborhood, allowed my sister to stay close by, but she's not the only family member who benefited from middle homes. My grandfather lives in a relatively new small lot home with his sister. He's nearly 80, but he works as a public school district school bus driver for special needs children because he wants to provide stability for the children. When there's much turnover in school staff. My brother lived in a townhome while he worked and pursued his bachelor's degree, which he received at the age of 34 two years ago. Honestly I could go on. Most of my friends, many of them people of color and immigrants as well, either found middle homes or were otherwise forced to move far out of the city to be clear, I'm also a supporter of subsidized homes. I also have family who have found homes this way. But my sister would not have been able to stay in the neighborhood where we grew up if townhomes were disallowed or if townhomes could only be deeply affordable income restricted. We need homes of many different kinds and different prices and homes, an important step towards curbing the rise of multi-million dollar homes. Thank you. >> I'm going to call the next [2:01:40 PM] >> I'm going to call the next five speakers. Bruce Blum. Blum. Blum internet. Sorry. Anoush rasean, Wayne Davidson, who has time donated by Gary coco. Are you here? Jerry okay, thank you. A friend, Roseann and Alexandria Anderson who has a donation of time from from Irene Pickard. Are you here? Thank you. Is Karen Kreps here? Thank you. So she will get six minutes. Please make your way and state your name at the podium. >> Hi, my name is van eenoo Rajan. >> I live in gold valley in district three with my two kids and partner. I'm here in support of the home initiative. I've been a resident of Austin for the last 16 years and have chosen to raise my kids here. I want the neighborhood they grow up in to be a diverse one, but that is not where it's currently headed. Large homes in the million to $2 million range are [2:02:40 PM] million to $2 million range are taking over the neighborhood. And a big part of what we need is deeply affordable, subsidized housing. There's clearly a great need for housing for those who can't afford a market rate home, and we must build as much of it as we can. But inevitably there will be people who are caught in the middle who will not make it into subsidized homes, but will also not be able to afford the large $2 million homes that will make up the rest of the neighborhood. The households in this gap are our teachers, nurses, social workers, first responders and many more to million dollar homes are completely out of question for most of those households. But I believe that a smaller homes on smaller lots can be significantly cheaper than what we're getting today. As a result, we could reduce the gap and see a lot more people included in our neighborhoods. I know the home initiative likely won't solve all of our affordability problems and fill a housing needs, but I believe there is meaningful step towards improving the diversity and inclusivity. 80 in Austin. So let's say yes to more kinds of housing, yes to more deeply affordable, subsidized housing, [2:03:40 PM] affordable, subsidized housing, and also yes to replacing market rate large homes with smaller, cheaper middle homes. Thank you. Thank you. >> I'm Davison and I live in the oak forest subdivision in district ten. >> For 43 years I've reduced my talk here so that hopefully I won't use the three minutes I was given when we received the purple card. >> We expected to see the city send me flowers with pictures of my street. After implementation with numerous cars parked in front of our house and street. Also pictures from my backyard, I'd summarize, surrounded by tiny homes and rvs. >> We didn't get those. >> We received a minimum of information from the city. That appears to be deceptive. >> For example, there was no mention of code nest, which has been renamed home. >> This has been going on for years. The city says this is phase one with phase two next year. >> However, if you look at what the city council did in may, you actually implemented no parking requirements for builders. [2:04:42 PM] requirements for builders. >> So you had no parking requirements, unlimited number of adults and three units on a property that makes for, you know, a really bad situation. >> As far as I'm concerned. We live on a quarter acre lot. >> The city's other items of concern, the new city of Austin policy now ignores homeowners associations and deed restrictions, which we have. >> We're limited to one unit at on our quarter acre. This is a violation of legal document when the city issues a building permit, the city needs to conduct a study listing the appraised value of each affected lot ranked from highest to lowest. >> Then study the value of which it is feasible for a developer to purchase lots for tear down and rebuild under code. >> There's three potentials on our block right now. This will show who in Austin will be implement it and those not affected because we know not everybody's going to be affected. Even though the code says everybody is affected, the city needs to be transparent on [2:05:43 PM] city needs to be transparent on this change and make and have votes. Voters vote on it. Anything has a tremendous impact as this does needs to be voted on. >> The city's public hearing process from October 26th to December 7th is 41 days fast tracked? >> Why the rush. The city is continuing to make changes to the plan, so you cannot not vote today. And my main point, it appears that people with money and the city of Austin are telling the people of Austin that you should be happy to divide your lot and rent a tiny home or rv to someone for myself and my and many others, this means I'm supposed to take my one fourth acre lot and split it. So I now have a half acre or one eighth acre acre. If we don't agree to this, we will eventually be forced out as developers by surrounding potential tear down homes and put in multiple homes, multiple people and multiple cars and maybe no driveway, maybe parked [2:06:46 PM] maybe no driveway, maybe parked on the lot or but they're definitely going to be parked in the street. We don't have room in our street if we don't agree, we will be forced out. As developers by surrounding homes and build three units of multiple acres, thus making your subdivision not so desirable. At the same time, property owners with high values 1 to 5 acre lots will not see any change due to their ability to avoid litigation. I resent this condescending approach. Thank you. Thank you. Hello. I'm Bruce blumentritt. I live in a diverse and quiet neighborhood one mile east of the Q2 stocker stadium. >> Councilmember villas district. >> Our modest middle class homes run for around 14 to 1500 square feet on a very small lots, about 6000ft S. It's not feasible and it's cost prohibitive for me to tear my house down and build two. So I explored the math on what it would take to build an [2:07:47 PM] what it would take to build an Adu. According to the experts, maximal featured in the New York Times and the Wall Street journal, the price for an Austin is from 125,000 to 355 350,000 with a 125 being the low end for a prefab prefabs won't work in quail hollow. People that build backyard shacks have to have them built on site because you can't get between the houses. Scott turner of Riverside homes, who's been building ads in Austin for 20 years, says if you're going to build an Adu, that's one 700ft S, it's going to cost you at least $300,000. I don't have $300,000. The average if I had to buy that, if I had to borrow it, I'd have my payback. Is over $1,800 a month. I'd have to charge 2000, 2000, $200 a month for 1000 square foot. Adu in quail hollow. You can read an entire home for $2,200 a month. The latest home sales are down from 600 to 430. [2:08:50 PM] sales are down from 600 to 430. You want to empower the middle class? I can't afford to drop a quarter mil on an Adu. 30% of the homes in the neighborhood are already owned by out-of-town investors, and these are the ones that will be empowered because they can afford to tear down a house. They can afford to build two in the stress because they're taking over our neighborhood. I call this dam destroy. Austin's marvelous neighborhoods. Thank you. >> Please proceed. >> No, please proceed. >> Good afternoon. >> Mayor Watson and council members. >> My name is Alexandria Anderson. I'm a resident of district one and the chair of the martin Luther king neighborhood association. As someone who has seen several neighbors, several families have to move worry about if they'll be able to afford their mortgage or rent or be displaced by predatory measures. With the [2:09:51 PM] predatory measures. With the last and current wave of housing , I stand asking you to postpone the vote or to vote no on home as it stands and protect the eastern crescent home will not address the housing affordability crisis or create middle income housing opportunities. Home has no affordability requirement. It will not create housing for extremely wealthy buyers and investors. This home will only accept aerate the displacement of low income bipoc homeowners and renters by driving up property taxes, rent and incentives for developers to take over our neighborhood and demolishing affordable housing home will drive up housing costs, making the housing affordability crisis worsen for everyone. And home has no mention of how it plans to deal and update current infrastructure. Sidewalks, drains and limited limited parking. Et cetera as we know it is inadequate in east Austin, upzoning has already failed in Austin, one council member even mentioned that Austin is the [2:10:52 PM] mentioned that Austin is the poster child for gentrification and displacement. The city effectively upzone and close in east Austin communities in the neighborhood planning process through the use of special in in Enfield excuse me options permitting small lot sizes and increase units after these tools presented to the community as a means of increasing affordability were adopted for redevelopment. Currently rapidly occurred and ten years the black population has decreased by 66. The Latino population Ann has decreased by 33, and the white population has increased by 442. It is disheartening and disappointing as I walked in to hear my district rep, district one council member represent him has already made up her mind with limited engagement, postponed the vote with public input and real solutions. The community outreach did not reach most of those who were impacted scheduling these during the holidays is extremely, extremely [2:11:52 PM] holidays is extremely, extremely excuse me, limiting with public engagement and hundreds of community members are just finding out about this now, if you have received several post proposed amendments and met with community grassroots led organizations, by the way, thank thank all the council members who met with us from the Austin neighborhood council and community power atx who have the data to back up our amendments. Some of these proposed amendments include creating creative finance Singh with forgivable loans to low income households and families who want to build an Adu at 50. Mfi and the right to build a second at 30. Mfi this way we accomplish what home claims it is to do actually get an affordable housing in 30% to 50% mfi because the income levels households being displaced based on the 2020 census are an overlay that protects neighborhoods vulnerable to displacement. By not upzoning the home initiative there with a period of time during which home [2:12:54 PM] period of time during which home owners and renters can request a review for the area, including the overlay new urbanism density and walkable cities mean nothing if low income people and people of color are not even there to experience because we've been displaced. I'm calling on council to stop buying into the false narratives and prevent prevent displacement and acceleration of Austin housing affordability crisis. Thank you all. I will call the next five speakers. >> Lucia abba Valerie Menard kymberley Levinson, Catherine Reitmeyer. Fran tattoo. Who has time donated by Dorothy Barnett. Is miss Barnett here. They are not so Fran gets two minutes. >> Please make your way to the podium and feel free to begin. [2:13:55 PM] podium and feel free to begin. State your name for the record, please. >> My name is Ucha abba and I'm a resident of district five. >> Speaking in opposition of the home initiative. >> I am urging city council members to vote no or at the very least postpone voting until 2024. Their creative financing options that are available in restrictions that can be put in place as safeguards to ensure that density can be achieved without displacing people and raising property taxes. >> Just up zoning without a deep commitment to affordability ensures housing will be built. But not that it will. It will be affordable. How many times can this history repeat itself before we start to identify this pattern of voting as malicious and intentional? >> Just saying density creates affordability doesn't make it true. >> Taking the steps to ensure that there are safeguards for deep affordability makes it true. The current state of Austin proves just building housing doesn't make it affordable, despite what neoliberal urbanists say, the history of planning is a lot of white guys with great ideas and we have all seen how that played out. Continuing to push for density without any safeguards for affordability when hundreds of people impacted are calling in, asking for them to asking [2:14:56 PM] in, asking for them to asking for them is deeply classist and frankly, it's racist. >> Stop home now. My name is kymberley Levinson. >> I'm a homeowner in district nine, and I'm here to ask you to please support the home act so that we can get more housing for people. >> For instance, that are our workforce, are small business owners, our firefighters, our teachers, nurses at saint David's right now, these people are priced out of living in Austin. Some of them drive huge distances to come and work in our community and they would love to be able to actually live in the community that they work in. That's not going to happen if we keep building expensive single family homes. The only way that's going to happen is if we legalize all sorts of housing so that people can get into all sorts of homes that make it affordable for more people to own homes, for more people, young people in this community, to stay here when they finish college and raise families here, [2:15:56 PM] college and raise families here, when they finish college. We can't afford to push these people out. These people are the future of Austin and we need them. We need them to stay. And the home act will help them to stay. So I beg you, please support the home act. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. >> Please go ahead. Okay >> My name is Catherine Reitmeyer and I'm in district six. I'm here to oppose the proposed amendments to change the single family category and make it up to three units on a single family property and also against opposed against the homes program. I'm speaking on a different aspect. The psychological and emotional impact on thousands of families and individuals pursuing happiness and their dreams of owning a home in security and quiet for years and over their generations. And I have personal experience with rezoning as a victim years ago, in the los Angeles city limits, I grew up in a beautiful little home built [2:16:57 PM] in a beautiful little home built by my father in on a ten acre producing walnut grove. My father not only worked as a builder and broker and architect , but but as a farmer of this property doing all the plowing, irrigating and tasks to produce a good crop each year. Over the years, these owning did change somewhat. Then, while I was in college, the news came one day that the city planning commission had suddenly rezoned our family's property to commercial. This raised the taxes immediately to a much higher amount and we could no longer afford to live on that property. We were forced to move. It was a devastating blow to me and to my family. It was a shock to find our city government could, in effect, seize our property. Our beautiful little house and our beautiful producing grove of walnut trees. It threw me into a depression which lasted for months. It also produced awful nightmares for several years, and they were quite detailed pictures in my head of destroying the house and [2:18:00 PM] destroying the house and destroying the trees bulldozed Singh, hauling away everything in dump trucks. The dreams were vivid and dismal, so the proposed amendments would destroy the dreams and expectations of thousands of austinites. Their homes and property are the embodiment of their dreams, where they can plant, reap garden projects, beautiful flowers, yards and trees vote no. Thank. Thank you. Councilmember Kelly. >> Yes. >> Thank you very much for the recognition, mayor pro tem, Mrs. Reitmeier. I just wanted to thank you for coming all the way down from district six to share your story, which you shared with me a while back. It's glad to have you here for the first time. Really appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Good afternoon. >> Council. My name is Valerie Menard. >> I'm here today to voice my opposition to home as a middle class homeowner living in district one. >> I have no desire to build a tiny home in my back yard or to demolish my home in order to [2:19:02 PM] demolish my home in order to build three more units on my land. >> I couldn't afford it even if I wanted to. The premise that home will create affordable housing by allowing middle class homeowners to divide their properties is a crock. And you all know it. And shame on you for convincing these nice young people that this is their only chance for purchasing a home of their own home will only help developers who can outbid homebuyers and who already build two properties for every house they demolish, and it will begin purchasing properties even more aggressively. Because if they can build three units on one lot, thanks to home, why not buy 2 or 3 adjoining homes to build 6 or 9 new properties that will not be affordable because there is no incentive for them to do so? And this is not merely conjecture. We have proof of that from studies assessing the impact of similar efforts and from your own city staff who have warned, quote, the proposed changes may have a negative impact on homeowners experiencing precarity and some renters. And displacement pressure from property tax may increase as well. But if you're [2:20:02 PM] increase as well. But if you're not convinced, just look around town. But particularly in the eastern crescent, where smaller, humble homes are being purchased, demolish and replaced by two homes, tree houses, we call them, that are priced above neighboring properties, forcing the market price and property taxes to rise and ultimately forcing working and middle class families out. That's where the urban sprawl is. Yeah Latino and African American families are moving to Kyle and to brown rock and pflugerville because we can't afford to live here anymore. It's called gentrification, and it's happening in east Austin because we've seen what happens when you try to change the zoning. In 1999, the zoning was changed Ed from residential to commercial, full service, mixed use use. And we saw what happened. East Austin is gone. Families were displaced almost immediately. Prices housing prices soared. Don't repeat history. Vote no or postpone this. Good afternoon. Thank you so much for opening up [2:21:06 PM] Thank you so much for opening up the floor to us today and making us feel like what we care about matters that you're going to considerwhat your community has to say and then decide. Thank you so much. My name is Fran tattoo. I'm outreach director for Austin mutual aid. And we're highly alarmed at home, as has been outlined for by my community today, home means nothing but gentrification. More displacement, more desperation. We are not only servicing people on the streets now, we are servicing Singh mothers at home had to drive diapers over to a mom the other night because she's having to choose between keeping a roof over her head, keeping the lights on and feeding her children at. And more and more, we see food insecurity. There was an article that came out recently that our our food hubs are running out of food because there's so much because there's so much desperation. So please, I implore all of you to listen to your community today. I have a dream. My colleague Sasha and I [2:22:06 PM] dream. My colleague Sasha and I have a dream of creating a home for domestic violence victims and for those on the street who who cannot receive surgery because they have no place to go. It's called respite care. So we will not be able to afford a place like this near city services if the developer come in and we know about the pal mafia, we know about the no sex and Elon Musk and all of those people. So come on, open up your eyes. Don't know if the people here realize, but think about the broken spoke. They're white run, they're local, they're they're famous. And yet they had to have a developer protect them. The development around the broken spoke cost $60 million. None of us can can compete with that. They were only protected because the developer took favor on them and they gave him a generous ten year lease. So please, there are there are are there are things that we can do. We can come together and redevelop land trusts. We can come up with creative ideas. [2:23:07 PM] come up with creative ideas. Thank you so much. >> I will call the next five speakers. John hagar or will Davis. Ryan pyzdrowski. Maddie Gutierrez. Ann and Roberto Romero de monsieur. Please state your name when at the podium. >> Hello, my name is will Davis and I'm a member of district nine. >> Mister mayor and council housing advocacy. Advocacy is a fundamentally optimistic movement. I just wanted to come up here and share a bit of why I'm excited about home. I'm excited for more housing options . I'm excited for more affordable housing options. I'm excited to be able to live in a neighborhood that I never thought I would have the opportunity to live in. I'm excited to finally do something to help prevent the suburban sprawl that's destroying our beloved hill country. I'm excited for new neighbors. I'm excited for renewed vibrancy and [2:24:08 PM] excited for renewed vibrancy and vitality in our city. I'm excited for more weird. Thank you, councilwoman pool, for your leadership on this and all of you for putting up with so much over these past few months. Current and future, austinites will look back fondly on this much needed change. Thank you. Who. >> Hello and thank you mayor Watson and council members for listening. My name is Marie Gutierrez. I'm 20, 21 years old and a college student. I'm also a coordinator at Boulder. Today I want to share a little bit about the background reality in district three and why policies like home are the cause of housing crises, not the solution . Ann unfortunately, over the years I've seen time and time again how middle and low income communities of color are displaced to make room for market rate apartments that our community cannot afford. I've experienced this. My home of ten years was taken from my family of seven and turned into an airbnb. Even now, as a district [2:25:09 PM] airbnb. Even now, as a district five residents, it is still the same. Those luxury apartments have caused speculation and property taxes to increase, leading rents to tripling and massive gentrification and displacement. Unfortunately, home will accelerate that and we will see our communities turn into airbnb and luxury housings home has no affordability requirement and that is unacceptable because I don't know any middle income families from our community that can afford $600,000. Townhomes and market housing. >> So who is home for despite the texts, pushcarts press and those in support of home have paid to put out in the past couple of months our community see through this false narrative that home will help the middle class. >> Make no mistake, home will accelerate gentrification and displacement in the eastern crescent. Our communities are starting to speak up to share perspectives and concerns and we at the very least, deserve to be heard. Therefore, we ask you to postpone this vote and truly [2:26:10 PM] postpone this vote and truly consult to those directly impacted by the housing affordability requirements before passing anything. Our generation of young austinites of color is paying attention and we are ready to defend our communities now, especially during the election season. Thank you. >> Hi, my name is Ryan pazsitzky and I'm a homeowner in district one. Thank you, mayor. And council today for today, I strongly support home and urge you to do so as well. I'd also like to add that I'm on the board of Ora and I'd like to extend Ed thanks on the behalf of many of our members who support these reforms, but who could not be here today because they were unable to find childcare or they were stuck in final exams or or they could not afford the luxury of taking a day off from work. Their voice deserves to be taken into consideration, even though they are not physically in the room at present. Thanks so much for your support. Thanks thank you. Hello. My name is Roberto [2:27:15 PM] Hello. My name is Roberto rendeiro. I'm a resident of district one and I've lived in Austin for 12 years and I'm here in support of home in the first half of the 20th century, housing was abundant and affordable, and we built a range of housing types on varying lot sizes so the new housing could be built. >> So that all wage earners could afford housing. Housing was easier to access for all classes and with that came diversity and people afraid of diversity realized that zoning laws could be used to raise prices and rents, making homes unaffordable for blacks, hispanics, Jews, eastern and southern Europeans, us states and municipalities adopted zoning laws which restricted most of the nation's residential land to large lot single family detached homes, outlawing or excluding other, more affordable housing options and that happened here in Austin. And ironically, opposing measures to increase housing supply is piggybacking off of our historically purposeful exclusionary zoning laws. And it most affects the diverse communities home will facilitate more housing options to help stem housing cost growth, encourage inclusion and make [2:28:16 PM] encourage inclusion and make displacement less common. And displacement and lack of diversity is more prevalent in locations where restrictive zoning policies make it difficult to build enough homes for all residents and that's Austin. Our our our existing zoning is wide displacement is happening. And Houston tells the story from 2000 to 2021, Houston's black and hispanic populations grew by 4% and 40% after they updated their zoning laws to allow for smaller lot sizes. The lesson is simple when there is a housing, when there is more housing available, displacement pressure pressures are eased. Let's not let existing exclusionary zoning policies from decades ago continue to it's time to vote yes on homes. So that we can all have the opportunity to own a home. Thank you very much for the next five. >> Speakers are Susana Almanza, who has donated time from Paul Difiore, are you here? Paul. Okay. And also Pedro Hernandez, are you here? Okay Susana Almanza gets four minutes as the [2:29:18 PM] Almanza gets four minutes as the next speaker is Marianne Sanchez. Clinton Davis is. >> Don't start my clock because we're calling speakers other speakers at the moment. >> Let I'm still calling other speakers. One second. So Susana Almanza has four minutes. Next speaker is also Celine Rendon. Jason John Paul Haskins, Nakia Arnold, who has donated time from Jesus Gonzalez is Mr. Gonzalez here? Thank you. You get four minutes. >> Welcome. >> Good afternoon, mayor. >> City council members. I'm Susana Almanza from Paulette and district. >> No, we're not doing that. >> Let's start the clock over, please. >> I'm Susana Almanza with poder and district three. In 1928, the city of Austin, Austin city council adopted its master plan. It designated east Austin as the [2:30:19 PM] It designated east Austin as the area where people of color would be relocated, along with polluting facilities. The establishment of the master plan was seen as a continued colonization of people of color. Austin's highway 35 became our wall. It created the clearest physical barrier between east Austin and the rest of the city, deepening racial segregation. The history of land use, planning and zoning in Austin helps us to explain how the unequal distribute of economic and environmental burdens has occurred and why these historic patterns have been the source of many injustices that confront people of color and low income communities in east Austin. Why do we say home is just codenext in disguise? Luz. Here is a 2018 number two draft plan of codenext for Cesar Chavez neighborhood proposed. The proposal was to put three or more houses on each single family lot. You can see yellow, single family and what red would do in that particular area. And [2:31:19 PM] do in that particular area. And here is a proposal for highly neighborhood area. Again, the yellow single family and red three or more housing. All of montopolis will become high density. The neighbors in the montopolis neighborhood in Austin are low income. Make it among the lowest income neighborhoods in America neighborhood scouts. Research shows that the neighborhood has an income lower than 88.4% of us neighborhood kids with 24.4% of the children here below the federal poverty line. This neighborhood has a higher rate of childhood poverty than 74.0% of us neighborhoods. The montopolis community will be totally gentrified by home with the demolition of housing has been occurring at a rate at a high rate in east Austin. By analyzing the approved demolition permits in east Austin between 2010 to may 2020, we saw the destruction of single family housing and construction [2:32:21 PM] family housing and construction of double townhomes on lots with market rate housing. $400,000 and above. We oppose codenext mean, we oppose home now I'll call home for the following reason. One it doesn't adhere to the adopted neighborhood plans. It doesn't preserve existing low income housing. It doesn't preserve existing public participation in process density , doesn't give us low income housing or even affordability. It doesn't address racism in city policies and procedures, and it will drive up property values and taxes. Austin's zoning and land use code is rooted in a history of racism and has fostered the wealth, security and safety of Austin's affluent and upper middle class white residents, while failing to provide the same for our communities of color. It has served the interests of developers. The chamber of commerce, Austin real estate council, Austin board of [2:33:22 PM] council, Austin board of realtors, and home builders association of greater Austin. We hope to see home is a force narrative with false solutions. Burns hope I don't have to see y'all in court. Thank you. >> Please begin. Please begin. >> Hello. >> My name is nika Arnold. I am the executive director of the healing project. >> I am a born and raised austinite sixth generation and am in district one. >> And I am telling y'all, if y'all approve this is our people. We're going to have to go to the city clerk and do a recall. Wright and let me start by saying I help single families, single mothers, I navigate resources and have a few women living in a storage unit with three kids. I have a woman in hotel with four kids [2:34:24 PM] woman in hotel with four kids facing homelessness, and the only thing the city can tell us is if you're on the street, that's the only way you can get help. And y'all wonder where the money is going for the unhoused or homelessness prevention because we're steady stuck in these same cycles. Because y'all feel like y'all have the right to speak for us or don't want to engage in the community, that's not right. And how dare you sit in in front of us and say, yes, you already made up your mind. You're from east Austin. Natasha harper-madison you are our boy. >> Yes, you are our face. Yes. >> How dare you? So that's only going to confirm that we're going to do a recall. We're going to petition. I'm a notary. So that's. That's our start. And how dare you, mayor Kirk Watson, go to zilker parking light up the tree when we're out here facing homelessness every day, every month, every week. >> And y'all don't even have the finances to give us rental assistance or utility assistance . [2:35:24 PM] . >> Y'all just want to keep us on the streets. That's not right, y'all keep repeating history and repeating history, and I hope y'all sleep well at night, right? That's right. How dare y'all look at the numbers as black people make up 6% of Austin, Texas, but we make up over 33% of homelessness, and y'all wonder where the money is going. We're in the streets and y'all are not helping us. If the developers want to do something, create a fund or endowment fund a trust to invest into low income communities, low income houses, single mothers, single parents. We are tired of struggling with our kids. We can't pull up our bootstraps no more. We can't. We've done it. I'm a college student at I just got a in the youth and I'm still knocking on churches door for rental assistance and utility assistance and go into food pantries and clothes and closets. Why when I'm a sixth generation austinite, I got a [2:36:25 PM] generation austinite, I got a community. I have a community named after my grandfather. So saint John's community, reverend John Henry Winn, senior. And what do I got to show for it? I don't have access to capital. I don't have a home or I don't have the privilege to come up here and complain about condos, don't have the privilege to come up here and complain about a community that's not diverse, don't have that privilege every day I'm facing homelessness and y'all don't want to help us because y'all, we don't have the funding. We don't have any relief for your financial issues. We got to lean on our people. How can I help my people when y'all won't even help me every day I have single mothers texting my phone. They're about to get kicked out. They're about to be put on the street with their kids. I can't help them. >> I'm not even in a position to help them. And y'all don't even [2:37:26 PM] help them. And y'all don't even care to. >> This is a cycle. Repeating history, repeating history. And y'all will be held accountable. Are we going to recall, y'all? We're going to get a petition started and y'all are be gone and watch how Nick Arnold be up there, here and y'all gone and I promise y'all developers, y'all better talk to us and see how y'all can invest into low income communities today. Shea amen. Are we going to burn this thing down? Save east Austin, save east Austin. Thank you, Austin. >> Say he's got it. Say he's got it. >> Thank you all. >> Thank you. Austin please begin. >> Please begin. Thank you. >> Good afternoon. My name is Celine Rendon and I live in district eight. I've been living in Austin for seven years with family, not farm in San Antonio. I've been working in environmental science, environmental justice, land use and housing during my time here. >> Since attending UT Austin with community groups on the east side like community groups [2:38:27 PM] east side like community groups that can speak for themselves. >> Yeah, I've taken community groups that can speak for themselves. >> The impact on gentrification and displacement proponents of homes such as students and urban planners must recognize their ideas, referencing things like the color of law or Jake wegmans, Houston article are constantly cherry picking data claiming that the increased market rate supply has benefits without proving causation. >> If urbanists point to the fact that rent is down 5% this year and market rate supply has been high, remember the decrease is after a 35% increase from 2021 to 2022, and can also be explained by many other factors like rising interest rates, general uncertainty in the economy and more. >> Just because two things are happening within the same time period doesn't mean causation has been proven with community powered in just a few weeks, we've had 2800 letters sent to council members and the mayor demanding to postpone and vote no on home. Hundreds of people signed up even during the holidays and with work. Unfortunately, my council member, Ellis, district eight, [2:39:28 PM] member, Ellis, district eight, never agreed to meet with us, not just myself, but teachers and other low to middle income folks that desperately wanted to share our community concerns with city council staff have argued that there has been widespread engagement, but that has got to be a joke. Service providers during the housing crisis and people most impacted have been the least involved. Most of the proponents speaking on home are already homeowners already enjoy the benefits of urban living. Living here less than 15 years working class people are forced to ride the bus, and it's a very distant dream to one day be homeowners because we're stuck in an oppressive hamster wheel with no generational wealth and capital isms boot on our neck comes. Communities across Austin are not aware of this massive change to the code and are realizing that market driven plans like home are not the solution. Ann. Please vote to postpone and stop home. Thank you. >> Please begin. >> Good afternoon. My name is Jason Haskins. I'm an architect working on affordable housing. [2:40:29 PM] working on affordable housing. >> I've and over the years I've been called many nasty things in this room. >> I understand that. My opinion is worthless because I am not a resident of Austin. My family was priced out ten years ago when we were paying for quarterly pediatric orthopedic surgeries to keep my oldest daughter alive and we were forced out. >> But most insulting to me is that I've been called a shill for developers, but fine, if I'm going to be a shill for developers, let me explain who I'm here to support as an affordable housing architect, not the morally bankrupt, profit hungry deviants that serve this pose. A delete my clients who are actually actively building affordable and middle income housing solutions. Today, clients like Guadalupe neighborhood development corporation and habitat for humanity or colleagues like those at blackland Blackshear, Chacon and others who all have sites ready for more set aside units if only they were legal and the countless clients that I and my design colleagues have worked with as homeowners who want to build adus but can't do today's due to today's arbitrary regulations, there is pent up demand for this ready to go that will absolutely create affordable housing. No one measure is going to solve the [2:41:29 PM] measure is going to solve the full spectrum of our housing crises, and there are things well outside of zoning that we still need to address, like access to capital. But I'm certain that this one will help and is far better than the status quo. We are very close to a finely balanced policy here that will benefit my clients without enabling the rich to get richer as well as mitigate the few relevant concerns of the opposition. You should have our summary of recommendations and report, but there's one important thing here that's resolved that's unresolved. After the planning commission allowances for parking as provided by the current subchapter F exemptions were already include in the 0.55 and 0.65 limits, adding the exemptions again not only defeats the purpose of simplifying the application reviews, it double dips on parking to the benefit of profit driven developers who and exclusively bloat structures do not give in to that greed. Reject the parking exemption amendments and include all parking in the gross floor area. Definition. We are defenseless before the interests of a deified market. Pay attention to the motives and privileges of those people speaking to you. Put displaced unhoused and marginalized first. Vote yes to [2:42:30 PM] marginalized first. Vote yes to put people over profits. Thank you. The next five speakers are Marianne Sanchez, Clinton, Davis , Ryan Johnson, Megan Ramos. >> Noah. Elia and Natalie dowd, who has donated time from Sheryl Thompson, is Sheryl Thompson. Here yes. Thank you so Natalie will get four minutes. Please make your way to the podium if she's called your name, please come down to the front so that you can begin speaking. >> It's just the opposite. >> Natalie. >> Okay. >> Is Natalie here? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Great. >> Please make your way to a podium. >> Go to a podium. >> Oh, yeah, please. >> Oh, I wasn't the first one, but. >> Okay, well, it's. It's all right. All right. If it's. If it's an open podium, it's all yours. >> All right. >> Very good. We'll begin now. I am Sheryl Thompson. I am representing the Coronado hills neighborhood association. I'm [2:43:32 PM] neighborhood association. I'm the vice president. We're located adjacent to saint John's within the triangle of Cameron road to 90 and 183. District one, Madison is our our representative. We have all types of housing, including government housing, senior living communities and group homes. 77.5% of our neighbors are against the home initiative. The concern that I have I'll start off with democracy. Democracy is under attack across this entire nation. It is evident here as well in Austin, Texas, this is anti- democratic. It's anti represent tentative, especially for the council to say and this quiet stuff out loud and say that they are telling citizens that they can't hear, but they already know how they're going to vote. So it doesn't really matter if you hear or not because you already know what how you're going to vote. And that's probably for all of you. She may have been the one who said it, but she may have been speaking for everyone. That being said, why can't count? Why can't this be put to a vote for the ballot so that [2:44:32 PM] a vote for the ballot so that all the citizens have a chance to vote? And if it's really such a good deal, I applaud a beg you to please meet with the citizens. If it's a good deal, you're going to convince us you will convince us. Austinites are intelligent individuals. We if it's a good deal, you're going to convince us. You don't have to ram it down and vote behind the scenes and not let the citizens vote. One of the things I'll say is just this we want to get it right. It's embarrassing to be from Austin and have us in the national news where we get sued. Our city gets sued over and over again because they're not doing the right thing. So let's get this right and one of the things I'll say is we in a society till we say no means no, stop means stop. I'm hearing a lot of no, I'm hearing a lot of stop. But it obviously doesn't really matter if you want to keep doing it, you just do it. And that's how we crimes [2:45:34 PM] And that's how we crimes continue on the development the reality our neighbors are concerned that three houses on their lot and was telling them said they say how can I squeeze two more houses? I said, oh no, no, those are developers are going to come in and buy it out, tear it down and rebuild. You don't have to worryabout squeezing two more houses on your lot. Why not honor the existing deed restrictions? Why not try this initiative in a newly developed community to see how it works? Identify the kinks . This does not address the core affordability issue, which we do have. And I do believe that we do have solutions for affordability, that we can work trickle down has not worked because the developer won't be sharing the profits. We recognize this is a tough problem, but density does not equal affordability. Otherwise, why are the homes downtown here? Why are they not affordable? There's more dense downtown. So that means they should be really cheaper. It should be really cheap for me to live downtown. [2:46:35 PM] cheap for me to live downtown. So let's let's keep our eye on the ball. Don't fall for the quick fix. This initiative will price out fixed income neighbors , increase homelessness and add the stress on our already existing food pantry problem. The services they've been mentioned, the lack of infrastructure. We have to get our infrastructure together. Our sewage lines are already under stress. Austin energy actually has the nerve with as much as they charge to ask us to talk about rolling blackouts and then we talk about electric cars. Don't have one yet, but now I'm thinking, oh shoot, I better not go down that road because it's going to be a problem because the car is going to take up as much as one of the neighbors houses. So that is a concern. Safety see the reduction of police and fire and ems response recently we told didn't tell you all that we have group homes in our area. Okay with that being said, please vote no vote, no vote no, let us vote. >> Please begin. [2:47:41 PM] >> Please begin. >> Good afternoon. Council members in mayor Watson, I'm Megan Ramos, a district nine resident and undergrad student. Today I get to briefly escape the rough week that is finals to speak here today. However, I'm not here to simply procrastinate on studying. Sorry, doctor Shanahan, if you're watching this, I promise I'll get back to it as soon as I get home. I'm here to speak for myself and other students to show my support for the home initiative. Austin's rapid growth is undeniable, drawing in many young minds to the city. We are the future of Austin and our future is in danger if this does not pass. Housing prices have doubled over the last decade and continue to price out middle and lower income individuals in Austin. Home offers a solution of attainable single family homes while addressing concerns that others have presented here today. Home phase one maintains environmental regulations burns such as incentivizing tree preservation and limiting impervious cover tools like flexible permitting. Foster an equitable playing field for all homeowners and increase [2:48:42 PM] homeowners and increase potential higher qualities of life for marginalized neighborhood kids through increased opportunities to better education, jobs and programs by investing in underdeveloped neighborhoods, this will lead to a more open Austin expanding housing options will address issues of massive single family homes and promote a higher quality of life for multigenerational living. And lastly, advocating for more dense housing will lower our carbon footprint, which will affect all of our futures. In essence, home addresses Austin's housing crisis while considering affordability, infrastructure impact sustainable city gentrification and all the issues that everyone has brought today. And as a resident and student in Austin, I urge your support for a home. And I appreciate you and thank you for all of your time today. Thank you. >> Good afternoon. >> Council mayor, I am Noah Elias. I live in district three and am a third grade teacher in my community of montopolis. First, I want to say to whoever [2:49:43 PM] First, I want to say to whoever said that we're not the future of Austin. We are my children. My children are my students. My black, brown immigrant students are the future of Austin. I am here to tell you that me and my community are against the home initiative. We oppose the home initiative because it will further displace our working class families. There is no requirement for affordability and the developers will target those communities. Our communities, in order to maximize their profits, our communities are working class community and many have lived there for generations. So why are my neighbors not here to speak against the home initiative? Because they are at work. They can't afford to take a day off because they have to pay their rent, their mortgage, their taxes. That are increasing every day. Many of my community or one crisis away from being displaced and they cannot afford to take a day off to spend at city hall. The home initiative will increase the pressures that these families face on a daily basis. Also some people in my community don't even know about [2:50:43 PM] community don't even know about the home initiative because their city council representatives didn't even hold town halls to speak to them, especially for our especially for our Spanish speaking and immigrant families. Our city council is failing our communities. It is sad when you think of some of you ran your campaign on a platform of community and affordability and you can't even go out to your community and speak to them on this. We need a deeply affordable we need deeply affordable housing. We need these those people most affected by the affordability crisis to be at the table. Those closest to the pain should be closer to the power. So I ask you to postpone and postpone until we can get a plan that works for our workers and our working families. Thank you. >> Please begin. >> Thank you. My name is Ryan Johnson. I'm a district seven resident, a member of the city [2:51:45 PM] resident, a member of the city zoning commission, and in my day job am a professional planner. Other cities hire me to help write their zoning codes. I'm a nerd about this stuff. I'm doing it for free and for my job. I just want to say that a lot of the testimony today opposed to the home initiative has been incredibly moving. As a native austinite, I thought that I would never be able to afford a home. They just got more and more expensive every year, way more than salaries could keep up . But I can't help but believe that many of those opposed to this initiative, while really, really heartfelt and well-intentioned, are just wrong. The home initiative as written, will not increase displacement. It can't. It doesn't work that way. There is no way to increase affordability without one of two things government subsidy, whether that's through a bonus program or a cash or rental assistance or vouchers or by putting more [2:52:45 PM] or vouchers or by putting more homes on less land. If you live in the city of Austin and you have a home, a single family house or even a townhouse S, your land is worth more than that house and if you put more house on less land, it will reduce the prices of those houses. And while new build houses, I've heard several people say, you know, high density, high rise towers downtown, each unit is selling for 800,000, $1 million. You shouldn't compare that to a small house on the east side or compare that to a single family house downtown that will sell for 15 or $20 million. And so while certain areas of town will always be more expensive than others, the only way within one of those areas to reduce prices, as has been shown in all the cities I've worked in the countless studies that council member pool staff and others have shared is to reduce the amount of land dedicated to each home. Thank you for your time and thank you for voting yes on home. >> Thank you. >> The next five speakers are [2:53:45 PM] >> The next five speakers are Connor Ogilvie, Jeff Dickerson, David Kennison. Lindsay. Darrington and Ludwig Acosta, who has time donation from Deborah bloom. Blumentritt are you here? Deborah here. Thank you. And as as well as Patty sprinkle, thank you so Ludwig Acosta gets six minutes. >> Please begin. >> Hello. >> My name is Connor ogilvy from district nine. And I'm here in favor of the home initiative. >> I believe that the home initiative is beneficial to opening up new housing options within our communities in the areas that need them the most. >> And as someone who will likely be here for a while, I hope to one day see a wider range of choices and where I'm able to live. Austin residents should have access to spaces that fit both their needs and their budgets. >> I will never need a 3000 square foot home on a huge lot and I can't imagine wanting one either. >> Increasing housing supply in more diverse formats caters to those looking for a space to call their own. [2:54:45 PM] call their own. >> I know that all this is likely far off in the future for me since I'm not even 20 yet. But I'd be lying if I said housing wasn't something I thought about every day. >> Thank you for listening. Please vote yes on the home initiative. >> Thank you. >> Good afternoon. Council members. Mayor Kirk Watson. The debate around Leslie. You. Oh, what? You can go. No, you can go. Go ahead. Okay. Hi okay. Good morning. I'm or good afternoon. At this point. I'm Lindsay Darrington. I'm executive director of preservation Austin. We are Austin's only citywide nonprofit dedicated to historic preservation. And we exist to empower austinites to shape a more inclusive, resilient and meaningful community culture through preservation and service to this mission. >> I'm here to express preservation. Austin's support for the home ordinance with the preservation bonus and sustainability bonus included Eid Austin loses over 500 older, smaller, more affordable homes to redevelopment for larger, more expensive homes every year. Market forces paired with our [2:55:46 PM] Market forces paired with our land development code make this a losing battle. We are losing our cultural and architectural fabric, our sense of place and identity. As austinites because our current system favors demolition and the preservation bonus which is included in what you all consider today, will give homeowners and developers a better alternative to demolition. It incentivize his retention of pre 1960 homes according to preservation best practices, while encouraging development of new housing within existing neighborhoods. The sustainability bonus is an essential companion to this policy for homes built after 1960. Homes preserved through these bonuses are the most vulnerable to demolition today. They have great bones and great character, but will never rise to city landmark status or survive long enough to become contributors to local historic districts. These new bonus programs are a lifeline for historic homes that would otherwise be lost. These bonuses make homes stronger by supporting Austin's goals for building more sustainable, affordable and culturally vibrant city. I think they lay the groundwork for future supports for homeowners to better access home to be able to develop more of these units on their sites to help combat displacement issues and [2:56:48 PM] displacement issues and pressures which everyone very rightly is a real concern, and that we really sympathize with. It's not just about buildings, but it's about homes for people in our case, we're looking at historic homes, historic communities, and how we can support people through preservation in preservation. Austin thanks. The planning commission and our partners of the Austin infill coalition and Austin for supporting this vision. We thank councilmembers pool qadri and Fuentes for being champions of these bonuses and look forward to better preservation outcomes because of their support. Thank you all for your service to our city. Thanks . >> Please begin. >> Hi, I'm David Kennison and my wife and I are homeowners up in Windsor park area. >> Mr. Villa hope you read her letter yesterday. Anyway, we are against this proposal, and I'd like to tell you why this amendment will bring gentrification by acquisition or expansion by expulsion. Speculators buy properties for the purpose of maximum development profit with no respect for the existing community. Taxes will go up due to the potential income from [2:57:49 PM] to the potential income from property residents will be forced out and leave in disgust, setting up a domino effect. The house next door was bought by an LLC a year and a half ago, waiting for these changes. It's falling apart and overgrown. It should be condemned. This is not progress or planning. It is greed in anticipation, investors would end up being landlords and slumlords. Neighborhood and community status quo will be destroyed by an influx of renters with no ties to the community and residing in multiple housing units. They could very well lack any sense of belonging or respect for the property they live on or each other. There would be no sense of home and crime rates would inevitably go up, jeopardize everyone's persons and property. Me passing this amendment would be a great disservice to Austin or anywhere that was subject to forcing Grossman encroachment by its allowance. The kind of seizure of land by eminent domain. Finally, I am concerned about the effect that increased population density will have on every aspect of infrastruc future both water and electrical [2:58:49 PM] future both water and electrical supply lines will have to be replaced. Expand and installed to supply all the additional homes. This will include meters, trees will be cut down for more homes on allotted footage areas increasing the impervious ratio and making it even hotter. Streets will have to be widened for all the new cars cutting swathes out of everyone's yards. More houses, less property. And once again, as well as losing their property and established sense of community, taxpayer will be asked to foot the bill. We ask that the council garner more public input and consider putting this matter on a ballot. Please do not be swayed or capitulate to the lobbying of investors whose only motivation is future profit. Thank you for your time, mayor. Thank you, councilman. >> Just, sir. >> Sir, sir, hang on one second. >> Just want to make sure that puma and Deborah sir, that puma and Deborah Kinnison. Yes. All right. Got it. Thank you. Just want to make sure. [2:59:49 PM] want to make sure. >> Thank you very much. >> Please begin. >> My name is Jeff Dickerson. I'm vice president of the Matthews lane neighborhood association, but will be speaking on behalf of myself today. >> There are some exciting speakers out here, unfortunately , I am not one of them. I'm just a numbers and details guy. >> For your benefit. I read through all the comments that were submitted online, and if you look on the screen, you can see some of the statistics home questions people ask about home questions that represented 24% of the input people that were for home. Again, this was email and public comments that were entered online. 74 people approved remotely and this includes the two days of comments. That's about 14% of the total. >> So those that were against the home amendment to hundred and 97 approximately, or 300, [3:00:50 PM] and 97 approximately, or 300, that's about almost 60% of the people that oppose home. These are numbers. These don't come from me. These come from the documents that were submitted. And I am strongly opposed to council member Poole's amendments. It does not contain any affordability components. In fact, the report states that upzoning leads to displacement. But this is on page 70 of the planning department report, dated October 26th, 2023. >> The home amendment infrastructure language is toothless. >> It contains no incentive money for street traffic, water safety, environmental and quote general recommendation council shall require all relative departments assess the impact of additional units in a neighborhood, assess committee [3:01:50 PM] neighborhood, assess committee toothless. I have a question for council members. If Trent, sorry about that. >> Time's up. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. You >> You. >> Mr. Acosta? >> Yes. My name is Laura Acosta. >> Good afternoon, major Kirk Watson and council members. >> Thank you for actually hearing me. >> My statement, my name I represent from district eight and I would like to actually Driskill showcase a video from a fellow neighbor for me of district seven. Would you please actually have a decency to play the video, please? >> If you follow local politics in Austin or the debate around Leslie pools home initiative, you've probably heard people talking about a recently published study of minimum lot size reform in Houston as proof that the home initiative will make housing more affordable in Austin. You may have even seen the video of this guy talking about it. I don't know how to make fancy videos like his where you can have images behind you [3:02:50 PM] you can have images behind you and all that. But I do know how to read and interpret a research paper. And this guy has got it all wrong. This is me. I teach urban studies at UT and I've been researching and teaching about urban planning and development for over 25 years. 18 of which at UT. This is the original research report about minimum lot size reform in Houston. What's behind this guy is a blog post about about the research report. He claims that minimum lot size reform in Houston produced 35,000 townhouses and suggested the home initiative will have a similar effect in Austin. What the research paper actually talks about is 5359 townhouses produced over the course of 15 years by the subdivision of residential lots based on a land use change that happened in 1998, 25 years ago, the vast majority of the 34,000 units were built on large vacant commercial or industrial sites, which Houston had plenty of in [3:03:52 PM] which Houston had plenty of in the early 2000. But which Austin does not. In 2023, conversions of single family residential lots, which is the focus of the home initiative here in Austin, the researchers say was relatively was a relatively rare event that happened on only 0.5% of eligible lots. An assessment of the research by bipartisan policy org explains that, quote, new, smaller lots were particularly prominent in underutilized commercial land and middle income residential communities, likely because wealthier communities opted out of the reduced lot size requirements while lower income communities lacked sufficient demand for any new housing that might be built out. That's a vastly different situation than the one we face here in Austin, where lower income and bipoc communities are under intense redevelopment pressure due to the massive population growth rate roughly 32% over the time period covered by the research [3:04:55 PM] period covered by the research article compared to Houston's more moderate 18% increase. So the Houston case study doesn't fit today's Austin. Remember this guy? He wanted to know if minimum lot size reduction would cause gentrification. Ann. According to him, the blog summary of the Houston research said it didn't, and he pointed to a chart behind him showing an increase in population of black and latinx populations in Houston. What does the research paper itself show? It basically says that redevelopment based on upzoning requires the infusion of capital, the driving force of gentrification in, quote, the unifying theme is a drastic intensification in the use of these parcels and as one would expect, after all, for a builder to expect Eid the capital to acquire an existing property, demolish its existing use and replace it with new housing units, requires a substantial increase in value and what does the research paper say about the [3:05:58 PM] the research paper say about the neighborhoods where residential lots were subdivided and redeveloped into townhouses compared to neighborhoods where lots were weren't subdivided? It shows that redeveloped Swint caused neighborhoods to have fewer young and old people, fewer black and latinx people, more white people. A massive increase in family income, a higher percent of college educated, educated people and houses worth two and a half times as much. In other words, gentrification. So going back to this guy, does reducing minimum parcel size cause gentrification ? Yep, you bet. >> And to finalize my statement, I'd like to actually say to every one of y'all with a quote that states the power tends to protect itself merely to maintain its own status and control all yet principle gives up the power for the sake of creating the best public policy. I do believe that every single [3:07:00 PM] I do believe that every single one of y'all's districts that you represent will give the best decisions for the citizens, us and the districts that you represent based upon this policy. Thank you so much for your attention. >> Hang on one second, Mr. Chair. Councilmember Allison alter thank you. >> I just wanted to clarify the name of the professor who was featured in the video. >> Rich Harmon, Richmond. >> Ms. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Thank you. You're welcome. >> Miss next five speakers are Megan king, Dara Harmon, Mary Cale, Jeff Bradford and Travis holler, please make your way up to the podium and state your name. >> If there's an empty podium, it's yours. So feel free to speak. Just state your name for the record. Hi. >> Good afternoon. My name is Megan king, and I'm the policy and outreach planner for preservation Austin. >> I'm here to express preservation. >> Austin's support for the home initiative with the preservation and sustainability bonuses included. We know that the current status quo is not [3:08:00 PM] current status quo is not working for preservation. To address this preservation, Austin partnered with the Austin infill coalition in 2021 to imagine a new preservation bonus throughout the process. We've consistently fought for the bonus to follow preservation best practices while adding much needed housing for homes built before 1960. The preservation bonus would exempt the existing house from a site's limits in exchange for preserving 100% of the street facing facade and at least 50% of its structure. Overall review criteria for these projects will draw inspiration from the citywide historic design standards. To date, less than 1% of Austin's parcels are protected from demolition by historic zoning. Since 2013, the city has designated an average of just eight local landmarks each year. Austin, which has only eight local historic districts, has not seen a new one since 2020. Compare this to the rate of residential demolitions occurring in Austin from 2010 to 2021. An average of 514 residences were demolished each year. District nine and district three, which experienced the [3:09:00 PM] three, which experienced the city's highest rates of demolition. Ann also have the highest percentage of housing built pre 1960. Imagine if we could transform even 100 of these demolitions into two and three unit preservation bonuses. That's 100 homes kept from the landfill. 100 starter homes maintained for middle class families. The preservation bonus creates these possibilities. Preservation Austin's work is grounded in the belief that preservation can meaningfully support affordable and sustainable housing outcomes while maintaining our city's history and culture. Preservation Ann density affordability and sustained ability need not be at odds. And these bonuses are an incredible opportunity to show that this is possible. Thank you for your service to our city. Thank you. Good afternoon. >> Mayor Watson and council. Oh didn't seem fair, but thank you very much for your testimony. >> Yes, good afternoon. Restarted. Go ahead. [3:10:01 PM] Restarted. Go ahead. >> Yes. Good afternoon. My name is Travis holler and I'm a resident of district three and I serve on preservation Austin's board of directors. I'm here to further reiterate preservation Austin's support for the home initiative, especially with the preservation and sustainability bonuses, included. These bonuses showcase the significant role that preservation can play in achieving excuse me, in achieving Austin's sustainability and affordability goals. The average size of a demolished single family home is 100ft S and contributes anywhere between 23 to 28 tons of waste to our landfills. That means roughly 13,000 tons of waste is produced by residential demolitions on an annual basis for the city of Austin. To achieve its zero waste goals by 2040. Preservation of our existing housing stock must be part of the solution in Travis county, 25% of waste in our three municipal solid waste landfills comes from construction and demolition debris alone. Considering that all three landfills are located east of I-35, increased demolitions also have a significant equity impact on [3:11:02 PM] significant equity impact on east Austin's historic black and brown communities. Additionally we also know that older, smaller homes are among our city's most affordable for renters and lower income home buyers. However, our current land development code disincentivizes preservation in favor of wholesale redevelopment . When we consider that the average size of a new home in Austin is 2800ft S, it's clear that we are losing older, smaller, more affordable homes to larger, less affordable ones every day by providing attractive alternatives to demolition. The proposed preservation and sustainability bonuses would encourage the preservation of existing housing, keep demolition waste out of our landfills and retain the naturally occurring affordability of older, smaller homes. Thank you for your consideration and your continued service to the city of Austin. Thank you. Okay. >> Do I start now? Yeah please. Okay. >> Hello. >> My name is Mary Cale and I serve on preservation Austin's board of directors. I'm also an an oral history practitioner. [3:12:05 PM] an oral history practitioner. >> I'm here today to express preservation Austin's support for the home initiative with the preservation and sustainable bonuses included last year preservation Austin partnered with the city of Austin on a report the Tapp report investigating how preservation can support our affordability and anti displacement goals. >> This year we're proud to have worked with council member Ryan alter on a relocation resolution Ann with the adoption of home opportunities for house relocation, Ann will be further expanded. I want to encourage city council going forward to really consider those tools we recommended in the uli Tapp report. >> These include community land trusts, which some advocates in east Austin have been discussing as a great tool to address homelessness and displacement issues. The home repair program chronically underfunded. [3:13:07 PM] chronically underfunded. >> It's also underfunded at the county level. That is a fabulous way to keep people in their homes. >> The city has different aspects of home repair that they could expand and keep people in their homes. There are additional tools to help homeowners access homes. New entitlements, especially of monetizing their property, will help them stay in their homes. >> We need programs and policies that narrow the cost gap between homeowners and developers to support people staying in place. So that more austinites can participate in our growth. Thank you very much. Thank you for your service to the city of Austin on. >> Hi, my name is Jeff Bradford. I'm speaking in favor of building more housing. I see this just not as an economic benefit, which I think ought to be obvious, but also as a question of social justice. I think somewhere along the way, a [3:14:08 PM] think somewhere along the way, a lot of people became convinced that stopping housing from being built was Progressive. And I think it's clearly the opposite regressive that it benefits mostly older people that have some money and own their own homes, like myself, really, and hurts younger people that are starting out in life and are priced out of housing markets and I think older people are pretty assertive about getting benefits out of the government, whereas young people are mostly clueless about that and do have children and grandchildren myself. But I think in this case , policies to allow more housing to be built are both economically beneficial and more socially. Just thank you. >> The next five speakers are Janice Rankin, who has donation of time by Caroline Reynolds. Is Caroline Reynolds here? Thank you. Please make your way up. You get four minutes on deck. Are Greg Anderson, Juan Raymond Rubio, Matt barnstone and Christina Pollard. Please make your way to the front. [3:15:10 PM] your way to the front. >> Thank you. Hello >> My name is Juan Raymond Rubio. I represent district two on the historic landmark commission and I also serve on the board of directors for preservation of Austin. >> I'm here today to express preservation, Austin's support for home with the inclusion of the preservation and sustainability bonuses. >> As a member of the historic landmark commission, we see these houses being torn down. What's happening with Rainey street long ago is continuing to happen to properties throughout the city. >> This is especially true in black and brown communities. >> These houses are being demolished. Nobody can get here to advocate for these communities that are being destroyed and their homes are being lost. That continues to displace these residents of these cities, as we've heard from today by the time these demolition requests come to the historic landmark commission, it's too late. >> Right. And so we don't have many tools to save these houses, to save these communities. >> And so zo preservation Austin actually recently analyzed these [3:16:10 PM] actually recently analyzed these demolitions as well as the city's east Austin historic resource survey. And we found that all of out of all the properties since 2016 that were determined eligible, about 1,310% of those have been demolished. >> So we are losing homes. >> We are losing communities. That is why people are upset, right? We don't have many tools at our disposal, but we hope that something can be done to stem that tide of demolition and displaced Swint, especially in east Austin. And so if you all move forward with this homes initiative, there has to be preservation bonuses. You have to include preservation and sustainability bonuses that offers us a brand new way to create, to keep neighborhoods here for those communities that are upset about what this would do to their neighborhoods, I encourage you to look into historic landmark districts and get your property owners nearby, get your neighbors, figure out how to become a landmark district that is the only way to save a historic house from demolition and I know it's an uphill battle. I know there's [3:17:10 PM] uphill battle. I know there's equity concerns and, you know, the city has their own preservation or preservation plan coming out for those equity concerns. But please, please consider preservation. This is hoping to help us with that displacement of communities. Thank you for your time and efforts. Appreciate it. Please. >> Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor and council members. >> Thank you for allowing me to speak. >> My name is Janice Rankin. >> I'm a retired attorney and I've lived in Austin since 1988. I became a homeowner in 1992 and have been paying property taxes ever since. >> In council district seven. >> This home proposal is not about affordable housing. >> People seem to think it is, but it is really about an effort to generate more tax revenue from property taxes. The reality is it will increase tax revenue [3:18:11 PM] is it will increase tax revenue from increased appraisal values, not from a rate increase. This revenue will be needed for paying for infrastructure to deliver more electricity, water supply, wastewater services, flooding restoration. Flooding control, emergency services, and maybe even a new landfill. All you have heard the former city auditor in past meetings explain this more than once. This will generate more infrastructure costs that need full evaluation and across the board cost benefit analysis before you act. I do thank the mayor for his amendments to do some studies. I appreciate that. I want to mention that affordability is a relative concept and it changes with the circumstances over time. What's affordable for council member pool may not be affordable for me. It may not be what I can afford versus what a student can afford. The truth is, Austin has not had [3:19:11 PM] is, Austin has not had affordable housing for decades, and this will not fix that problem in 2021. For example, the university of Texas at Austin data shows that over 17,000 degrees were conferred across all undergraduate and graduate programs. Sure, many of these students fall in love with Austin and they want to stay. I was that way once myself, but it's always been that way. The ideal of staying after you graduate here is not always possible. A student with a degree, but little or no full time employment history who has education Ann loans to pay may well need to consider other alternatives like different places to live and work. I'm a living example. After graduation, I found employment elsewhere and ten years later I was able to return to Austin. I then became a renter for four years before I took up a 30 year mortgage and paid property taxes, utilities and insurance on it. This proposal is an experiment. It's a failure to [3:20:11 PM] experiment. It's a failure to plan, and that is a plan to fail. Austin homeowners and residents are being subjected to an untried and untested proposal. This experiment would come at huge financial and personal cost without concern, murdering the long term detriment to these people and their families. We don't want to be your Guinea pigs. This poses a threat to neighborhoods. It impacts homeowners and residents living in single homes on single lots all over Austin. Not just certain areas. And it cuts across all economic levels. It's an equal opportunity threat that jeopardize causes. All of these austinites and their communities of interest and their families. It creates displacement effects. These changes call for a citywide study of the number and location of residents and homeowners who would be displace based, including data on in come age and race related criteria. The fact is the home proposal will not keep Austin weird and [3:21:13 PM] will not keep Austin weird and wonderful. It will make it ugly and undesirable for many families. It may actually increase urban sprawl when the single income no kids workers decide to opt for family life, making surrounding towns more attractive than living in a compact densified Austin. A public vote is needed in public governance, a proposal of this magnitude calls for transparency , broad and extensive public participation. Education. Most people in Austin have not even heard about this proposal and they are shocked to know they will not have a vote. Thank you. >> Good afternoon, mayor council. Thank you very much for being here today. >> If history has taught us anything, it is that legalizing housing in Austin, Texas is not an easy thing to do. >> So I'm glad we're all here today talking about this important topic. I know that we've heard a lot about the [3:22:15 PM] we've heard a lot about the concern about not having a guarantee of affordable Katy the density bonus requirement in Austin with the highest percentage of affordable Katy is west campus, where we go to 300ft, and that requires 200ft or excuse me, 220% of on site affordability to require 33% would be a bonus. That would be so over the top, the only way you'd get it is through subsidy. So I'm with habitat for humanity . And every time we build a home that is single family or an or a townhome, we have to subsidize it. And to have such a small density bonus be income restricted, it would just require such a subsidy that there's really no way we could possibly do it. But this is a great way to simply add homes to existing properties and allow for a different. Variety of housing to be built. So that shows that a primary unit with an Adu behind it sells for quite a bit less than a primary unit with nothing else behind it, and that the accessory dwelling units built behind a primary goes for less than the primary on the same lot. So where I'm going with that is as we allow [3:23:15 PM] going with that is as we allow for more units, it does bring down the price of housing and it allows people to live in Austin. Wouldn't it be great if we can have more people live here and not live so far away? These are single family homes in Austin, Texas, today. I've heard a lot of concern about, well, what about today and the displacement caused today by, you know, allowing for more housing units? We see what happens with these. These are torn down and very big things are built in their place because that's all we allow to build in these neighborhoods. And these are these exact east Austin neighborhoods we've heard a lot about today. And we could allow for a lot more housing if we allow for these smaller units to be built throughout Austin and this is all over our city where we're watching this happen. And these are the older housing products that we have. And we can even watch these get preserved to the preservation bonus that you all are contemplating. And I've had quite a few people share with me their concerns about growing up in Austin and not being able to stay in Austin. And it's a great question. Should young people be allowed to stay? Thanks. >> Good afternoon, mayor. Mayor [3:24:21 PM] >> Good afternoon, mayor. Mayor pro tem council. I'm Mateo barnstone, the executive director of the congress for the new urbanism central Texas chapter. I'm a resident in district nine, and I'm here to express our board's enthusiastic support for the home initiative. We applaud the diligent efforts and courage of council and your very hard working staffs. And the city staff are taking this very important step towards creating a more equitable, sustainable and vibrant city for all our endorsement of home and other council initiatives is driven by key factors that align with the pressing needs of Austin. Today Austin is facing a housing crisis impacting homeowners and renters. Home expands the housing options throughout the city by allowing smaller residents on less land, which will help mitigate cost escalation happening under the current land use policies is benefiting the entire community. >> Home aligns with the imagined Austin comprehensive plan, emphasizes the need for diverse housing options and accommodate that will accommodate the diverse housing, the diverse population throughout our city. >> By embracing a variety of [3:25:22 PM] >> By embracing a variety of housing types, we promote diverse communities and interaction amongst people of a wide variety of backgrounds, reinforcing the bonds essential to thriving communities, denser housing as supported by the research of the university of California, Berkeley, contributes to lower greenhouse gas emissions per household and aligns with our commitment to environmental sustainability denser housing also not only benefits the environment, but also leads to cost savings for residents reducing transportation costs. But because it puts residents in closer proximity to the daily needs, wants and desires, lowers the tax burden and lowers utility bills, contributing to the overall financial well-being of those who reside in such housing. Increasing housing density is crucial to supporting the federal grant request for project connect and will boost transit ridership and enhance the city's connectivity. We applaud you for taking this controversial but extremely important initiative and strongly support your adoption of home today. Thank you so much . Really appreciate all the work [3:26:25 PM] . Really appreciate all the work you all are doing. The next five speakers are Chloe Wilkinson, Stephen reed, Joseph Hirsch, Christopher Paige, who has donated time from kazik. >> Prince is mister prince here? Okay Christopher gets four minutes and Carmen Yanez, who has donated time from George Godwin, is George here? Thank you. And Susan Lippman, thank you. Miss Yanez gets six minutes . Y'all just one of you go. >> Sorry. Go ahead. Okay >>. >> Hello, city council members and mayor Watson, I first would like to wish you all a happy holiday. >> Happy Hanukkah. >> Merry Christmas. Whatever you celebrate, tonight is the first night of Hanukkah. And I would much rather be at home watching a muppets Christmas. >> Carol, I know that sounds contradictory, but it is my one [3:27:25 PM] contradictory, but it is my one guilty pleasure out of Christmas traditions. I love muppets, everything, muppets I promise you, I've seen every movie. >> And if you think I haven't, please just shout one out after I'm done speaking. >> But I want to talk about something about muppets that I actually love about muppets Christmas. Carol is the homes and the housing that is shown in those movies. Maybe it's a bit silly to bring that up today, but that is something that I think we could all strive for, a sense of community. I think one of the many problems of the housing that we have in America, not just here in Austin, but across this country where single family home is the majority, has led to this sense of polarization, Ann, where we can't feel as a community together. It's so important that we listen to and hear what everyone has to say. So I respect those who have come here to speak in opposition Ann today, but I am here to support a home. Thank you. Council members, for all your time. >> Thank you. >> My name is Stephen reed from [3:28:30 PM] >> My name is Stephen reed from district two and I'm here in support of home. >> I want to disregard some of the notes that I wrote today and kind of just speak from the heart. >> So my fiance is from east Austin. She grew up in del valley. A lot of her family had homes off of Riverside and in that area. And we often drive through the neighborhood and see where she and her family used to live. And you know, most of those houses are now shops today or their expense of single family home developments and yeah, in some cases they're multi-family developments and I understand why people are afraid of gentrification under this proposal. But if you look at the evidence, gentrification is not caused by allowing for high density development. It's caused by allowing high density development over in areas where people of color live. And that is what Austin did in east Austin. >> The segregate Ann of Austin's neighborhoods was the explicit goal of the current zoning code when it was created in black and [3:29:31 PM] when it was created in black and brown communities, had their schools relocated and housing redlined east of I-35 and co-located with industry and today, black and brown populations in Austin have been declining proportionally for over a decade, while Austin's population grew by 22% over the past decade. >> This is from cut. Much of that was fueled by the growth of white residents. The reverse was true across Texas and the nation, where people of color drove much of the population increase. In 2010, hispanic austinites made up 35% of the total population. In 2020, that portion fell to 32, and the same pattern occurred among black austinites, end quote. >> This is under the current zoning code, not under home, not under codenext and not under any of the pro density reforms that have been suggested. >> The solution is citywide zoning that applies to the wealthy areas in Addison altas district. >> As much as it applies to Vanessa Fuentes and Natasha harper-madison district. >> Thank you city council and the mayor for supporting home. Please vote yes. We have to do something. Thank you. [3:30:34 PM] something. Thank you. >> Good afternoon. My name is Joseph Hirsch. I also love muppets but didn't come to talk about that today. >> I took a break from grading about like 800 exams. >> To come speak to you all. But it looks like you all have been grading all my exams all day. >> Thank you for your work. I teach at Texas state in the math department. I teach full time and I really love Austin because I moved here with my life in pieces. >> And Austin really gave me so many opportunities. >> I was able to afford my apartment at the time with a very low paying job, and now I'm back in academia teaching and I'm really grateful and also I can't really afford to keep living here. >> That's not your problem. >> I'm very grateful to Austin. Still if Austin decides that it doesn't want people like me teaching their students, I'm open to that. I'm open to moving [3:31:36 PM] open to that. I'm open to moving somewhere else and building my life somewhere else. But I just came here to tell you all that I really love this city. I love being here and I really love my students. I love teaching the future engineers and scientists of, you know, the United States, the world. And like I said, very grateful to you all for your work, grateful to the city and hope I can stay and keep doing my work. Thank you. >> Thank you. Please begin to state your name, sir. >> Chris Paige, district one president of the Homewood heights neighborhood association and a member of the rosewood neighborhood contact team for a vote in favor of this policy is a gamble that power is measured in dollars and not people. >> And you're going to lose that bet. >> This policy seeks to divest vulnerable residents from the most valuable thing they have during a time of unique economic hardship for the working class. >> Under the confusing [3:32:36 PM] >> Under the confusing smokescreen of deregulation, it chums the waters for investors dripping with unfair informational and financial advantages. This policy is not a cure or a treatment. It is the disease. It's like prescribing cigarets to someone with lung cancer. It pretends that subdivided property will reduce land costs. But completely betrays itself by layering a 600 to 900% entitled rent increase. After phase two, it would take a child to believe what they're saying. >> This policy direct relates a housing market that has proven its singular purpose as higher profits, not community benefits, not racial and cultural equity, not income equality, not sustainability, and not affordability. >> Last Thursday, I went to a Bitcoin commons meting and listened to a tech billionaire for unreasonable solutions. Burns likened herself to mlk. I don't think mlk chartered discriminatory policy from a multi- million dollar multi-acre [3:33:36 PM] multi-million dollar multi-acre property outside the city. It would impact it, and I don't think mlk had a billionaire spouse positioning vast sums of capital to profit from the market changes. They seem to view our communities like software that they should rewrite. They forecast policy changes by drawing false equivalence with other cities that have an utterly different regulatory system. They get taxes differently. They have rental, they have rent income controls. They have all kinds of other tools that we don't and can't have. That's right. The effects of this policy will be devastating legal conditions as legal preconditions in the city like deed restrictions, hoas and environmental protections. These will focus most of the development pressure into vulnerable communities in the eastern crescent. You know, this aura even wrote about this three years ago. Their own publication said they mapped out where the deed restrictions are. They [3:34:38 PM] deed restrictions are. They mapped out where the vulnerable communities are and they showed that this kind of policy is discriminatory. And here they are with amnesia, forgetting that Wright Wright if approved, the first victims are going to be renters and naturally occurring affordable housing. Non- homestead property tax increases are going to be folded into their rent. And as the as the rental cost moves increasingly out of sync with the asset owners are going to be forced to sell to investors that construct whatever is most profitable. You know, this in parallel, working class families and seniors living on fixed incomes in your most economically vulnerable communities, people that can't keep up with the cost of living are changing. They can't easily relocate either. They got nowhere to go and they're going to be uprooted from the communities they created. And that this city prizes itself on. If you don't care about those communities first and foremost, first, then you shouldn't be up there. You shouldn't be public [3:35:38 PM] there. You shouldn't be public officials Ralls and I'm sure that our voters will see to that in the next election. Yeah, if you think if you think you've got a better idea of how things work, maybe you should listen to your own city's housing department that says market driven solutions to this housing crisis will likely reproduce the same dynamics that play out today, wherein parties with more resources will take advantage of the new regulatory landscape, while those with the fewest resources experience increased. Precarity why don't you listen to your experts? Why don't you listen to the 700 people that registered in opposition and all the people here today that are the real Austin residents and not people that just got shuttled here by felicity and Greg and the. >> Am I next? >> Yes, you are. [3:36:39 PM] >> Yes, you are. >> Okay. >> Hi, y'all. >> I'm Carmen Yanez, and I was born on this day when Reagan was president. I'm here on my birthday because that's how much I love this city and a lot of a lot of the people I love are here. >> And a lot of the people I love to argue with are also here. >> So where else would I be? And because I. I am old enough to remember the decades that followed Reagan council member vela, I know you're old enough to remember reaganomics, and it's why I'm super disappointed to see this trickle down policy proposed with no empirical evidence that it actually does anything for the middle class, let alone the lower class. And we can throw studies at each other left and right. But it's obvious we're not reading the studies the same, because if we look at Portland and we look at Houston, the black population was decimated by these policies, these townhomes that y'all keep talking about in Houston. I have a friend in the heights in [3:37:41 PM] a friend in the heights in Houston, the heights, because it's been so gentrified. And you know what? >> Townhomes rent for 29.95 a month in the inner loop, people might be talking to researchers about Houston, but are you talking to anybody from the fifth ward? >> Are you talking to anybody from the third ward? Are you looking at the housing that's being demolished to churn out these you know, oh, it's not 600,000. The median price, it's 489,000. And guess what? That's a starting level. Council member. Fuentes, you actually told us this was too appreciated. This you told us it was to create housing, 500 to $700,000 per house. And I asked you, why is it your job as district two council member, why is it your job, council member vela or any of y'all whose neighborhood is are going to be where the rent gap is? This is where redevelopment will happen without affordability. But they'll say, you know what? It was affordable to somebody who made $130,000 salary. They were able to buy something below the median. I'm so sad. I'm so sickened that billionaires have [3:38:43 PM] sickened that billionaires have convinced an entire generation of people who apparently don't remember the pitfalls of trickle down economics to believe that these investors are going to build for you. This isn't for you either. This is not for middle income people. All those teachers and firefighters, those those salaries we named, they're all five figures. They're in the 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s. This is for people at 150, 200 K and more salaries. And let me say this to y'all advocates, please stop telling people who have lived the history that you studied in school what is good for us. Please stop telling us that density is good for communities of color. Please stop telling us that this prevents sprawl. Well, you know what we know about sprawl. That's where our communities have gone. Our communities that lived in the central city. Guess where they live? Less dense places that are less expensive, where there are homes, where you can raise a family. I would love for us to work on the stuff we agree on. I'd love to see Greenfield development done with triplexes for plexes mixed missing middle. All the missing middle you want, but [3:39:46 PM] middle you want, but redeveloping your existing neighborhoods is cannibalizing. It is unleashing the market. This is the one option city y'all have to require affordability. How often do you tell us we're in Texas? We can't have rent control. We can't have inclusionary zoning. That's up for the debate. By the way. But here you could fashion this as a density bonus and you could put all the requirements you want on it. You can require affordability. Commissioner Greg Anderson conflict of interest, that colonizer mentality. I have something to tell you. Throw out Guadalupe and habitat. If y'all need this to build affordable stuff, then you should support a restriction to make it affordable. Yes, it requires subsidy. Yes, it requires subsidy because we don't agree on the problem. If your goal is just to churn out a bunch of units and all you care about is quantity and not quality, then you're just as bad as the neoliberal free trade agreement. People who sold out entire communities and economies. So that a few people could have more money. This is neoliberalism at its worst, and it has co-opted our Progressive economy. Please listen to the [3:40:48 PM] economy. Please listen to the people who are directly impacted. We know how speculation works. I heard somebody say, I just can't imagine how adding supply doesn't help because nobody's ever given you a piece of paper that said you have to leave this apartment because it's going to be demolished for a higher density building with a few density units. And guess what? You can't afford any of them. And here's the waiting list for affordable housing. It's five years long. Don't tell us you're doing other stuff for affordability. Those are band-aids. This is a machete. If you stop a machete, you need about 300,000 fewer band-aids. So stop moving the goalpost further from us. Preservation means that you would give something to get something, not give a bunch away. And then give a bunch more. If they keep a few walls. You want preservation, put an overlay on this. Put a density bonus on it. Let's acknowledge that our crisis is not supply. We're busting at the seams with new production and permits. Our problem is affordability speculation, stagnation of wages. You can't fix all those things with the code, but you sure as hell can prevent it. So I'm going to just [3:41:49 PM] prevent it. So I'm going to just finish up by telling you adus tiny homes pre-manufactured housing climate resilient solutions. Gentle density like the resolution you passed. Please don't take credit for creative financing on ads y'all did not come up with that. That is something we've been working on for ten years. It's time for you to implement it. It's overdue to staff somebody and staff told us the people's plan is mostly been implemented. Had y'all heard that, I'd say it's about 5. We have drainage criteria manuals to update. Then you can do gentle density, affordable and responsibly. Let's do it together, y'all. We don't want to fight you on this, but you had people you had billionaires at the table and a bunch of white folks who don't feel the pain of this at your table. Leslie pool. And we were locked out here for two, three years. We would love to come to your table. There is plenty we can agree on, y'all. There is plenty we can agree on. You heard from black brown. You heard from the long term service workers, the white folks who were social workers who bought their houses for very little. Yes, we would love to see infill. Guess what? Look down [3:42:49 PM] infill. Guess what? Look down south Lamar, north Lamar, east Austin, thousands of new units we've given you tons. Please don't take the ones Wright under us. Thank you. The next five speakers are Luke Metzger. Maggie wade, Omar shams, David Carroll and Zach abnett. >> We could hear the first. >> Yeah. Please read through those again. >> Luke Metzger, Maggie wade, Omar shams. David Carroll. Zach abnett. >> Good afternoon, mayor and council members. >> My name is Luke Metzger. I'm the executive director of environmental Texas. We're a nonprofit advocate for clean air and water parks and wildlife and a livable climate. We've done a fair amount of research on the environmental impacts of development and what we found is that sprawl is overwhelming, be far worse for our climate and [3:43:51 PM] far worse for our climate and our environment than density. I'd like to share just a few of the facts that we learned. People living in compact neighborhoods drive 20 to 40% less than those living in sprawling neighborhoods, producing less pollution. That means lower levels of ozone, a pollutant that can cause serious health problems. Sprawling cities have been found to experience up to 62% more high ozone days than compact cities. Compact urban development can help minimize the total amount of paved land in the metropolitan area, which contributes to less total runoff and reduced flood risks and water pollution. High and medium density development increases impervious cover 72% less than low density development. Suburban Ann developments with single family homes can consume up to three times more energy in construction and materials and up to 50% more energy and daily operations Ann than a densely developed neighborhood. And so the science is clear that compact forms of development deliver significant environmental benefits. And that's why we support the home [3:44:53 PM] that's why we support the home initiative. However, as we develop more densely, we do need to work to mitigate some of the local environmental impacts. And that's why we also support council member alters amendment to protect the tree canopy and urge council to support measures to promote greater use of green infrastructure such as cisterns and rain gardens in residential areas. As the home initiative gives Austin a golden opportunity to reshape how we develop for coming generations in expanding the areas within Austin where compact and walkable neighborhoods can be built will reduce the pressure for further sprawl. Protect our environment and enhance our quality of life. Thank you. >> Hello, council. >> My name is Zach abnett and I'm here to speak in support of the home initiative. >> I'm a resident of district nine and am also the state director for a large environmental nonprofit. >> My day to day work is advancing and supporting policy that is both good for the environment, good for people, and good for our sustainable [3:45:53 PM] and good for our sustainable future. I think the key part there is good for the environment and good for people. And I believe the home initiative definitely fits that mark. While I am a resident of Austin, I did grew up in the dallas-fort worth area and they issue that cities like dfw, Houston and other large metropolitan areas face is the issue of sprawl in every direction. When an area is growing, when people want to move there, and when you're not able to build close to where people want to work and genuinely live, you build out. And the issue there is, as you build out, you have to build highways for people to be able to transport and to downtown areas. And our carbon footprint and our impact, our negative impact on the environment grows. Austin has the opportunity to be able to build housing that that people can actually be in. That's close to where people can work and close to the areas that people want to enjoy. The beautiful greenery that the central Texas has to offer and home the home initiative has the ability to get us there. I have seen many people here speak [3:46:55 PM] seen many people here speak today about gentrification, and rightly so. But I think one thing we must be honest about is gentrification is the status quo. Gentrification is happening because we are not able to build close to where people want to live and the people that are going to continue to move here are going to continue to price out those who have been here. So this is why I speak in support of the home initiative and definitely ask the city council later today to also give it its support. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening and thanks for having me. >> I made the effort to come again. >> I was here last time and will come again as much as I need to. >> So I hear people say a lot of stuff that absolutely make no sense. And most of the time it's flat out false. >> And by the way, I'm for. So you can start booing if you want to. >> Somebody here has been fighting against the study and think that study that we brought up and if you want to address I wanted to address how why that argument was wrong. >> Did similar policies work in other cities in the past? The [3:47:57 PM] other cities in the past? The answer is yes. In 2019, despite Minneapolis is growing in population. After passing home there, the rents actually stabilized far more than in places that did not. And so their homes served as one of the key policies to tame housing prices in that city. And if he tells any story, it will contribute greatly in taming housing prices here as well. So I wanted to correct that. But there are so many things to correct. I don't even know where to start. People thinking that you have to build on your land. I'm still wondering where people are getting this information from. But, you know, at the end of the day, what I'm starting to realize, people coming here saying we don't want this home thing because it's not going to help with affordability. I think your problem is not with affordability, actually. I think you're worried about affordability. I'm going to tell you why. Last time I came here, some women and I think she spoke earlier, she had the nerve to call me to say that I was a non-legacy black sit for a second there. >> And think about that non-legacy black. What the hell [3:48:59 PM] non-legacy black. What the hell is that supposed to mean? Non-legacy black when? >> Don't say what you want to hear me say. >> Or maybe there are good blacks and bad blacks. I don't know. >> But I used to be part of communities where we've been told thesame crap about affordable housing. You know, situation where telling us, oh, if you do this, you're going to be expelled, you're going to be gentrified, you're going to be moved out. >> Well, guess what? We got moved out anyway without even getting past right. >> And my last story here for you guys, the reason why this is so personal to me, despite this woman, by the way, coming to me and saying, oh, you friend, to which people? >> Well, guess what? I don't care where it comes from, a billionaire or from a homeless person. >> I got displaced myself. I used to live in montopolis drive. >> I got displaced. >> I'm out of Austin. >> This is going to keep happening to you no matter what. >> Your time has expired. Thank you. Next speaker, please state your name. >> Hi, I'm Omar shams. >> I'm a resident of district eight and an entrepreneur. I'm here to ask what happened to the American dream. There is no [3:50:00 PM] American dream. There is no American dream without affordable housing. >> I'm the founder of a technology startup based right here in Austin, Texas, and I chose Austin over a place like San Francisco because in Austin we build if you build more houses and more housing prices fall, that's common sense. >> The people who don't understand that, who are denying that their math, their math isn't mapping. If you build more housing pricing, prices fall when housing prices fall, more people can follow their dreams. Instead of worrying about how to pay their landlord or their mortgage. Most people will never be able to afford a home in San Francisco. I support the home initiative because I believe in the American dream and I believe it's still alive here in Austin. Thank you. >> Thank you. The next five speakers are Sharon Blythe, Richard Smith, Sarah Herzer, Josue Howard and Kathy Gattuso. Please make your way to the [3:51:04 PM] Please make your way to the front. And if there's an open podium, it's yours. State your name as you start. >> Yeah, my name is Richard Smith. I'm an attorney, 30 year resident of Austin, and I'm the secretary for representative for the Austin neighborhoods council. I'm opposed to home as currently drafted because it does not provide affordable housing to those in need. The so-called home initiative purports to advance affordable affordability to middle class or middle income residents of Austin. Affordable and middle income or middle class are politicians. Words that are used to deceive people. And because most people all want would agree with affordable housing and most people think they're in the middle class, the reality is, in this case, the home initiative does not even ever say what affordable is. However, we know that from from city documents, the middle class in Austin for a [3:52:05 PM] the middle class in Austin for a for four person family is $122,000 of income and it will likely increase well over 130,000 next year. So what you're really telling people is that if you make 125 to $130,000, this is going to work for you for all the people that think that this is going to be good for teachers, for police officers, for service workers, for anybody making less than that amount, you're crazy. >> That's not going to happen. >> Everybody knows that. Everybody knows that. So you know, my complaint here is put an affordability cap in here to where the persons that are making use of this proposition are focusing on and have to be at a mfi of like 60% or less. Why don't you do that that will help the people that need the help. I'm sorry people someone [3:53:06 PM] help. I'm sorry people someone making 130 or $40,000 a year doesn't need help in housing. Okay, they don't. But but but people people making under 70,000 need the help. Thank you, sir. >> Thank you. Good job. Please proceed. >> Hi there. >> I'm Sarah Herzog. I mean, what he said you know, I was born and raised here. >> I was born at saint David's to two teachers who met at concordia university back when it was downtown and struggled to make ends meet growing up. But they were still able to make it happen. >> I followed in their footsteps, and I'm also here in Austin working in education now and living in district ten. >> Hey, Allison, I did everything they told me I was supposed to do. I graduated from UT Austin with high honors, did several internships, joined prestigious organizations at UT, got a 40 hour a week job and it's still not enough to make it here in Austin as a single woman at all. [3:54:07 PM] at all. >> All of my coworker are either married to higher wage earners or have 1 to 2 other jobs or side hustles. >> I just applied to a get a second job this past weekend and have had my fair share of side hustles just to pay bills and rent in this city. >> Billionaires like the Nozick say that this bill will be great news for middle income folks like myself. But say that this bill, as is again, as is, will be horrible news for me and my coworkers and friends. >> They are using people like me as pawns in their game to take control of the city. >> I love. >> And y'all, I am so in love with this city. It's gross and I don't buy it. Just like they can't buy Austin billionaire can't buy Austin. >> Our communities are not for sale. >> This bill will not only make Austin more inaccessible to folks like me, but it will cause just rent to skyrocket. >> And I'll be forced out of Austin as a middle income and [3:55:09 PM] Austin as a middle income and middle class. Austinite I know that the home initiative will not create affordable housing for middle income people like me without drastic and I'm talking drastic measures to address affordable Katy I'm a renter now and will most likely be kicked out of the city unless our community comes together with real solutions to the housing crisis and postpone and vote no. Thank you. >> Please begin. >> My name is Sharon Blythe. >> I'm here to tell my story. 1989 March 6th. I lost my husband to cancer. I had two teenage kids to try to make it. I didn't own a home at that time. >> I bought a lot, but I built my home. >> I'm still living in that same home and you all are trying to take it away from me. How dare you? How dare you? I do not have control over my neighbors. [3:56:12 PM] control over my neighbors. >> What they're going to do if you if you change this, this zoning. I have no. I have no protection. I bought that house because I had protection for the zoning laws. >> And now you're trying to change it. In just 2 or 3 months. This thing is just bloomed in 2 or 3 months. And shame on you. And I'm going to tell every one of you individually that I will sue you all individually, every one of you, if you pass this thing, say no to this home initiative. Started over and get some public input. Thank you very much. >> The next five, the next five speakers are are. Francis Acuna, schiera Albrecht, Scott turner, Jolene kielbasa and holly read. >> Please make your way to the front if she's called your name. I think they went to the bathroom. Okay. All five of them. It's been a long day. [3:57:16 PM] them. It's been a long day. Please call the next five. >> I'm here. Yep. >> That's not it. >> Mayor Watson and council members. >> My name is holly reed. >> I live in district ten. I serve on the parks board. And as president of the west Austin neighborhood group, we are opposed to the development entitlements being added to single family zoning by the home initiative. >> Without out adequate size restrictions to make new construction affordable. >> As currently written, these entitlements will result in 2 or 3 new buildings, replacing less expensive single family homes that will not be affordable for people earning a middle income to purchase or rent, depending on your definition of middle income. >> Please answer a question for me. What is the home initiative's definition of middle income? [3:58:16 PM] middle income? >> Can anyone tell me our teachers, emts, firefighters and nurses, middle income earners, according to you, here are the average Austin salaries for these jobs and corresponding home prices for affordable at that income level. Will the home initiative produce homes at those prices? His not if you do this. Next slide, please. If you want housing to be built in these price ranges, greater restriction than 0.55 and 0.65 for two and three units is needed or this will produce three mcmansion per lot instead of one. Let's pretend we're builders and run the numbers to maximize our profits next slide please. >> Here is a home currently for sale for $525,000 on an 8000 square foot lot. And council member Paul's district. If a builder purchased the lot and put three 1700 and 30 square foot townhomes at 800 and $581 a [3:59:17 PM] foot townhomes at 800 and $581 a square foot, this would yield three homes priced at $1,005,000 each, replacing the one home of $525,000. Is that affordable for middle income earners? Now, this is misleading to so many people who think it will provide housing they can afford. Next slide. You cannot control the market, but you can control the size of the units allowed in this proposal. Keep the fa at 0.4 for all construction in neighborhoods, all neighborhoods retain front side and rear setbacks require any third unit be no larger than 400ft S. Postponed voting on this ordinance and handle both phases at the same time so that the terms and phase one are not changed or eliminated in phase two. Please postpone or vote on vote no on this ordinance. Thank you. >> Thank you. [4:00:21 PM] >> Thank you. >> Please go ahead and state your name for the record. >> Hello, mayor. Council I'm Scott turner. >> I'm here in support of the home resolution. I support it because Luz it offers a choice. It offers a choice between Ann today, the code incentivizes single family homes. You just heard about far, there's been a lot of discussion around home sizes. Well, right now the code encourages single family homes. Everything is unaffordable. Don't have much to add that people haven't already said here about that. And that is unfortunate. But unless we do something, unless we offer more choices for more types of housing that are more affordable, then it will never be affordable again. We have to start somewhere and for me, I hope that that starts today because three units will will sell for less than one big home. And again, that incentive today, the code that has been baked into the code for many, many years and certainly was baked [4:01:22 PM] years and certainly was baked into the mcmansion ordinance favors single family homes. And as a home builder, I can speak to that. So I appreciate you all taking the time to listen to everybody here today. Shea appreciate all the efforts you've gone through to really try and make a good decision and applaud that. Thank you very much. Thank you. >> Next, five speakers are Jane Craig, rich Harmon, Adam Greenfield, Kiara Beaumont and Toby Nunley. >> Good afternoon. My name is rich Harmon and I live in district nine. I'm an urban geographer and I've been at UT for 18 years teaching geography, Cathy urban studies and urban planning over the years. And I've also taught at the university of Washington, Minnesota and North Carolina. I appreciate that everybody here, everybody here is cognized of the housing affordability crisis and that you all are trying to [4:02:24 PM] and that you all are trying to address it. We know how the multiple benefits of density. However, there are many reasons and ample social scientific evidence to suggest that the proposed changes will have a harmful impact on our most vulnerable neighbors, namely speeding up displacement in the eastern crescent. This is not an equitable plan as it stands right now. We need to have strong protections in place for vulnerable communities before we do something like the changes proposed here. Even with the amendments that are being offered by council members today , I urge you to take a page out of the hippocratic oath and first, do no harm. By proposing, by postpone, by postponing a vote on this harmful initiative, such a pause will give you time to work out meaningful protection for our most vulnerable neighborhoods. This will also give us time to talk through some of the mistaken claims of market urbanists, such as the less dirt equals cheaper homes myth, which is not [4:03:26 PM] homes myth, which is not supported by the scholarship and the con 101 argument, of course , housing is affected by supply and demand, but not in the simplistic way that market nervousness, that market urbanists think it does is. As it stands, this is not an equitable plan and I urge you to postpone the vote. I know that some important programs that will provide protections for vulnerable neighbors are in the works such as the assistance program for lower income residents. Want to add ads that council members Vila harper-madison, Fuentes and Velazquez are working on these and other protections need to be in place before we make these changes. We do not have to choose between the status quo and a flawed plan. Thank you. Who please go ahead. >> Oh, greetings. Hi. Council members and mayor, this a long time listener, first time speaker. My name is Jane kearns-osterweil and I live in district five and am a 44 plus [4:04:27 PM] district five and am a 44 plus year resident of the zilker neighborhood and want to speak strongly in favor of the home initiative. I recognize that I may not be the usual demographic that is spoken in favor of this change which is why I want to tell you my story on my property is the standard 21 Austin cottage that was built in the 1940s. I lived in that cottage for almost 40 years, raised my children there and raised my children there. My the previous owner tore down the detached garage and built a second house attached the two houses together with a breezeway and called it a duplex. And that's where I live right now. So we bought the property with the idea that the rental income from the other residents would pay for our mortgage, which it did, and the house is paid off. Yay but now that rental income pays for my ever increasing property taxes, and because of that I am, I can [4:05:28 PM] and because of that I am, I can still live in the zilker neighborhood because otherwise I wouldn't be able to afford to live there. I'm speaking in favor of this initiative because I want to add a third unit to my property. I believe that having this third unit will allow me to continue to live in my home. I'm currently working. Once I stop working that fixed income will not cover the 10% a year property tax increase that happens simply because of the neighborhood I live in. I don't want to sell my home and move. I want to age in place. I want to continue to live in the neighborhood that I love. I have two beautiful oak trees that I want to save. They planted them 35 and 40 years ago so they would get bulldozed if somebody else were to take over the property and develop it and want to provide housing that would suit someone who needs a smaller space. So I urge you to vote for the initiative and thanks for [4:06:30 PM] the initiative and thanks for your time. Thank you. Thank you. >> Good afternoon, Marin council Adam Greenfield here, district three resident. Thank you for your time. I'm here to speak in support of the home initiative. I think you've heard from other people that in other cities that have passed these reforms is that the impact has been has been modest but important. Every family matters and every house matters. Every home matters. Luz I'm excited to see this pass. And then to continue very important conversations around this measure. For example, how can the new development make our neighborhoods more beautiful? How can the new development make our enhanced sense? The character of our neighborhoods? How can we make sure that a portion of the economic activity from this development goes back into prevent ING gentrification, gentrification and displacement? How can we make sure that the new development is created by small businesses and homeowners? [4:07:31 PM] small businesses and homeowners? I think these are very, very important discussions, and I think that they would make a lot more people happy to really address them and make substantial progress on them. So thank you very much for your time, for this important measure and good luck with your decision. Thank you. Thank you. Next, five speakers are max Horstman, Rita Barry, who has a time donated by bill bunch. >> Is Mr. Bunch here? Okay so Rita will only get four minutes. Next is Julie Ann Reyes and Kellen Gildersleeve before we start, let me interrupt you just long enough. >> When someone speaks and they're leaving, please, no one engage in comments or harassing them as they're walking away from the podium. Let them state their position even if you disagree with it, they don't need then your commentary or critique or grading their paper. Gotcha. Thank you very much. I'm glad we knew who we were talking [4:08:35 PM] glad we knew who we were talking about. You can go ahead and talk. Start. >> Hello, council, my name is max Horstman and I'm an employee of the city of Austin housing department, but was privileged enough to take some time off today to be here as a renter in district nine. >> I've lived here for eight years, but I don't want to live in a playground for the wealthy. Tech billionaire investor class. I want density in my city. But not if it's done as a market driven solution pushed by billionaires like Nicole and Luke Nosek. I want housing policy solutions from groups like podair and geva policies that support Austin's community land trust and tenant protections, policy that have creative financing for adus home is an exacerbation of the status quo. Council member pool and others have repeated over and over that this will build small units and therefore the homes will be cheaper. Clearly we saw from an earlier presenter how that is logistically not true based on floor area ratio, possibly is written into the home amendment and looking to the affordability impact statement written by city staff [4:09:36 PM] statement written by city staff with unit without unit size restrictions either by subchapter F or another limitation. The proposed amendments may result in units with similar size and price to current single unit uses, which would not achieve the goals of the resolution to achieve smaller and more diverse housing types for middle income households. So the city has done a study about the proposed home amendment and it's shown that we're not getting smaller units out of this. We'll get whatever developers are willing to give us and developers will build as much as they can and charge as much as they can. These homes aren't going to be cheap and supply doesn't leave supply doesn't lend, doesn't lead to increasing to decreasing prices. When you have international real estate and investment firms that can buy up property really, really fast. I imagine that the development that will take place if home is passed, will mostly look like those huge white and black trim gentrification models that continue to pop up everywhere and have no real tie to community or culture. Here in [4:10:36 PM] to community or culture. Here in Austin. Ann. If you're going to densify Austin, try to create an overlay. Thank you. Vote no on home and delay. Thank you. >> Please. >> Hi, I'm Jillian Reyes. >> I'm a reporter and an activist here in town. >> And you're now sitting on stolen indigenous land. All of you. All right. There are stalling on are sitting on my people's stolen land. We've been here for 10,000 years. And Austin has a shameful history of racist attacks on black brown. And yes, my indigenous ancestors since since its beginning of European colonizers, Asian began on this land. This is new. This newest codenext aka home initiative is nothing more than yet another white supremacy land grab by the wealthy, including dirty lawyer mayor Kirk Watson, [4:11:40 PM] dirty lawyer mayor Kirk Watson, Ann and this city council to what we're we are hearing you saying is rich white people only rich white people only. I've been homeless. I've been gentrified. I've spent the last 20 years on and off, homeless, couch sitting, living with people doing that because I can't afford to live here. And I have degrees. I'm a former environmental scientist. I worked at Microsoft. I used to make a lot of money, but I can't do it when they're only hiring white people. They're only bringing in white people from out of town. They don't care about the people who've been here. There's not enough community input in this plan. As you all know. You shouldn't have made up your decisions, but we do appreciate you admitting that probably city council's already been bought and sold by developers. Y'all made up your mind before we were got here. Not to mention, why do we have a known Barbie Mckenzie Kelly on city council? Still, why do you work with white supremacy? >> Racists. >> You can't. It's out of order for you to make. [4:12:40 PM] for you to make. >> It's my free speech, sir. If you don't appreciate my free speech, I'm going to. >> You're not going to make direct attacks on council members. >> Continue. >> He needs to continue. >> There are too many empty brand new homes in Austin, empty condos and sky rises are still going up empty. >> We don't need to build. We don't need equity. We don't need building. We need equity. Justice now. Thank you. John Hager, Kristin Pollard, Christian Shupe, ten. >> Shupe and Eric polis. Five >> It's all yours. Hi my name is Christina Pollard. >> I came here to the last one and I just barely made it to this one. >> I am a teacher in Austin. I am also a waitress. Most weeks I clock in about 65 to 75 hours of work. That's nonstop. >> I get up at 530 in the [4:13:41 PM] >> I get up at 530 in the morning and I get home at 10 P.M. On good days, I get to take a nap in my car. >> In between jobs. And those are the good days. Add that to the care of my veteran disabled father and my life is just a series of never ending tasks and I am nowhere closer to home ownership. I would like you to please push this through so that people like me can have a chance at affordable housing. We are getting priced out of the city and it is not on our fault. I did everything the last generation told me to do. I got two very good degrees and I work at a job that means something. And when that job didn't work out, I got another job. I did not ask for a handouts. I did not ask for charity. What I'm asking for is to be able to live in the city that I provide meaningful services at. Thank you. >> Thank you. Please >> Howdy, mayor and council. My name is Christian sappi and I'm a district ten resident. [4:14:42 PM] a district ten resident. >> I'm in support of the home initiative. >> It's been a long road to get here and it's going to be a long day. Still ahead. >> So I thought I could cram every pun I could into two minutes. But first, a few of the endorsements of home. You have affordable housing with Austin, habitat for humanity, transit with capmetro environmental Texas, elderly support with Texas, Austin, ems, and even preservationists with preservation Austin. I think this broad coalition in support of a home says something now for the bad puns. Austin is not just a city, but a place we proudly call home. There is no place like Austin and there's no place like home. This proposal just knocks it out of the park. A true home run. Three units by right. It's not just about increasing numbers. It's about inviting more families to the Austin party in Austin. Three's not a crowd. Three's a home. Now let's talk tiny homes as my [4:15:43 PM] let's talk tiny homes as my husband knows, everything's bigger in Texas. But in Austin, we know that size isn't everything. It's the heart and the personality of the home that really matters. Now, for those who oppose now, for those who oppose the home wreckers, let's set the record straight. We're building a home for all a place everybody can call home. Sweet home. This is such a timely proposal for council. Let's bring this home for the holidays. Thank you. Thank you. >> Good afternoon. My name is John Hager. I'm a district nine homeowner and I'm here in support of home. When my wife and I had our first kid, we did the opposite of what many people do. We downsized and moved into the city. Few options were available to us in our price range and we were really lucky to find our beautiful little 850 square foot bungalow in ridgetop neighborhood. When we bought our home, the property next door was being redeveloped at a house nearly identical to ours had [4:16:43 PM] nearly identical to ours had been demolished for a much larger house that listed for $1.5 million. Way out of our reach and way out of reach for most middle income earners and this is happening all over Austin. Smaller, historic, more affordable homes are being demolished, thrown into the landfill at 25 tons of pop and replaced with enormous new builds. This is all because our current code incentivizes that practice home, and especially the preservation bonus. This is a real opportunity to reverse that trend. I urge you to pass it and I urge you to heed the recommendations of my colleagues at Austin preservation Austin and the Austin infill coalition. They're exhaustive and methodical, methodical work helps make this a bold yet really policy proposal that could put more homes in reach of more austinites voters in our city have given you a strong mandate to address our housing crisis. I'd like to thank council member pool for taking this issue head on. As well as other council members, planning commissioners and city staff who have worked tirelessly to make it better. This is a real opportunity for our city, so please don't waste it. Thank you [4:17:45 PM] please don't waste it. Thank you . >> Please begin. >> Good afternoon. Council members. My name is Eric Paulus. >> I'm the director of ecology action of Texas, one of Austin's oldest grassroots environmental organizations. >> I'm here today as a district three resident, and I am speaking in opposition to the home initiative. I believe, like many of you, that Austin needs bold, big ideas to address our housing affordability crisis and home certainly is a bold and big idea. >> However, it is also a radical, one size fits all approach that has a strong potential for several unintended and counterproductive results. >> I've heard some of you discussing why you support this proposal and think there's a lot of wishful thinking going on with this council. The idea that this proposal will bring about organic affordability sounds incredibly naive. There is nothing gentle about this plan. This is taking a sledgehammer to the community fabric of many neighborhoods, a fabric that will be integral to our resiliency in a future climate that is looking increasingly dire. I honestly cannot believe that those of you that claim to [4:18:46 PM] that those of you that claim to be very serious about climate crisis are pitching this as environmentally friendly in addition to creating a displacement engine that will result in the continued departure of the working poor from Austin and inducing more sprawl. This will also hinder our efforts to increase our urban canopy cover, to overburden our infrastructure and result in more frequent and costlier flash flooding. I understand the moneyed interests behind this bill have given you all a convenient narrative to support this initiative, but that doesn't make any of it true. Simply put, home is not an equitable proposal and will have harmful consequences that will counter the stated intentions of this bill. This is a policy that will enrich the already wealthy, might help some of the middle class and will hurt the poor. I urge you to postpone this vote and meet with community organizations to find a better solution. You cannot rely in the same pet not for profits and conflicted commissioners for the same tired old answer to give the developers more and more. When did any of you run on trickle down economics or as libertarian ideologues? You didn't. You weren't put here to push policies like this. You weren't put here to do the bidding of California plutocrats [4:19:49 PM] bidding of California plutocrats . The city needs to reset its moral compass, not take us in a radical investor driven direction. Thank you. Thank you. >> Good. >> Good afternoon, mayor and council. My name is Dan sappi, a proud resident of district ten. Three years ago I immigrated here in Austin, a city that quickly became my home. I'm fortunate enough to live in a neighborhood with mostly single family housing, all due to my family's immense sacrifices. However, my family in Vietnam, whom I'm hoping to bring here, may not be as lucky due to the housing affordability issue. So I strongly support the home initiative, especially the three units by Wright proposal. This isn't just a policy, it's about family unity, community diversity. The initiative could greatly impact middle income [4:20:51 PM] greatly impact middle income families, including mine, my parents and brother deserve a chance to live near me. We've been away for more than ten years in the city. That means so much to us. And this initiative could make it possible so thank you. Council member Leslie pool and all council members for considering this life changing initiative. Your decision can help give families like mine together and that means a lot to me. Thank you. The next five speakers are Marion moltke. >> Excuse me, Al Allen, Austin Stowell, Carly Shannon, who has a donation of time by Javier Shannon Lopez. Is Javier here? >> He is. >> Is Kelly Rogers here? Yes. Okay Kelly. Shannon gets six minutes and Luis Austin lugo. [4:21:52 PM] minutes and Luis Austin lugo. >> Please begin. Welcome. >> Hi, I'm Marianne Mueller and I live in district eight. >> I'm here to speak against this massive change to the land development code and zoning. >> And here's why. One as land becomes more valuable for building property taxes will increase as the tree canopy is reduced to make way for housing are already unbearable. Summer temperatures will increase at a faster rate as homes are torn down to make way for more units on the same land and the fabric of neighborhoods will be destroyed. Leading to increasing our gentrification problem in low income neighborhoods. As more importantly as housing creates more impervious cover, our already inadequately functioning stormwater runoff system will be asked to do even more. Austin we have a drainage problem already. As an example, south of the river, the water [4:22:52 PM] south of the river, the water showed flows west to east addition. Impervious cover will cause more flooding from onion creek and east Austin. I was on the ground in 2013, immediately after the Halloween flood, bringing hot food and helping clean up what was left of people's homes after the flood. It was really heartbreaking. Singh many of the people didn't have home insurance as they couldn't afford it. Some people died in that flood and as far as water goes, we already have a problem with our water system providing clean water to. And as the drought increases, we're going to have more of a problem with water. So increasing housing for more people to move here doesn't make sense to me. In the south west, anywhere our electric grid is already problems matic and to put more people under the same electric grid is going to create more stress. As I see it, the real beneficiary of this proposed [4:23:52 PM] beneficiary of this proposed change are the developers and investors tirz all the building people, architects, developers at the expense of us all three folks living here. I ask you to vote against this, please. Again . >> Good afternoon. I'm Kelly Shannon, a native, lifelong fourth generation austinite in d5 and I'm here to voice my support for the home initiatives in these chambers. >> Today I'm hearing fear for what will be if home passes. >> I understand that. >> But the biggest cause of the changes we fear won't be in the future. >> They were in the past, in the mid 80s. >> It's a matter of fact. >> I'll tell you what, Austin didn't used to be sprawling suburbs, central city homes selling for 50 times. >> Our median income. Old Austin was affordable, funky and a ten minute drive anywhere. >> And fond memories of that contribute to a fear of change. But I believe that fear is [4:24:53 PM] But I believe that fear is misplaced. Growing up here, a free Wheeling kid walking and biking everywhere all over town, I knew all the cool places I wanted to live when I grew up. >> The funky, the lucky find, tiny house and a cottage court. The single lot 1960s garage apartment in a unit in a subdivided old mansion or a unit in a Melrose place like 1920s eight plex. >> I imagined getting to know the people in my building. >> The random conversations Luz or babysitting for the young couple, or taking my elderly neighbor's trash out. These places I've described were built all over the original city and then townhouses and garden homes started popping up as infill in the. First wave suburbs. That was old Austin, walkable, neighborly and affordable that housing diversity offered lower cost entry for more people and more areas of the city. I want to say that again that housing [4:25:53 PM] to say that again that housing diversity offered lower cost entry for more people in more areas of the city. But our 1984 code rewrite prohibited all those types of homes and put in motion the conditions for our spiraling housing costs, displacement and sprawl by the time I was an adult, those cool old places were scarce. So like many austinites, I ended up living mostly in single family houses on large lots. But everybody doesn't need or want to live on a large lot. My great grandmother lived in a bryker woods granny flat into her 90 independent and able to walk to the grocery drugstore or hair salon or visit with family and friends in nearby houses, apartments and townhomes in the Austin we've built since 1984. That's rarely an option, and I'm baffled why that is okay with so many austinites pondering what I wanted to say today, I thought about how as we get older we start to see the life as a cycle, as a circle. For me, as I approach, approach my 60s as [4:26:55 PM] approach, approach my 60s as much as I love my house, I'm starting to want to live in one of those places like I dreamed of as a kid. I was fortunate to buy a home in the late 90s a 50s split level home on a third of an acre, an eight minute walk to south Lamar and all the services that it offers. And now multiple bus lines. But I've come full circle with a number of the changes being considered in both phases of home. My lot becomes an ideal ideal to redevelop into a collection of various size homes for myself and several others. Buyers and renters who'd benefit from what now? Only one austinite does. But I'm not here to just talk about my own needs. I love Austin and I want it to be affordable and livable for many, not just the super wealthy and retirees with portfolios. I watch the opposition video subdivide and conquer and was frustrated to see my fellow austinites make an argument very light on housing facts and instead with sweeping generalities, intense music and [4:27:56 PM] generalities, intense music and dramatic images to scare people about change. They claim the home initiative is all about developer profit and libertarian plutocrat. S well, I'm a liberal environmentalist, native who wants to age in place, but I'm being taxed out in that video and I quote, more density does not equal affordable housing or what the land is. 78% of my appraised value, which continues to skyrocket without any improvements to my house. If I put three compact homes on each half of my lot, that taxable land value is divided by six. Of course, even a small home in Barton hills won't likely be deemed affordable knell. But smaller homes on smaller parcels of land will be far more attainable for some than the 400 zero square foot scrape builds happening all over my neighborhood, selling for a mind numbing three and $4 million. Talk about changing the [4:28:56 PM] Talk about changing the neighborhood character. And that change is coming to every neighborhood inside the loop. If we don't diversify our housing options, the change people worry about is already happening. Started in 84 when we made single family homes large lots, and for all and sprawl. The only way to build in Austin and using the negative results of current code to oppose home makes no sense. Now's our chance to reverse that 40 year old mistake. And home is the right approach to do so. I flatly reject the characterization of it as banning single family homes, but it will allow more variety and access for more people everywhere for allowing three units per lot won't solve all our housing issues and the benefits won't happen overnight. But for affordability, for livability, for the environment, it's time we have a yes and a housing approach and start building like we did in old Austin. I encourage you all to vote in favor of the home initiatives. I thank council member pool for her leadership and thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts [4:29:57 PM] opportunity to share my thoughts today. Thank you. Welcome >> Hi all. >> My name is Ellie Allen. >> I have been in the housing space for almost seven years and I serve on the board of directors for the Austin infill coalition. >> This coming year will be my first year building a business on my own and not working for a larger company. >> As a new business owner and as an incoming generation of builders. I support the home initiative and I look forward to being able to provide housing that my family, friends and peers could more easily afford in the future. Thank you for your efforts to make housing more plentiful and affordable in Texas. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> The next five speakers are are David Sullivan, city clerk, was supposed to go if your name was called, if your name is [4:30:57 PM] was called, if your name is called. Yes, please approach the podium. >> She called your name. >> She called your name. Okay go ahead. >> My apologies, mayor. I'll go quickly, please. I am Luis Ochoa, lugo. Just a local neighbor and pro housing person. One thing I just want to say at the top of the hour, not top of the hour. It's top of my comment, is that if there's anything we do not have is time and not a lot of the homeowners talk about, oh, maybe six more months of study, maybe one year more of study. >> I would like to remind everyone that between 2020 and 2022, home prices doubled. >> And now, like I know very viscerally that's the case because my rent between 2020 and 2021 went up by 980% between in the beginning like end of 2019, when my lease started at a new place that was like the nicest place I ever lived in. >> That was for, I think, $1,200 to the end of 2020 when it was renewed at $2,300 for a studio apartment. [4:31:59 PM] apartment. >> We do not have time as was the one thing I wanted to say at that point on the other hand, just on a personal basis, there's a lot of good environmental economic reasons support home. It's extremely common sense policy around the world. Just on a personal level, you know, I've been trying to conspire my two brothers to move to Austin for a very long time. >> I've sacrificed, you know, everything possible for them to be able to live the life that they're able to lead at every point. You know? >> And, you know, they live in San Antonio. >> I haven't seen them in ages. >> And it's so difficult to live in Texas, live in Austin, a place where people can prosper. >> They can learn from my older brothers trying to become a doctor to my younger brother, musician, two careers that I'm sure the city could agree on that they could love. >> But in San Antonio they they bought a house three years ago for $100,000, a condo that is fairly common there in San Antonio and could not afford the life of me find them literally anywhere in the city that is not far from far southeast apartment next to a highway or far, far northwest next to a highway, [4:33:03 PM] northwest next to a highway, because that's where we decided that people like my family are allowed to live in, you know, like old apartments. Next to highways. >> Thank you. Please begin. >> Mayor and council. >> My name is Dave Sullivan. >> I'm here with a resolution from the environmental commission on which I served last night. >> We passed a resolution in support of home. >> I'll read a few parts of it, whereas testimony was presented to the environmental commission on October fourth that to help reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions, as Austin needs to increase population density as demonstrated by the modeling conducted by the university of California at Berkeley. >> Whereas the population density increases lead to more shared walls, the conserve heat and cooling. Thus requiring less energy consumption. Higher population density attracts closer businesses and services, thus reducing travel distance and allowing more trips to be [4:34:03 PM] and allowing more trips to be made by foot or bike and other micro mobility means and higher population density slows. >> Urban sprawl, which protects farmland and wilderness areas, and whereby, whereas the efforts to increase population density will need to be demonstrated in the application for federal money for project connect and therefore the environmental commission supports the proposed land development code home amendments to allow more household unit per lot and other measures to increase Austin's housing stock and resulting population density. >> See furthermore, these this support is conditional on maintaining current protection for trees and current impervious cover requirements and the elements listed below. And then my colleagues and I piled on a long list of additional dailies. This resolution was emailed to each of you by one of my colleagues earlier today or yesterday, but I will point out that we also included a [4:35:04 PM] that we also included a requirement that the home initiative should be implemented in accordance with Austin's climate equity plan to ensure racial and environmental justice and how Austin implements the home initiative on communities of color and underserved Austin communities. Special attention should be expended to prevent involuntary display. >> Thank. Thank you, Mr. Sullivan. Thank you. >> The next five speakers are you shan, Lynn? Heather hubs, Joshua Webb, Peter Breton and Jared Haas. >> If your names have been called, please come forward. And if a microphone is available, go ahead and begin your speaking. Please state your name for the record. >> All right. Hello everybody. My name is Heather hubs and I'm a student as well as a district nine resident. >> I'm here on behalf of every student that could not make it today, due the impending doom of finals. And I stand here before you to tell you with assurance [4:36:05 PM] you to tell you with assurance that if the home resolution does not get passed, we will not have a future generation of austinites to welcome as us students struggle to pay rent of dilapidated west campus apartments, we are forced to the harsh realization renting a home in Austin is simply unrealistic after graduation, if renting seems unrealistic, do you think we'd even dream about buying a home in the next 20 years? >> Say a renter gets hopeful of buying a home in Austin and goes on zillow to look for a home that isn't a condo or an apartment. But they won't find anything under a million. Everyone must accept Austin is changing and we can no longer keep our outdated housing policies. People need housing security for the future of Austin. Vote home and I encourage everyone who's in here who does not understand supply and demand to take a basic economics class. Thank you. Please please begin. Hi, my name is Jared Haas. I'm representing district nine. I would like to [4:37:06 PM] district nine. I would like to rey my opinion from someone that has lived in Austin for over 16 years, has been dealing with poor regulations on a professional and personal basis. I started my business designing homes for many middle income owners and fellow peers back in 2011, 12 years later, you now need to make an average of $180,000 a year just to afford my services is designed for the wealthy, aka the average Joe in Austin. I blame poor planning and complex and arbitrary regulation that does absolutely nothing for health, welfare or safety. Instead, our planning and zoning is designed exclusively to hinder housing and make the process unnecessarily rigorous. It's an insane, ludicrous concept that missing middle housing is illegal in Austin, or anywhere for that matter. Even if we eliminate all regulations today, Austin is still going to be unaffordable tomorrow, Austin will remain an exclusive city for the foreseeable future. We cannot put the toothpaste back in the tube, but at least we can offer options that can help take take the right steps to combat homogeneity and exclusivity. I fully support this measure and that is a small step in the right direction in allowing me to do my job, allow me to design [4:38:07 PM] to do my job, allow me to design a house for an artist, a musician, a teacher, or even for myself. This is our chance to take the proper steps to legalize all housing and housing for all. >> Thank you. >> Please begin. >> Peter Breton I've got slides. I just want to make sure they work. Give me one second. Cool I'm here to tell you about Marcel. Yes the shell with shoes on. It's a wonderful movie. Marcel is a young shell and lives with and cares for his grandmother Connie. But they live alone in their community. The rest of his family, friends and neighbors have been forced out, taken after the couple living in the home had a nasty breakup. Through the course of the movie, Marcel achieves fame online and the opportunity to find his community. But it's not so easy for Marcel. He's comfortable where he is and moreover, he's afraid that the stress of the new fame may worsen his grandmother's health. He won't make the step Erp Connie has lived a long life and she loves Marcel. She pushes him [4:39:10 PM] she loves Marcel. She pushes him to take the leap, but he asks, what if everything changes again ? Ann she responds with a smile. It will. She's gone before Marcel is reunited with his community, but is assured in the knowledge that Marcel has dived into life. I don't mean to portray this exact movie as support for home, but I would like you to think about the values it espouses embracing the fact that change is inevitable in life and brings new challenges and joys. Let's consider the poem from Philip Larkin. The trees are coming into leaf like something almost being said. The recent buds relax and spread their greenness is a kind of grief. Is it that they are born again and we grow old? No, they die too. The yearly trick of looking new is written down in rings of grain, yet still the unresting castles thresh in fullness, full grown thickness. Every may last year is dead. They seem to say begin afresh, afresh, afresh. Please [4:40:11 PM] afresh, afresh, afresh. Please help us bring our communities together again. Dive into life, please pass home. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> So I'd like to introduce myself. >> My name is Joshua. >> I'm a resident of district six. >> I'm a last name. >> Joshua Webb. Thank you. >> I'm a resident of the districts. >> I'm not an investor and I'm not a I'm not a home builder. >> I'm not a developer. I am a working class Texan. I've only been here for two years, so everybody can hate me. But I've only been here for two years. You know, I love Austin. It's a great city. I love Texas. You know, it's not perfect. No place is. But I really believe that passing this home amendment will really provide a more affordable Austin for people who are just like me, who are not homeowners, who are not somebody who is going to benefit from keeping their home, a single family home in the middle of Austin, Texas, one of the most a place that [4:41:13 PM] one of the most a place that people look to, to live. We have tech places and things like that that are here. And if you only place single family homes on such desirable land, you're making sure that you're excluding people like me, like black and brown people. My family was homeless. My dad, my brother, my two brothers, my sister and my mom all got expelled from their home and it wasn't because the developer came in and built a new house. It was because housing got so expensive, because my, my hometown wasn't built any housing. The supply wasn't there . Supply is a supply. Housing is a very important thing for building more housing. I speak strongly in favor of this home initiative because of that. And I know what it's like people saying, oh, well, I'm a racist. I'm somebody who doesn't understand this because I'm, you know, but I've had those effects happen to me and to my family. I've had it directly. And I know that building more housing, having more supply is going to help me as a black and brown person, as somebody who's not the richest person in the world. [4:42:14 PM] the richest person in the world. It's going to help me and my family have a place to live. At the end of the day, please, please take that into consideration. Take that into consideration and I really believe that it will spur the development of a lot of housing and it will allow us. Allow me to continue to live here in Austin, where I love so much. You know, I am a winner. Apparently, I'm a transient winner. >> But thank. >> Thank you. Johnny ruffier Sherrod muddle. >> Robin Hoffman. Stephanie. Tom as we have Russell Frazier, who has time donated by. Nita schiera. >> Alexis, did you help with those chairs. >> Hello, I'm robin hopper. >> I'm the access avenger organizer with the adaptive Texas. And I've heard a lot of great things. But you know what [4:43:17 PM] great things. But you know what the one thing I haven't heard is accessibility. >> See where is the accessibility in this plan and do we have it? You know what? What what else we need to add to this? >> We need to add visit ability. We that means that we need to be able to visit our friends in these new housing projects. There needs to be access somewhere in these new builds. How do we get private owners to provide ride access in? It's been 30 plus years since the Ada was passed and we're still asking for our access. I'm I'm astonished at I'm I'm I'm you know, I'm a upset I'm upset. I have a lot of respect for you people, especially you, honorable mayor Watson. I voted for you. Thank you. I'm, you know, I. I I, I believed in you. [4:44:18 PM] know, I. I I, I believed in you. You stood with us and your last, last term here. But I'm not seeing it. This trip. And and we need accessibility. We need visibility and we need deep, deep, deep affordability. You know what I mean? Look, we all say integrated access. All affordable housing, Singh the disability community is a large community. We make up 20% of Texas and we need to be represented, rented, and we need to be heard and we need to be seen and we need to be accommodated. And I would like to thank you all for listening to me and hope you have a great day. >> Thank you for being here. >> Hi. >> My name is Stephanie Thomas and I'm also with adaptive Texas . [4:45:20 PM] . >> And we chose to speak on this issue because we understand that it without well, we support density. We think that will actually help with with affordability, although I think that there needs to be a lot more done than what this plan involves. >> And I think that there needs to be subsidies included as well. But we want to see that the new homes that are being built are accessible. >> And if you look at the new homes that are being built now, they're really not going to be accessible. >> They're not going to be visitable. >> They're little cubes stacked up into the air with no elevator. And tiny homes can be accessible knell, but they need to be designed that way. So we would like to see some assurances from you all that there's more accessibility included in that. >> And also so we're very concerned about the raising of the number of people in the unit while I can understand how that makes a good thing for some [4:46:21 PM] makes a good thing for some people, like co-ops and stuff like that, there there was an issue not that long ago. >> It was in my lifetime where the board and care homes in this town were totally abusive to the disabled people that were living there. People were just crammed in there. There was not really any services provided and just somebody collected their social security money and then they were, you know, that was kind of it for them. And that's what we're afraid. One of the things that we're afraid of with the raising of the number of the people in the in the units. So we really would like to see you look at that issue a little bit more carefully. And then you know, not doing anything isn't going to solve the problem. Things are getting unaffordable right now at an incredible rate without any help from any home initiative or anything. So I don't support that. But I do really think that you need to link some affordability incentives and deep affordability because as poor people are moved out, affordable Katy gets worse. [4:47:24 PM] Katy gets worse. >> Yes. Thank you. >> Hi all. >> My name is Johnny rufai. I'm a student at UT Austin, a resident of district nine, and wanted to state my support for the home initiative. I want to start by, of course, thanking council for considering this item and state that my support is rooted in the fact that I believe the home initiative recognizes the reality Austin is in and works to make the city more affordable. Knell. This item would be a vital first step in opening up neighborhoods that have historically have been difficult to access, and that includes Hyde park, Bouldin creek and tarrytown. And frankly , I understand that that's a scary concept for a lot of folks. You know, people say that it impacts neighborhood character, but in my mind, neighborhood character is not about how a neighborhood looks, but who the characters of that neighborhood are. >> I believe that that should be an organic process, not something built on systematic exclusion. >> I will be honest. I'm a comms major. I'm not expecting to be [4:48:25 PM] major. I'm not expecting to be rolling in money after I graduate. >> However, that reality shouldn't exile me away from the core of the city. >> People should not have to choose from between a mcmansion or Mainer or pflugerville or Round Rock, adding a greater supply of housing in the city benefits everyone. There is valid hesitancy against actions the city takes because of its long history of discrimination. Ann. But what's important to note is that home actually undoes one of the key tools that were used to create the system in the first place, ensuring that wealthy neighborhoods remain homogeneous and fast tracking gentrification action. Now it alone will not solve the issues of gentrification and displacement, but I believe that it is a critical first step. And for that reason, ask you all to support. Thank you guys for allowing us time to speak. >> Ma'am, you promised me you you you promised me you weren't going to comment on. I'll give color comment. Whatever's the case. Please. Please avoid commenting to people as they [4:49:28 PM] commenting to people as they speak. And ma'am, ma'am, ma'am. And in addition to that, what we said earlier today was that we were going to follow the rules and people would be at the back if they had side issues. We've allowed you we've allowed you to do that, except you distract from other speakers because you put those behind them while their speaking. And I'll ask you not to do that as well. Well, so two violations of the rules is all your claiming. Please, sir, go ahead and start neutral. >> I'm neutral. So if you could just hold off with the placard. Russell Frazier, district nine resident 25 years. First of all, thank you for your service. I know this has been a long day and they're going to be long days ahead, but this is something we need to come to grips with, no doubt about it. I had a I had some notes. I was going to go through, but something happened to me this morning that made me rethink this. And as I sat here since [4:50:28 PM] this. And as I sat here since ten, it dawned on me that that the points I was going to raise have been spoken to over and over again more eloquently with more data. So I'm just going to relate what happened to me this morning. I got an email. I've lived in Travis heights for 25 years. I know hundreds of people . I got an email from an elderly neighbor. They are worried that they can't maintain their home and they're worried about the future because of the home initiative. I came here as a former negative, but after last last month's presentation, the. Is there anybody from planning department here after that very professional graphic and detailed presentation of both what what is planned in the home initiative as well as some background data. I'm neutral and I don't like being neutral. I'd rather be pro or con so I'm open minded about it anyway. Rey frankly don't know what to tell my neighbor, but I'll have to [4:51:28 PM] my neighbor, but I'll have to make up my mind because I'll have to vote yes or no. I'm not a Texas native. I apologize for that. My daughter is a Texas native and she is a Texas ex and based on our experience with her for several decades and living here residing in Texas for 50 years, we know that Texans are tough and they will make decision and they'll decide to stay or go. And they're very, you know, very fierce and independent. And I love that. And she also left us her cat when she left for Albuquerque because she couldn't afford to stay here in Austin. And her mom and I are very upset about it. So thank you for your service. >> Thank you for being here. >> Next, five speakers are are Susan Spataro, who has donated time by Margaret Gomez. So Susan Spitzer. Yes, she's by the door. Susan Spataro gets four minutes on deck is Rachel shores, [4:52:29 PM] on deck is Rachel shores, Stricker nalluri, Marilyn Shaw and Adam Powell. Please make your way to the podium. Welcome >> Susan Spataro. I live in district eight and, you know, after sitting here all day and listening and I've attended two other sessions, one phrase comes to mind and that is plan before you act. And I think this initiative has not had nearly enough planning. And one of the things that has to be looked at and I prepared a handout which did submit earlier, you should probably have is that of infrastructure for and it's not just building the infrastructure, but it's who pays for the infrastructure. I don't know how you can talk about affordability or move this forward without a comprehensive analysis of infrastructure for how much water you're going to need. >> Do you have that much water? What are the lines going to look [4:53:31 PM] What are the lines going to look like? Who's going to pay for them if you have a subdivision with 100 houses and let's say 40 of them, put two more units in there, do they pay for all the extra infrastructure for does everyone there or everyone in the city? >> One of the responses I saw from a question asked by the planning commission is, well, we'll do what we always do. >> We'll just bond all that. >> We're talking billions and billions of dollars. >> You really have to look at that before you can make this decision, because if you have to spend ten, I'm just saying this off the top of my head, $10 billion to build the infrastructure rather than ask yourself, is this an affordable project? So I do think you have to look at that. So I think that that is absolutely critical. The other one of the other responses I saw is, well, this will be paid by impact fees. >> What that says to me is we're really not talking about someone putting a granny flat in the back of their yard because developers don't do that. We're [4:54:32 PM] developers don't do that. We're really looking at coming in there knocking out the house that's there and rebuilding and have developers do that. >> I believe this is gentrification on steroids is because they're going to come in just like you've heard developers with money and they're going to knock the houses there and gentrify because the poorer parts of town get affected the most, most impact in in where I live I live in circle C and we have deed restrictions in circle C and if we didn't have deed restrictions, probably everyone in circle C would be here right now. >> But they're not Wright so people without deed restrictions, you have to think about those people too, and don't think you have. >> The other thing is that as I listen, not everyone can have everything they want. >> That's just how life goes. >> And that is, you don't just get a house when you want it. You have to work hard and it takes years. And not everyone [4:55:32 PM] takes years. And not everyone wants the same thing. Younger people today, some of the ones I know, they're not really interested in a house. They want to really need apartment and they want to travel instead. That's okay. Other people really like the stability of a house and there's nothing wrong or elitist with having a single family house with a backyard. >> So your kids can have a dog play out there. >> The school is down the block. They can walk or ride their bike. There's nothing wrong with that. And to act like that's an elitist stance I find really offensive of. So think that's another issue. The other thing is, you know, you all are supporting teleworking. Well, in Austin has a very high percentage, 28% telework people who are teleworking a realtor told me the other day they're looking for bigger houses because they would like to have if it's a couple, two offices in that house. So it's something you might want to think of. Lifestyle changing the other thing is just two days ago, there was a report out from [4:56:33 PM] there was a report out from realtor.com saying that real estate professionals are predicting home prices will fall in 2024. Austin Texas could see the steepest decline with a 12.2% drop expected. So, you know, we're coming out of a of a thank you, ma'am. >> Appreciate it. And commissioner Gomez, it's nice to see you. Yes, ma'am. >> Hi. >> Hi. >> My name is marlin Sharkey, and I'm a resident in district nine and currently a student at UT. I had my last final exam this morning and luckily was able to make it here today. Unlike a lot of my fellow students who may feel similarly. But today I stand before you to express my support for the home initiative and why it is crucial for our community and our future . >> While the initiative doesn't guarantee any affordability in our neighborhoods, I will say as supply goes up, prices go down. >> That's basic economics and it [4:57:36 PM] >> That's basic economics and it would allow for more diverse housing types to be built that comply with the needs of different groups of people. >> I'll also, as land values increase and property taxes increase, splitting that amongst three houses on a single property might make it less than splitting it between 1 or 2 houses on a single property. >> Increase density also makes it easier to bring water to people than it is in the suburbs where everybody's all spread out . And lastly, this initiative doesn't mean that your home has to change anything as a homeowner, if you don't want it to. It can stay. It's your house, you own it. But I wholehearted support the initiative because I believe in an Austin that welcomes all and Austin that thrives on diversity and an Austin that gives every citizen the opportunity to live their best life. And I think this initiative represents a path to a brighter, more inclusive, more inclusive future where no one is left behind and [4:58:38 PM] where no one is left behind and everyone can partake in the opportunities our wonderful city has to offer. Thank you for listening. Appreciate it. Thank you. Oh, yeah. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Hi, I'm Rachel shores. And I'm a district. Mean I'm a resident. >> Excuse me. >> Of district four. My husband and I bought our house in 2014, and we bought a very small, tiny house. >> However, our small, tiny house is on a very large lot, and that is the situation with a lot of our neighbors. In the past ten years, we've owned our house almost ten years. >> We, we have had the house on the left side of us torn down and they put two houses on that lot. And then on the other side of us, they tore down the old house that was there and they built a four plex. And I am in favor of this. I have experienced it. We did not cut we didn't suffer any kind of negative consequence from this. If anything, it's a benefit because our neighbors are helpful. They will you know, [4:59:38 PM] helpful. They will you know, watch our front porch for packages when we're out of town. You know, they'll keep an eye on our house when we're out of town, they'll invite us over for picnics or backyard barbecues, things like that. And house cleaning can be done. Sorry. Multi-family housing can be done. Well the fourplex that was built next to us, they planned ahead and they put a one car garage for each of those four plexes. So those people have a place to park at least one car. And then they also have a driveway. So I'm just here to say that it can be done well, I do support it and I do want you to support the home initiative. Thank you. Yeah. >> Hey, y'all. My name is Adam Powell was born in Austin, and I'm a district seven resident. >> And I've said it before in these chambers, but it bears repeating that the reason that I was able to become a district seven resident was because I found a townhouse to rent that's [5:00:38 PM] found a townhouse to rent that's part of a three plex. >> But today I want to acknowledge a really important truth, which is that all of the policy decisions that our city has taken in our history have led us right here, have led us into this housing affordability crisis. >> We have to do something Lang and while the home resolution will not fix everything, I really, truly believe it is a meaningful step in the right direction. I also believe that in addition to this resolution, we can continue our efforts to pursue anti-displacement policies and subsidized capital a affordable housing Lang what I'm hearing so much here today is people afraid of displaced tenant and concern for our most vulnerable community members. And I just want to say that I completely agree. >> They're right to be concerned about those things and we can pursue policies that address them. >> So I hope to see this council vote yes on the home resolution today to continue to invest and really urgently pursue anti-displacement policies, subsidized capital, affordable housing, so that we ensure nobody in our community is left [5:01:40 PM] nobody in our community is left behind. Thank you so much. Thank you. Please >> Good evening. Council I would like to speak in support of the home initiative. And to understand why I'm in support of it. >> I'd like to ask how what do people think the definition of luxury is? >> Because I see a lot of people asking, why are all the new condos and apartments and homes going up? Luxury well, I have poured concrete myself, adding a floor to my grandparents house. I've helped build out of two by fours, you know, habitat for humanity houses. >> It's not that hard to make a building. The reason why a condo or apartment is luxury is we don't allow them to be built in most places. It's a luxury because you can only build them in certain places. That's within our control. What we allow to be built, what's not in our control is why a house in central Austin [5:02:42 PM] is why a house in central Austin is luxury. A house in central Austin is luxury because we can never make more land close to central Austin. That land was given to us by whatever you believe in god Earth. But it's there and we can't make more of it and think it's a real luxury. We to say that you have to own 5000 or 7000ft S of it to build a house. I think you should be able, if you want to, to buy a smaller piece and build a home on it. So I really hope that you support this initiative. Please, so that people are able to build homes that suit them or or that they can afford. Thanks >> Thank you. >> The next five speakers are Bob Kafka, brant Thomas, Ian brown, Ben Lukens and Ron Cranston, who has time donated by Cathy Cranston is Cathy here? Yes okay. Ron Cranston gets four minutes. [5:03:46 PM] minutes. >> Hi, I'm Ron Cranston. >> Just a second. I think the microphone needs to be turned on . >> Here we go. >> Thanks. >> Thank you. >> Can you hear me? >> Yes. Yes >> My name is Ron Cranston. I'm with adaptive Texas and the personal attendant coalition of Texas. And I, I agree with what my cohorts of adaptive said about speaking neutrally on this in terms of the fact that, yes, we know that change is coming. We know that there is an issue with housing for everyone. >> The thing that I have to say [5:04:48 PM] >> The thing that I have to say is, as we always say, affordability access ability that is physical accessibility and integration of folks with disabilities in into the community is extremely important . A person with a disability who is on SSI is at about 15 one 5% of median family income. So this is it's an example of just how important the accessibility or affordability is in housing. Now I'm sorry to interrupt, ma'am. >> The mayor already asked you not to hold signs behind the speakers. Can you let him have his minutes to speak? I'm not blocking anybody. Maybe can help and make sure that we aren't interrupting in his speaking. Thank you. Please proceed. >> Now, as an example of what a [5:05:48 PM] >> Now, as an example of what a person with a disability has to go through for living in the community, our eligible city for services and housing and health care are all scrutinized by our for income. >> Now, on the other side of that, if we wish to make this equitable, those who are going to develop and invest it and sell housing housing in Austin ought to be scrutinized as well. >> Well, if they their match a trigger point up and above a certain profit amount, then maybe we should be having them invest in the funding for low very deeply subsidized housing in Austin. If this can be done, I think you will see what we've heard from folks in terms of [5:06:49 PM] heard from folks in terms of housing and a community that is for everyone. >> It really exists. >> Thank you for your time and please don't go further without addressing these issues of accessibility, affordability and integration of folks with disabilities into the community. >> Thank you, sir. >> Thank you for your testimony. >> If the clerk has called your name, feel free to step up to one of the microphones and state your name. Thank you. Hey I'm Ian brown. >> I'm here in favor of the home act. >> I can't believe I'm talking to local government. I honestly haven't voted in 15 years. Didn't know who my rep was, but it's Paige. >> Nice to meet you. Paige Paige. So thought I was pretty fired up about this issue to come in and talk, but I've watched live stream all day and there are people very much, very [5:07:49 PM] there are people very much, very much more fired up than I am. >> I, I there's a lot of focus on the macro, which brings up a lot of great points. The, the environmentalist effect, the, the gentrification effect, the accessibility effect. >> I think it'd be helpful, you know, guess they represent the micro here. I have a big yard. I live in an intergenerational household. I have two kids and two grandparents living with me. >> The house is 1000ft S already. >> I'd love to build a granny flat. >> And I think it's insane that I can't. >> I think it's weird that there's all these restrictions on how close my garage can be to the street and all that. I'm sure some of it's reasonable, but. But I feel pretty confident that when you zoom in on the micro of what's actually going to happen, it you know, this is a step in the right direction. Ann I also encourage everyone to realize it's not like a one shot thing, like, you know, you could make this decision and then you could improve it next year or [5:08:50 PM] could improve it next year or adjust it or do something else before it's not. It's, you know, it's just one step that we could move towards. Yeah. So hopefully you just wanted to come make my voice heard. Pretty exciting. Thank you. My opinion of all of you is absolutely raised from whatever was in my imagination before. You're doing great work. Thank you. It's pretty easy to register to vote too. >> You registered Yo good. The next well, then use that next. >> Speakers are Jim Adams, Andrew teagle, Barbara Gibson, amber Orr and Ryan knell. >> Welcome. Council members. >> Mister mayor, mayor pro tem. My name is Jim Adams. I live in the Miller neighborhood. I'm here today to express my strong support for the home initiative. I applaud council member pool [5:09:50 PM] I applaud council member pool for bringing this initiative forward and I thank my colleagues at the aia for working so intensely with the planning commission and council to bring this these policies and to refine them today, I believe that the home initiative is an important first step in really easing the city's vision for a more equitable, affordable, diverse and sustainable community. >> As a longtime resident of Miller and as its master plan architect, I'd like to share some lessons learned from this neighborhood that will celebrate its 20th birthday next year as acknowledge that this large public private project is fundamentally different than infill in existing neighborhoods . But I believe that the policies and recommendations of the home initiative can achieve many of the positive qualities of Miller. >> One of those qualities is housing, choice and affordability. >> The home initiative will [5:10:50 PM] >> The home initiative will incent devise a wider range of choices from single family homes to townhouses, cottages, ads, making neighborhoods suitable for people at all stages of their lives, allowing residents to age in place and for family members to live near one another. >> At Miller, we have tri generational families who live within a stone's throw of each other. >> We also have young people who are moving out of their parents houses into to ads nearby affordability. >> We've heard a lot about that today. It's a serious challenge in Austin. It's a serious challenge at Miller, but housing attainability can be enhanced with smaller housing types and with programs that can assist folks to purchase a home at so. So I encourage you come visit Miller and see what a great neighborhood it is. >> Thank you. Long time no see. Yes sir. [5:11:53 PM] Yes sir. >> My name is Ben Lukens and I'm here to represent the northwest Austin civic association in our service areas from 183 to 22, 22 mopac to 360. Got a bit more than 900 dues paying households have been around since 1970. We host a wide range of activities. You can look at us, know the website. On the 15th, we held an informal town hall on the proposed changes and then between the 15th and we had, by the way, about 170 people at that town hall. And between the 15th and December 4th, we surveyed neighborhood residents regarding proposed changes, got 194 responses. And I'm just going to run we have ten questions. I'm going to run through them. So do you support the proposal before council to reduce the lot size of single family homes to 50 750ft S? We had 79% said no. Do you support the proposal that each single [5:12:54 PM] the proposal that each single family lot could have more than could have three units built on a 57 50 square foot lot? 84% said no. Do you support the removal of setback requirements? 89% said no. Do you support an increase in height limitations for single family properties? 82% said no. Do you support the removal of height restriction height limitations on single family? 92% said no. Do you support an owner's right or choice to build a tiny home, not to exceed 400, 400ft S? 61% said yes. So it's a lot of positivity on that. Would you support a future proposal to reduce lot size at 2500ft S? 89% said no. Would you support an increase in impervious cover? 79? No. Do you know the deed restrictions? 63% said yes. Are you aware of the city of Austin doesn't enforce deed restrictions and again, 63% said yes. We had about 80% of our people from the 731. And [5:13:54 PM] our people from the 731. And about 1899. So. That's my. Thank you. >> Hi, my name is amber and I'm a district one resident. >> But I'm going to read and I'm opposed to home and I'm going to read you from a district three resident. >> I hope this letter finds you. >> Well, I'm writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed home initiative in our community, specifically, how will this increase affordable homes? >> While understand the importance of responsible urban development, I believe this particular proposal poses significant challenges and concerns that should be thoroughly considered before moving forward. There are a lot of residents that oppose this. >> My primary objection options include traffic. >> The proposed project is likely to exacerbate existing traffic issues and could lead to congestion affecting both the safety and convenience of [5:14:55 PM] safety and convenience of residents and commuters. It will eliminate parking requirements, which will create many problems infrastructure strain our community's infrastructure may not be adequately equipped to handle the additional load imposed by new residential development. This includes concerns about water supply, sewage and other essential services. Environmental pool the environmental consequences of the proposed construction, including potential harm to local ecosystems, wildlife habitats need to be thoroughly assessed at preservation of our natural surrounds is crucial for the well- being of both residents and of our environment. Impact on schools and services. The influx of new residents could strain local schools and public services. It is therefore essential to evaluate the capacity of educational institutions and public amenities to accommodate the proposed population, increase esthetic and cultural considerations. Burns the unique character and esthetics of our community are integral to its identity. So similar projects have already altered the [5:15:56 PM] have already altered the landscape and architectural harmony and could diminish the cultural and esthetic appeal that drew many of us to this area. >> I urge the city council to carefully consider these concerns. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> The next speakers are Jonathan Puckett, Dennis Elwell, chase Dalton and robin Sanders. >> Please make your way to the front. >> Okay. Hi everyone. My name is Dennis Elwell. I am a resident of district one and I'm here in support of the home initiative. I'm 33 years old. I'm a pretty young guy, but I'm about to get married this year and I'm looking at how do I buy a home? I've never bought a home before. [5:16:56 PM] I've never bought a home before. I've always rented in my entire adult working life and Austin is known for being a really, really expensive city. When told people was moving to Austin, they all said, how do you afford it? Isn't that super, super expensive? And yes, yes, it is. But I love it. I love the culture here. I love the food. I love everything about the live music scene here. And it's one place that I can really see myself calling home. >> But what's really, really difficult is there's almost really no affordable starter homes here. >> So I looked at the median home price recently. It was something over half $1 million. So with more supply, you know, the con 101 argument, we'll have more affordable housing. And this has been proven time and time again in cities across the country, across the world. Minneapolis is the one that comes to mind for me. How it is kept prices pretty stable. Well, as compared to its midwest neighbors. And we can do the same here in the south in Texas, in Austin. So I implore you, please support the home initiative. Make Austin affordable for folks like me. And I want to also thank you for your courage, thank you for your stamina. I'm training for a [5:17:58 PM] stamina. I'm training for a marathon, and I applaud the stamina. I've seen you guys here. Listen to everyone throughout the entire day to day. And thank you again. Special thanks to councilwoman pool and councilwoman harper-madison. Thank you so much. Thank you. >> Moving along, sherry Taylor, mark may, Hayley Cole, sandy Ramirez. If your name has been called, please make your way to the podium. >> Hi, everyone. >> Thank you so much for having me speak today. >> My name is Hayley Cole and I live in Clarksville. I'm an artist and I have been in Austin for nine years. Thank you so much to the council and everyone listening, everyone for bringing your hearts and your desires to make the city a better place. I think we're all actively working towards the same place. I'm in support of the home initiative. I was out unhoused last year for almost a year, moving around from different couch to couch as an artist and entrepreneur, it [5:18:59 PM] an artist and entrepreneur, it was definitely really hard on my overall well-being, my mental health, emotional health. And I my heart really does go out to anyone who is struggling right now and is being displaced and when he's a single woman, single mother, I think I think we obviously need change. So for me, obviously this plan isn't perfect, but we do need this. We do need more housing, period. I agree that we need to safeguard affordability in this plan. And, you know, a lot of people are like asking why the rush? And of course we don't want to rush into anything, but there is urgency around this issue as people are fighting for their lives, trying to make ends meet and put food on the table and keep keep a bed for their them and their family to sleep in. As we know as we go like past survival, going into creativity of this beautiful city. This has been a city that has really honored artists and musicians and free thinkers over time and I really want to make sure that we continue to do that. We can't [5:20:00 PM] we continue to do that. We can't control inflation, but we can control passed laws to strengthen security in the city. And again, we just simply need change. These basic, you know, requirements for existence shouldn't mean that we're austinites suffering at all times. I want to see, you know, our conversations more around thriving, around creative city, more on love, unity and harmony and what we can build in this city. At this time. Thank you. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Oh, no. >> You may be seated if that's what you want to do. Or you can stand at the podium. >> So do I translate myself or tell them you're going to get someone? >> If we know you can speak English. So if you would please. >> Zealand espanol. >> Espanol, senor. >> Okay. >> Well, Esta ciudad si seja de Ken. No. Viviendas economicas. [5:21:04 PM] Ken. No. Viviendas economicas. Or accessible hacen todo lo posible. >> Okay. >> Para no se acessivel para todos nosotros lo pagamos los taxes Y los por ustedes no nos representan Sabino desperdiciar millones de millones de dolares para la situacion de personas sylnovia okay comprando hotels. Y no tienen response habilidad para mostrar lo unicamente en las viviendas es acepto aumentar a las personas sufren mientras ustedes cobran mas taxes ustedes aumentaron Su salario por cuarenta por ciento. Yep. You raise your you raise your your income by 40. Well, so people are suffering. De what's up with the $550 million that you've reserved for the to eradicate the homeless? What happened to that get pasa con los quinientos quincy dollars no Ken todos mil millones de dollars disculpame [5:22:07 PM] millones de dollars disculpame Austin energy estar subiendo los precios nuevamente Austin energy is raising the prices again. Esta siendo el consejo. What is the council doing to eradicate that? This council goes out of their way to ignore the rights of the property. Property owners . Yes. Yes. La cama con los contadores promoters de la senora pool. She's in bed with them with the construction worker. Well not construction workers with the developers, but as a propias beneficios personales. Yes >> Thank you very much. Media Adler. >> Adler. Where's he at now? >> Adler is over there with the short term, ma'am. Your time is expired. >> Thank you. Thank you for being here with us today. Gracias. >> Thank you. >> Hi. >> Thank you for. >> Hi. My name is mark Mann. I live in d5. I believe that we cannot make an informed vote on the home proposal today. [5:23:08 PM] the home proposal today. >> Why? >> Because you have not provided the data that justifies passing home the total property value of the impacted properties in Austin is something north of $50 billion. That's with a B, that's something like the entire market cap of target or Volkswagen Ann that's a lot of money. And when people manage that much money, they make choices, is driven by data. So where's your data home is a big change and it's complicated. This is exactly why you have to have data to inform your vote. There is a particular pro con list with the home plan. There's also a different pro con list out to just do nothing or any other plan. I think it's incredibly reckless to vote yes on home and then start to collect data. You need this data to compare before you vote. [5:24:08 PM] to compare before you vote. >> So I propose you compare. >> Do nothing to home, put the results out on the Watson wire and Leslie pulls facts Paige a suggestion for three pieces of pro con data to start with are the following how many units under $500,000 are going to be produced with the two options? How does the racial makeup of east Austin change in percent? With the two options? What is the ratio of gray versus green in the city? With the two options by gray, by green versus gray? I mean green space versus impervious cover, this isn't a complete list, but we give us some real data to see how the two options compare. If you're making decisions without data, then you're just taking your 50 billion. Our 50 billion to Vegas. And you shouldn't gamble with other people's money. >> Thank you, sir. >> Hi, good afternoon. [5:25:12 PM] >> Hi, good afternoon. >> Welcome. Can't get up there. >> Just let me sit down. >> You can do whatever you may be seated or I got here. >> Good afternoon. My name is sherry Taylor. >> I happen to live in Mueller, which is district nine. >> I wanted to take a moment since this is pearl harbor for military persons but don't have but two minutes. >> So guess I'll just mention it. Thank you. I do want to say, though, that in Mueller is a lawful out of building and as a part, I don't understand why anybody would vote yes for this is because how do you get the construction even going if the bulldozers and whatnot can't even get to the site? In Mueller, we had the issue where I live of the garbage bins have to be out in place. The children are three different levels of children have to ride a bus. The cap metro bus comes picks up elderly, then the us postal [5:26:13 PM] elderly, then the us postal service comes and the FedEx comes and all these temporary people use the thoroughfares where where would there be time to build something to put in the back of your your house? >> So I don't understand that and how it helps because if you've got people who are lost income or low income or couldn't come back from covid because their job like a waitress or or whatever, didn't didn't come back, they don't have the income to buy whatever, whatever you would get out there. So I just want to say, we have already experienced that in Mueller. >> And the thing we're experiencing now is they're building the buildings right to the sidewalk. So what the thing about you're supposed to have some space for a front yard if you build the end of the building, the apartment right to the sidewalk, the traffic trying to use that four way stop has the turtleneck turtleneck out, try to get by. So I hope you'll at least give some space where kids growing up would have a decent yard and their parents [5:27:13 PM] decent yard and their parents have a decent yard and their pets have a decent yard. Thank you, ma'am. >> Next, speakers are Mary Engel who has time donate by Leah Ziegler. Are either here then we've got Francis preve, Jay Crossley who has time donated by Katrina Miller. Thank you. Is Allison vargas here? Okay, so zo Jay Crossley gets six minutes. >> Hi, my name is Jay blaze at Crossley. >> I live in d4 in a single family home with my wife and my nine year old kid. >> And I'm the executive director of a nonprofit called farm and city. >> And we work across the state on Texas public policies. We are essentially a climate change organization that focuses on Texans being able to afford [5:28:14 PM] Texans being able to afford living healthy, low carbon lifestyles in our cities and. My slide didn't work. >> And it's just today's been today's been a lot. >> And I do want to thank all of you and I want to thank everyone who's here. >> You know, our our world is changing. >> Our region is growing. >> Very difficult thing change happens and it doesn't have to hurt people and we don't have to keep hurting people with exclusionary policies. And so I hope we can all work together to figure this out. I wanted to just cover, make sure we understand the environmental impacts of our current zoning system, which is devastating. You know, our region transportation is the biggest way we emit carbon. The people of our region. It's our biggest problem that we are doing to the world is our transportation. And austinites drive more than the people of Houston or Dallas or [5:29:15 PM] people of Houston or Dallas or San Antonio because we have more roads and we're more sprawl Ed we're more car dependent in our region than the other regions. A part of that has been that we've built more roads in spite of misinform nation, we've built more roads per capita than Houston or Dallas. >> But part of it is the city of Austin's policies to not allow people to live inside of the city and which have been devastating. >> And so some of this was mentioned before, but the carbon impacts of living anywhere near here or where I live seven miles that way versus living 40 miles that way are huge. >> And people who live 40 miles like that way, it's not like they want to be emitting carbon. It's like they don't have an option. They the they cannot get to without driving five miles. And so this kind of policy could change that. And also land conservation, our region destroys trees and destroys land at an extraordinarily fast rate. [5:30:16 PM] at an extraordinarily fast rate. Our regional transportation plan, the official plan is we will convert 350mi S of rural and open space to suburban space over between now and 2045. It's extra ordinary the extent to which we are cutting down trees past Maner and south of Buda. We are we're it's terrible what we're doing and we shouldn't do that anymore. Shaw and so is there, are there policies that can make us have a better approach to the climate in the environment while also helping us afford things? And yes, there are and it's not. I do not agree with the concept that that is it is unknown what might happen if you pass this today. There is plenty of research and we have tried to share lots of data on the experiences of people living in Austin and there is data like there. The story of Austin is how everything's gotten so much more expensive. The Hyde park [5:31:18 PM] more expensive. The Hyde park neighborhood Eid, it costs $900 more a month to live in Hyde park today than it did ten years ago. And the east Cesar Chavez neighborhood, it costs more. It's the most expensive neighborhood, the ones we looked at in terms of increased costs. Those neighborhoods haven't changed. They haven't let more people be there. And they've gotten way more expensive, whereas our other neighborhoods like like the uno project, which allowed more people than that part, most of west campus has gotten slightly cheaper in terms of median monthly housing costs over that ten years like slightly cheaper at and other neighborhoods that have allowed people to live in apartments or people to live the way they want. We have seen the benefits of this, and so and the other examples, you know, it is not affordable. There's nowhere affordable in hays county. The whole story that people have to drive to qualify it run berg at north Lamar is affordable pool [5:32:19 PM] north Lamar is affordable pool and a lot of people live at rundberg and Lamar. And so we should have more of that. We should allow people to live here in this city, low carbon lifestyles in an affordable manner and allowing me to put an Adu in my back yard so my mom can live there when she can't drive anymore. Shaw will help with that. And everything you do like this will help with that and the final thing is a lot. There's lots of we're all going to disagree on data and I hope that we can all try to look for in the data for the to understand the experiences of others and especially low income people in Austin and what is happening to them and say, if you only look at say, big capital, affordable units, most people who are 30% below mfi don't live in those units and their experiences are different Burt and different things happen to them that are outside of that big world. And we don't have to ignore their experiences. And so [5:33:21 PM] ignore their experiences. And so that's why we prefer median monthly housing costs being a good way to measure it. What are people really paying? And look at what it costs to rent and what it takes to home and I think we can all do this better. So I want to thank you all for listening to all of us today. And thanks everybody for being here. Thank you. Following speakers are Roger Falk, who has time, donated by Brad parsons, is are both here. >> Thank you. You get four minutes on deck is Keith husband is Lorraine Atherton and Michael coonerty. >> Good evening Roger Falk, district ten. >> To quote Stephen stills, there's something happening here. >> What it is ain't exactly clear. >> My many of the speakers are in favor, and I respect their ability to express their views. They believe that this is somehow going to magically make affordable housing Lang and it's going to be low rents and all of [5:34:23 PM] going to be low rents and all of this is going to happen. There's no proof of that, and there's plenty of studies and attempts to do this kind of thing in the past that that have had very mixed results. The unintended consequences are very troubling from this. >> I think you're going to see neighbor against neighbor, somebody who builds a three story tower in their backyard next to my house, and they're looking down at my into my backyard. >> And I'm not going to be real happy with that. And, you know, people bought houses with single family zoning, thinking that this city was going to stand behind that zoning and they were going to protect their investment. Now you just want to wipe that away. And that was zoning that was created over decades by many city councils. You know, the hubris that I'm seeing here is off the charts. We have a quarter trillion [5:35:23 PM] We have a quarter trillion dollars in real estate value in the city of Austin. This isn't going to move the needle that much. And I feel sorry for a lot of these folks that really think this is going to get them an affordable house. Right now, a $400,000 structure is going to have with current rates almost a $3,000 a month note. Then you're going to have the property taxes on top of that. How is it going to rent for less than that? >> I mean, this is just reality. >> This thing's half baked. I would think that you would have learned from project connect the greatest bait and switch that's ever happened in this community that thing wasn't on the street a year, and that price almost doubled because you didn't do the due diligence that you need to do. And now you're doing a much, much greater disservice to this community with what you're trying to do here without doing the research and having the [5:36:23 PM] the research and having the foundation to justify the things that you want to do and you're going to create an unintended consequence. His like it's up there on the screen. >> Ann this is a problem. >> And I don't know how we resolve having low cost housing. >> I don't know the answer. But city government here has not solved any of our problems. Our homelessness. It's still a problem. Our police issues. >> We still have that. Transients >> We still have that problem. Affordability is a problem. Gentrification which you're doubling down with this on, what have you fixed? Think about it. You're making policies that's going to have all kinds of problems and you're not fixing the stuff. >> Traffic congestion. Remember debating the Adler on the mobility bond. >> Oh, it's going to fix traffic congestion. Well, god, what was that, six, seven years ago? Has it worked? The pandemic did more for us than than the mobility bond. And now we got this laughable noodle of a train over [5:37:25 PM] laughable noodle of a train over here. It doesn't serve any of the major neighborhoods in this city. You're going to pour billions of dollars into this thing and you and it's not going to fly by because it's in court. It's not what we voted on. And this density that you think you're going to get here that's going to rescue their grants isn't going to rescue it. >> We have 3000 people per square mile here. >> They're not going to justify it. Trance it's cratering all over the nation. Ann we need billions of dollars to fix the systems that are running now. >> Thank you. >> I'm Lorraine Atherton from district. Five. The 18 empty townhomes homes at 5912 Harold court provide a real world [5:38:28 PM] court provide a real world example of what investors actually build when they are free of single family regulations. They are on cheap commercially zoned property with none of the restrictions of single family zoning. The commercial zoning allows the equivalent of 54 dwelling units per acre. The owners chose to build Ed to 27 units per acre for 80ft high, 74% impervious cover to build more, they would have to go taller and make each unit smaller. But that would balloon the construction costs. Which is why density beyond certain limits is never affordable. The foreclosure measure here demonstrates that even 27 units per acre is not viable in Austin's market. At the density proposed in the home ordinance is 52 units per acre. [5:39:28 PM] ordinance is 52 units per acre. If 27 units per acre does not work on 74% impervious cover, then 52 units per acre cannot possibly work in areas where the infrastructure capacity accommoda rates less than 20 units, 20 units per acre. Yet to figure out how to assist low income homeowners who need to repay their or add on to existing housing. Yes encourage commercial property owners to build modest townhomes on underused, commercially zoned lots. No no. Do not rezone the entire city for structures that are economically and physically impossible. >> Thank you. >> Greetings, mayor. Council members. My name is Mike Kennedy. Live in district ten. [5:40:29 PM] Kennedy. Live in district ten. Stand here today as a combination of a longtime neighborhood activist, a mcmansion task force member and environmental leader. And I'm not representing any of these groups today, but did want to speak. As a longtime austinite and father of three children and one grandson who would like to be able to afford housing in Austin. I think that the existing situation is out of control. Our neighborhood is changing. If we don't do anything. On my street alone, 60% of the homes have been torn down and replaced with larger homes since we moved in on the street. And I'm going to admit I'm part of the problem. I took down one of those houses, but that was the rules. And if we don't change anything, that's going to continue, I really like the idea behind the home ordinance that we should try to find a little bit more density and also encouraged by the idea that y'all are stepping the size increments. I think the initial proposal didn't really have any size limits and that was going to probably result in some really big, really expensive homes. I'm encouraged by the planning commission's recommendation to try to step [5:41:29 PM] recommendation to try to step that back a little bit and hope y'all will really wrestle with finding some size limits to make things more affordable than the current trajectory we're on. I just want to encourage you to get there, find something more affordable, and thank you for all of your service. >> Thank you. >> Following speakers are Burt Rendon delgado, who has time donated by Tanya Payne. Is Tanya here? Yes is robin rather here is miss delgado here? Miss delgado is not here. Okay so marina Martinez, Vernon Reid, Susan rudenko and Dr. George roudenko. >> Hello, everyone. I need to tell you that the home initiative scares me. I am morally obligated to speak against it. >> I live in the heritage neighborhood and this will turn [5:42:31 PM] neighborhood and this will turn the heritage neighborhood into a slum. It will further crowd our streets, promote hazardous living conditions, and make land developers rich. This will happen as fast as developers can acquire the properties as home initiative promises affordable affordability. But the affordability isn't guaranteed. So affordability is a lie. If you approve the home initiative as it stands now, it's going to cause people to die and I'm going to say that again. It's going to cause people to die. There isn't a lot of safety regulations to this and I'm going to go off my track a little bit in the city of Austin in the residential builders do not have any license. They don't have to go to school. They don't need a degree. There's nothing you you, you, you all are builders. >> According to the city of Austin. >> And I found that the hard way. If a builder decides to. And now who's going to be [5:43:31 PM] And now who's going to be building all these homes? These ads, you guys need to fix that first because the builders, if they're corrupt, they can steal your money, they can build a hazardous house for you and walk away. They'll dissolve the LLC. You can't sue them. You can't do anything to them. They have no accountability whatsoever to you. Guys need to think about that. That's a big problem. It's a really big problem. I had a builder who's building all over terrytown. He left to open electrical circuits in my attic. When I went up there to clean up my, my, my, my cellulose because it was coming all over the place. I almost got electrocuted. It was permitted by the city, and it was inspected by the city. And it still happened. They also put in thank you. >> Yes, sir. >> Yeah. Hi, I'm Vernon Reid. We own a house in. In district ten, and we'd like to keep it. And [5:44:34 PM] and we'd like to keep it. And I'm worried that home is going to make that possibly difficult. The whole home initiative has been presented under a false flag of flawed assumption that. That density, natural equals affordability and that just flies in the face of facts. >> We're asked to believe that that this laissez Faire, free market trickle down approach is going to deliver affordable housing when in fact that the people doing this are going to maximize their profit to the extent possible. >> That's just unfortunately, the way things work. And having multiple units will increase the [5:45:35 PM] multiple units will increase the value of the land. Taxation is based on value. People's property name numbers are going to be dictating more taxes because their neighbors are building up extra properties on their land. Some neighbors won't be able to afford that. They'll have to sell. Who are they going to sell to? Builders, developers , owners? The people with the money to do this? I would love to build up my property. It's expensive of the other aspect is infrastructure. There has been no consideration. Infrastructure there is. Thank you, sir. >> I'm sorry your time is up. Yes [5:46:36 PM] Yes >> Hello, mayor Watson and city council. >> My name is marina Martinez and I can honestly say it's not the first time I've come to y'all in regards to this kind of topic. It's being displaced. Displace is real and displacement. It takes a lo to recover from. I know this firsthand just by experiencing this last year, I came to many of you through this city and through council to ask for solutions to protect not just me, but my family that I saw deteriorating with all the negative impacts that displacement has. >> And this was straight from developers coming in, buying out and demanding three times the amount of rent that we could even afford. So what does that do? That pushes you out? I got pushed out of district three and I reached out to many, many of you. >> We're not supported. >> There is a big disconnect between what you have an idea of what planning solutions should be in place for your community and what we are actually receiving. And this is for everybody. See, on a day to day [5:47:36 PM] everybody. See, on a day to day basis, at my job, many people are in crisis for instability in home. >> We're not secure. >> And if you feel you're secure and this is not impacting you, well, it hasn't hit you yet, but it is coming. >> If you allow this to move through. >> So all I want to say again is that the domino effects of this does have a mental health impact on us, and it is going to impact our community even more. >> So I think that we as parents are working way more than we should. We haven't even paid attention to our kids. Our kids aren't even paying attention in school, so that means they're lacking that education. So we are damaging that next generation coming in that should have the right to be here. >> But because of these issues, they're not going to be able to be here. >> So again, I ask you to really look at this code and really evaluate it with strong information to average, to gauge to just not be able to have a better informed decision on what's best for your community. Because I've heard many things [5:48:37 PM] Because I've heard many things come out today that are worried about the same issues. >> Thank you. Are you, miss delgado. Good evening. >> My name is Berta Rendon delgado. It's nice to see all of you all here. Thank you for this opportunity. I've been here since 1030 this morning. I'm the city of Austin housing commissioner that sits on the commission over affordability. And we have a resolution that would like to share today all of you all should have received it in your email. Our chair spoke earlier. Several commissioners from the housing commission have spoke earlier. But before I dive into that resolution, just want to let you know I am a sixth generation east Austin native. My parents still own their home and we are still fighting to preserve what's left in east Austin. And so as you are in a ten one sister item, which I hope that we can change that system, because that system has not been working. Lang just to be clarified, do I have six minutes? [5:49:39 PM] minutes? >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. Just want to make sure. Thank you. It's not working because each of you are supposed to be there to represent your constituents. And I've. I've heard all most. It will be at 700 constituents that have spoken here today. The majority of them are in opposition of this zoning change. And I'll tell you why. Only 60 days ago, 30 days, 62 months, we can't even keep count. We received a public notice in the mail saying that you all were having this public hearing, no community engagement was done. Our council member, Jose Velasquez, Natasha Madison, Vanessa Fuentes, everyone east of 35 have yet to come to their community days and let the residents and homeowners know that the zoning change was about to take a vote and take place. Is that right? No, it's not. Did you get elected to serve on your positions by the people? Yes you did. Are you running for reelection? Yes, you are. If you're not, we don't want you to serve again. Y'all [5:50:39 PM] want you to serve again. Y'all are there to serve the poor, the working class, the elders, the children, the natives and the newcomers. You are to represent all. And that's not happening on this dais at the decisions that are being made on this dais weekly are affecting and hurting the community. We ask that every attorney that is in this fight that we mobilize our city and we sue you all. If you all are forcing us to rezone our properties. This is unfair system. This is not a 10 to 1 system. It's a racist. And it's not right. So we're here to voice our concerns loud and clear. And as you all are hearing these people that are angry, why are they angry? Because we didn't get enough notice or we were not involved in any type of community community engagement or input for this change. This is codenext coming and a different way with a different face, with a with different people. And we're not stupid because we've been here fighting. We've been here preserving our cities and [5:51:40 PM] here preserving our cities and we are owed more. I want reparations for the people that have been displaced of east Austin. I want Jose Velasquez to fight for us district three has lost so much and we're losing more every day now. They're coming after our parks now. They've already came after our schools. What else are we going to lose? What else are you going to take from us? What is enough is enough? What do we have to do? Do we have to create a riot in this city for us to demand answers and action? Yeah, we have a housing crisis, but we also have a housing justice crisis and a social justice crisis. And economic justice crisis. And we're done. Our resolution says, and I hope that you take it out of your emails and you read it because it really does matter. We do matter. And I know you all get paid a good salary up there. We don't. So most of us can't even afford to live here. Y'all push us out to Buda Kyle Maynard, [5:52:40 PM] us out to Buda Kyle Maynard, Round Rock every every outskirt city of this city. Y'all have pushed us out. So our numbers are dropping. Minority people, all people of color, will no longer live in Austin. And even people of the working class and the low income will no longer live in Austin. So I'm here to voice those concerns and I'm here to advocate for them. And I'm here to speak on our resolution as a commissioner, I serve tirelessly. I'm up there serving and serving for low income and ain't nothing change, change our homeless problem has gotten worse. Echo is not doing a great job. Job. Are we holding our nonprofits accountable for the work that they're supposed to be doing for our people? No, we're not. But that is your job. Your job is to hold those people accountable. Your job is to protect and serve the people of Austin. And you're not doing it. So we ask. We ask, and we beg you all. And if we don't get what we want, then what do we ask for? For you all to be [5:53:41 PM] ask for? For you all to be removed from your council seats? We ask for a recall. We ask to boycott you. We ask to not reelect you. And those are the real those are the real demands. Because when all of y'all run for election Ann, y'all are knocking at our doors, getting us out there to vote, telling us that if we elect you, that you're going to do this and you're going to do that. These are broken promises that you have let down the city over and over and over, and y'all promise that y'all would stop, that y'all would. Y'all would stop the cycle of doing that. Have not seen it stop. I've seen it continuing. Continuing. So when is it going to stop? My question is, I'm trying to get wi-fi real quick so I can read you the resolution, Ann. And here it goes. It's our resolution from the city of Austin housing commission is important and we do matter. So whereas this commission recommends burns community development commission of city of Austin is facing housing housing affordability crisis, whereas in 2018, the university of Texas uprooted [5:54:43 PM] university of Texas uprooted report identified saint John's mutapa and east Austin and other historical black and brown indigenous and immigrant neighborhoods are vulnerable to display placement, read your resolution that your time is expired. >> Thank you. >> Following speakers are Barbara Lafollette, Peter Rodino , Karen clary reed roodenko and Emily roodenko. >> If your name has been called, please come forward. >> Council members. Mr. Mayor, thank you for having us to speak tonight. I'm Barbara Lafollette. >> I'm a resident of district five and I'm lucky enough to [5:55:44 PM] five and I'm lucky enough to call Barton hills home. >> I'm hoping that I can get to continue to do so. But because of rising taxes and they will be out of control if you pass home, I don't know that I will be able to. >> Our home will be paid off in April. Well, as to whether we'll be able to afford just the taxes on it, I don't know. And that's sad. >> I know there are a lot of our neighbors that have been displaced because of taxes. >> People. That have spent their entire adult lives there. >> My husband's family built the house. He's been in it 50 years. >> Something that hasn't been mentioned is specifically to our particular area is the wealth increase wildfire risk with the increase last few load with additional houses in that [5:56:44 PM] additional houses in that particular area. >> We spent two months under wildfire watch. >> We our house backs up on to onto the greenbelt and we spent two months under wildfire watch this past summer. >> What do you think's going to happen when you put that much more fuel right, in direct harm's way. >> It's just going to be a higher risk. >> And the Summers are only getting hotter and hotter. Something to think about. It if affordability is a point here which I'm sure it's not, but shouldn't there be something guaranteed in there in a tiered system such as so much at at such at so much of it has to be built at such and such level, so much of it at. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Good. [5:57:46 PM] >> Good. >> Good evening. >> Council. My name is Dr. Karen clary and I am an environmental scientist with expertise in environmental impacts analysis. Thank you for hearing us tonight. Well today I speak on behalf of the natural environment. It includes all of those other living things like trees and birds and bugs and bunnies and earthworms, not to mention salamanders. As I ask you, the city council to pause the vote and to first exercise your due diligence once and take the hard the hard look at the potential impacts on the natural environment that this initiative could bring about. What will they be positive? Will they be negative or neutral? We don't know. We need real data to figure this out, out, and we need to get it right. Impacts analysis is just good planning. We can already calculate potential impacts to the natural environment. We can measure the potential for the increase in impervious cover and runoff, the [5:58:47 PM] impervious cover and runoff, the loss of permeable ground cover that absorbs groundwater for the loss of urban canopy trees and shade the loss of good ol open space loss and lastly, the loss of habitat for all creatures great and small. Those birds, those bugs, those bunnies and earthworms. Not to mention salamanders. We can use these data to make an informed decision on. Please exercise your due diligence as soon as possible. In the meantime, please pause your vote today till we can figure it out. Thank you. >> Following speakers are are Dennis Mclaughlin. Zach Sanchez and Charlotte Patterson in soul praxis. Who has time donated by Alicia torres. Is Alicia torres. [5:59:48 PM] Alicia torres. Is Alicia torres. Here thank you. So solvay gets for minutes. >> Hi, my name is Sanchez. We moved here from Puerto Rico in the 60s, and I've been living in Austin since 1970. Off and on a property owner since the mid 80s. >> And I live on the east side, central east 11th street. >> Made a living doing construction here in this town. I understand there's a housing need, but by making the change you offer is way over the top. Compromise learned to compromise , breaking lots into that size is isn't effect a commercial high density move while trying to call them single family lots. >> So why don't you just designate preexisting commercial lots adjacent lots city owned lots but your scheme. More skyscrapers and leave the rest [6:00:53 PM] skyscrapers and leave the rest of us in peace. >> I did build an Adu in front of behind my house. I had to stand in front of you guys to meetings. Seven years ago, virtually beg for that. And now you're letting developers come in and do what the hell they want. >> Okay, now somebody said Eid. >> Oh, I want to you to pass this so I can build a unit in the back. You can't build a unit in the back already. We don't need this trash to do that. >> Why does it have to be Austin proper anyway? >> You know, there's go far farther east. Go the decker lake way out. I'm okay. The corridor in airport boulevard. And there's a lot of places here the commercial viable they're underdeveloped commercially you can just take over build your little you know tiny homes and leave the rest of us be because my fear is I got now my lot is [6:01:56 PM] my fear is I got now my lot is considered three lots, even though don't develop them. >> Thank you sir. Please begin. >> Hi. >> Hi. My name is Anne. Charlotte Patterson. >> I'm vice chair of the music commission. >> I'm also the facilitator of the joint arts and music land use working group. One of our chief concerns is affordable spaces for creative workers and creative businesses. >> I am strongly supportive of the creation of smaller, more affordable homes, fourplexes and housing villages for educators and music workers. >> However, I'm alarmed by the city's report indicating that the current version of the home initiative will not produce affordability. I ask that you postpone this vote in response to the impact report, staff was asked to produce a memo on the cost of doing nothing. >> This is a false choice. [6:02:56 PM] >> This is a false choice. >> Almost no one here is asking for nothing. And in fact we are asking for more robust policy that includes intentional affordability and anti-displacement measures baked in. We're asking for specific measures, including house size constraints and sensible fa ratios, short term rental regulation that limits corporate proliferation, forgivable bans in assistance, forgivable loans and assistance to help homeowners build additional units on their property preservation, bonuses and community land trusts and incentives for affordable developer housing developers to create low cost housing that includes ownership units. Thank you so much for your consideration and ask that in your consideration of all this policy, you think about our most vulnerable neighborhoods and residents. Thank you. Thank you. >> Please go ahead. >> Sylvia Rosa, district three. I grew up in Austin all over as a renting family, displaced many [6:03:58 PM] a renting family, displaced many times by rising rents. Our opposition had big money for mass text to thousands for radio ads and for years well-funded, market driven urbanist groups have been spreading lies. The founder of the anti-eviction mapping project in urban studies researcher Aaron Mcelroy shared the report densifying Berkeley that demonstrates upzoning causes mass displacement and recommends protection for low income bipoc communities that are targeted. >> They told us as well that they were there at the start of the yimby movement, which began in San Francisco about ten years ago. The context was massive gentrification of black and Latino immigrant communities and powerful organized housing by renters demanding an end to displacement and the rape of their communities by developers. >> Suddenly an organization, Ann, popped up and started calling them nimbys for trying to save their housing and lo and behold, the real estate industry was funding them, targeting college students, mostly white, upper class gentrifiers. >> Many in the tech industry with no ties to the community. >> Sound familiar? That's not grassroots. >> That's called astroturfing. >> What have we had? Community that's it. [6:04:58 PM] that's it. >> A tired, struggling community that has been battered by the housing affordability crisis and been trying to keep our folks in their homes and from dying in the streets. >> You forced us to come forward during the holidays and now we're together. We've only been able to organize for a short period of time and yet we mobilized hundreds more. Austin community members who signed up to speak against home. That's the real grassroots community power. We are not going to stop. >> And if you do this, every community member in Austin who is truly dedicated to the community is going to see this council turn their backs on us, vote no on home. >> An early urbanist speaker must have slipped up and said it for us. Quote, gentrification is caused by high density development only when it's in areas where live, when it's focused on areas where live. That is exactly what this will do. We told city staff that home will not impact wealthy white neighborhoods with deed restrictions and the power to win lawsuits. Community powered asked for an overlay amendment to protect low income bipoc communities in the eastern crescent that will be most impacted by exploitative investment triggering displacement. And we were told they're not sure that if it's that it's fair to treat different areas differently. We [6:05:58 PM] different areas differently. We need a one size fits all being blind to the history of disinvestment that makes the eastern crescent a profit opportunity for developers with higher profit margins. The data that show supply side free market economics doesn't work. And the suffering we know this will cause is disgusting. It's immoral. And many members of community powered have reached out personally as low income homeowners, renters, formerly unhoused people, longtime east austinites of color, current landlords who offer affordable units, teachers and researchers when they were told the amendments being offered are to study data about displacement after the fact with the power to do nothing to stop it once it's passed. We were horrified and I spoke with clergy representing congregations all over the Austin metro area who were told the same, and they said they felt disgust, disdain and shame. Everyone will remember who voted for, who voted to postpone and who voted against home. Nicole knows it compared herself to martin Luther king in her latest podcast for promoting home a billionaires wife who spent $100,000 to fund the right wing save Austin now camping ban to criminalize unhoused people, sweep camps and make way for development, causing death, causing overdoses, causing women to rely on abusers and die at their hands, causing people to [6:07:00 PM] their hands, causing people to lose their children to CPS. I'm sure mlk, the champion of black and poor people, would want to criminalize the disproportionately black unhoused community. The no. Six venture capitalist fund has a short term rental company and a tiny home company. This is all profits for them. They don't care who dies. There are friends. They are friends of Elon Musk and Peter Thiel. Nosek said he wanted to start a city from scratch, so apparently he's willing to demolish Austin and allow families to be torn apart and die on the streets. He says, just get rid of them. This crisis is happening in tech centers all over the country. These are the profiteers that are causing the housing crisis. They do not have the solutions. When we said we want to require affordable housing instead of giving away entitlements, some staff told us that developers wouldn't like that very much. So we shouldn't. Another city staffer said teachers can afford this if they have spouses making six figures. Who is this for? Rey Ed Wendler updated his data and he found the Austin housing market is driven by extremely wealthy households making over 250,000 a year and investors smaller lots and houses don't work. Rich haam and other researchers have disproven this much. >> Please begin. Well that was a [6:08:04 PM] >> Please begin. Well that was a mouthful and I have to say I agree with her. My name is Dennis Mclaughlin and I live in Barton hills. What I'd like to say is that I tried to get a pool put into my house, and the biggest pool I could have put in was five square foot. But now my house can hold 12 other houses now under your thing. I'd like somebody to do to do the math for me on that because I just really don't understand it. Plus when you bring the houses all the way up to the street right now, I have about seven people. I'm on a cul de sac, so there's seven homes on that cul de sac each. Each home has two cars right now. If you put all of our cars around the cul de sac, that's probably all the cars you [6:09:06 PM] that's probably all the cars you can put there. So if can put 12 homes with two cars apiece, with no parking around that cul de sac, seven lots that comes up. To 164 cars. How the bus is going to get there, how the dump trucks going to get there or how is anybody going to get their kids to school. >> Right now, the streets are so screwed up that you have to weave in and out because you've got people parked on both sides of the street. >> Well, just think, one, what's going to happen when every single street is like that? You won't be able to go down. It how are you going to get your kids to school? Kids riding bicycles? There's no sidewalks. How the kids going to get to school, they're going to walk down the middle of the street. Guess, huh? That's safe. You all need to postpone this thing. Think about it and get involved with the citizens that live here. [6:10:08 PM] the citizens that live here. >> The next speakers are David park, Connor, Kenny, Mike Wainwright, Sarah fast and Antonia Romero. Please make your way to the podium and state your name. >> Hello, my name is David park. I'm a homeowner in district six. I've lived in Austin for 14 years. >> I don't have a special title or job or I'm just an ordinary dude. I like to drink beer. Five years ago is when I purchased my house. I had the privilege to buy a house where the median single family home goes for well over a half $1 million. I purchased my townhome. For [6:11:09 PM] purchased my townhome. For $236,000, and that is why I support the home initiative. If those numbers don't lie without up zoning, people like me and the other hard working families that live in my community, we would not have had an opportunity to purchase a home in the area. >> Ann and to the point of some people of the opposition, we did not destroy the character of the neighborhood. >> I don't know why people would think that we are a hard working Americans. We pay our taxes. We love our families, we drink beer . And that is all. >> Hey, everybody. My name is Mike. I'm a district. One resident since the year 2000. I'm a tour guide and musician [6:12:10 PM] I'm a tour guide and musician and I serve on the board of Austin. New liberals. There's a lot of emotion and fear and anger around the subject of housing in Austin. I heard one guy really angry that you don't have any data, so I brought it for you. I got it from the city. Thank you very much for that. As you can see on this, it requires a income of 175 K to buy the median single family home in Austin. But duplexes and tri quadplexes are a lot more affordable. You know, just over 100 K, like two bartenders or two teachers or two police officers could conceivably purchase that home. So that's great. >> They can just live there right? >> Next slide. No no, because we do not have any of those units. Look here. This is the central Austin housing stock. As you can see, duplexes account for less than 10% and three four plexes account for vanishingly small amount. There are more lots in central Austin devoted to large lot mansions than there are tries and quadplexes. >> Let's see. >> Next slide. [6:13:11 PM] >> Next slide. >> So you can see here this is building permits in Austin. >> The blue there is duplexes, tries and quads and you can see that before 1984 they were a pretty healthy part of our housing mix, but it just fell off a cliff there. >> Next slide. And the reason for that, you can see even more here in 1984. That's when the land use code was changed. And this type of affordable housing in Austin stopped being constructed almost completely and never recovered as a result. It you know, there's barely any of this in Austin. So why are there so few? Next slide. It's because we have outrageous municipal fees for this type of construction. You guys, there is a $41,000 site plan premium to build a tri or quad plex in the city. And as a result, it is not feasible. And we've completely regulated this type of housing out of existence. So please support home and bring back this type of affordable housing to [6:14:14 PM] type of affordable housing to our city. Thank you. Thank you very much. >> The next next batch are Ana Romero, Mateo Maldonado, Brian pape and Megan miesenböck. >> If she's called your name, please step up to one of the open podiums. >> I'm sorry about. >> Please state your name at the podium. >> Thanks. >> My name is Sarah Foust. I'm an environmental and water law attorney. I've lived in Austin for almost 50 years. I'm grateful for every day I've served on the water and wastewater commission. And the parks board, and I've been involved in some really intense long term stakeholder process is that the city of Austin convened [6:15:15 PM] that the city of Austin convened about 20 years ago. I was on the stakeholder committee where we met with all these diverse perspectives, and we talked about making minute changes to impervious cover in the Barton springs zone. When a property was redeveloped and it's absolutely shocking to me that I was involved in that process. And there has been none of that in this process. This is a broad , sweeping, insane change to our land use, like we haven't really ever done before. And was shocked when I heard that. That hasn't happened. So I support the calls that you've heard earlier today for a stakeholder group of diverse perspectives supported by watershed protection, Ann and all the relevant city departments to do modeling on displacement, impervious cover, environmental gentrification, affordability, everything you've heard about. I hope you can pause the voting today and take a step back. One of the biggest assets Austin has is the knowledge and the community. And you've heard so [6:16:16 PM] community. And you've heard so much today about what needs to be considered. So let's make use of our greatest asset, which is all these incredible community members who are willing to contribute their time and their their assets of knowledge and experience. You can step back and you can come come at this issue again with some more nuanced proposals that are going to protect our neighborhoods, in particular appreciated the call for stakeholder committee from Garza. I also want to say I support the Austin neighborhoods council resolution and Barton hills neighborhood association. Thank you. >> Next batch of speakers are Robert Carter, Lance Glasser, Karen wolf and Adelia Obregon. Please make your way up to the podium and state your name. Come on up. It's fine. >> I thought there were people thought there were people ahead of me. [6:17:17 PM] of me. >> Okay. >> I'm de Obregon and I've lived in council district ten for almost 37 years and I have supported the home act initiative since the first public hearing in July. >> News stories have stated that most older adults will experience housing insecurity unless the county dramatically increases its supply of affordable homes for people over 65, including me, who make up about 20% of the nation. And Travis county, that's 11. So we have some time to increase the housing supply. If we start working now, we can't wait for someone else to fix the problem down the road. And people are not going to stop coming here and home owners are not going to be forced to do anything with their property if they don't want to. But but people like me who would like that opportunity should not be denied. I know [6:18:19 PM] should not be denied. I know people who moved to the suburbs or rural communities who would now like to return, but traffic is a pain. I'm living in rural areas also makes it hard to access shopping doctors, pharmacies and hospitals and rural hospitals are closing while there are clinics and hospitals in rural areas, they don't have the types of care that major hospitals in Austin have. And at our age, hospitals are important. So our doctors, especially specialty doctors, as you should see, have the people on my phone or doctors. So please vote yes on this initiative. We cannot continue doing nothing and expect things to improve on their own. Muchas gracias. Next batch is Skyler corgill, Amy Perez. >> Lucy Begg, Brandon temple and Roya Johns, who has time donated [6:19:21 PM] Roya Johns, who has time donated by Jerry Johnson. Are either of you here? If I've called any names, please approach the podium. And state your name. >> Hello, I'm Roya Johnson and I was here last time and I did send each of you emails separately, letting you know what I was thinking and why I feel this is not right for Austin Ann. I have lived in Austin since 1972. I bought my first house in Austin in 1979. I was working at university of Texas as this software engineering engineer and making 16,000 a year and someone in Austin today in the same kind of education as me will be making. Between 120,000 to $200,000. So [6:20:23 PM] Between 120,000 to $200,000. So that is the difference in terms of the affordability. So what I wanted to talk about is that I'm thankful for you being over here. I've been here since 930 this morning with you. You're talking about the affordability of this. This is totally mislabeled because if we take the grove, which is on 45th and bulk creek and we take the Mueller, which is in east Austin and could give you the average I'm a realtor, by the way, for 40 years. So I'm very knowledgeable about Austin market. I know what the prices are. I am not for this proposal because I think it's wrong for Austin and you need to change it . You need to listen to people because you're wrong in terms of using the word affordability. That word is abused. Ed the average price in Mueller is 926 K for the last three years, for [6:21:27 PM] K for the last three years, for someone to buy that house, they're payment will. Be $5,779 today. If they put $185,000 down. Is that affordable to you? Is that affordable that that is what you're proposing? All over Austin. The difference between Mueller and all over Austin is Mueller has the infrastructure to tarrytown doesn't have it. Central Austin doesn't have it, Barton creek doesn't have it. None of those old neighborhoods have the infrastructure you're talking about, but you're going to build those houses and charge people those price is grove. The average price is 1,427,000 per unit. And you have to put 285,000 K that's the 20% down on [6:22:27 PM] 285,000 K that's the 20% down on your payment will be 10,100 for the 3000. All these people are talking about affordable city. Is that affordable housing. Is that affordable housing? You all answered my question. She sits over there and tells me she already made the decision and she's not going to listen to anybody. So doing anything I love Austin. I've worked in this Austin in real estate for 40 years. What you're doing, you're destroying every bit of Austin. I love Austin. I think you're wrong in doing what you're doing. You need to go back to the drawing board. I was very involved with the codex. I was involved in it five years. I went to every meeting the reason they didn't pass because you were putting things like that in and no one wanted it. I have a duplex on Marshall lane is zoned mf four. I could have six units [6:23:28 PM] mf four. I could have six units on it. I have two units on it. So what happens? I live in the front and the back part. I was going to use for my kids come and visit me. Guess what happened in the appraisal district charging me to taxes on it as an investment. And that's what's going to happen to all those units. And people don't understand that. >> Thank you for being. >> Thank you. >> Isabel Webb, Carrie, Mary Arnold, who has time donated by Sarah Madera. Is Sarah here? Thank you. Mary gets four minutes. Missile Ramos and David Goswick. If your name has been called, please approach the podium and state your name. Thank you. >> Mayor Watson and members of the city council. My name is [6:24:31 PM] the city council. My name is Mary Arnold and I would like to say that having served on a number of boards and commissions over. For about 919 years as I think I have some insights that I hope will make you step back from this for a while. I'm very pleased with the state moments that people have made about the importance of the environment and the various problems, arms that we could have because of not having Lang additional infra structure to take care of, of the density that you all would like to have. And I think that that is something that is vital pool for people to know. We [6:25:32 PM] pool for people to know. We don't know whether the toilet system has enough. Room to satisfy the needs of all of these new developments, these new houses and I think that that that many people will realize that. And think that it's important that that we take a look and have the staff take a look at the environment. One of the things that I learned early on was about the city of Austin and how it has grown, what it was in the beginning, what the soils are like and why there are environmental regulations. Pretty much half the city is in [6:26:35 PM] Pretty much half the city is in the black land, prairie and the other half is in the hill country and those two environments are very, very different and they cause different problems with, with the black land prairie, you have problems. Adams with clay in the soil. Knell and with the hill country, you've got lots of rocks. So there are those very, very big differences that can make a difference in what it costs to build those houses and what it costs the city to build and the infrastructure that houses need and the infrastructure. There has not been adequately surveyed by the city council. The city staff, I think they're all just kind of [6:27:39 PM] think they're all just kind of must be overwhelmed with trying to do all of this at one time. So I really hope that you will postpone your discussion and I am certainly not in favor of what's being proposed right now. Thank you very much. Hello >> My name is Isabel Webb Kerri. I am a senior at UT Austin and want to start by thanking every single one of you up there for listening to us and hope you do listen to us. As I mentioned, I'm a student here at UT Austin and I speak for you today on behalf of my friends who live in corpus, on behalf of my friends who want to be nurses, on behalf of my friends who want to be teachers and live in Austin, which is a city which has [6:28:40 PM] which is a city which has allowed me to flourish and has given me such an amazing education. And I'm talking beyond the scope of my classrooms as this isn't perfect, I'll reckon with you. There are a lot of people here who expressed a lot of anger, a lot of emotion and I urge you to listen to them. But I also urge you to listen to people like me who are saying that we will do the work. We trust you to do the work, too. We trust you to do the research. We trust you to make sure the infrastructure is there to hold us up. There is so much work to be done and we need a real hard look at the gentrification in Austin, which has historically displaced communities of color and disenfranchized communities. We know the history. Don't let this happen again, but also don't take away the hope. Don't let this be another codenext please just let us have hope. Thank you very much. >> Hey y'all. >> So my name is missile Ramos, and as you all know, I oppose this initiative currently. [6:29:40 PM] this initiative currently. >> Ho as it's currently written without an affordability component. >> We'll just exacerbate and gentrification Ann in east Austin and these last minute amendments, they won't help. They won't help anything. >> We need real protections and regulations to ensure affordable housing is actually built for working class people because additional density without any regulation doesn't lead to affordability. >> The master plan in east Riverside, it was the experiment that we've already seen. We've already seen this actually happen. >> And yeah, it was being sold as additional density will equal affordability. >> Well, guess what? >> Only a handful of affordable housing was actually built in that area. >> And it's still as expensive as the rest of Austin. >> So it's actually really funny because the way this policy is being pushed, it's giving the false narrative that we will get affordability. >> I actually just met a woman named Maggie that came up earlier and spoke in favor of home. She was displaced from [6:30:41 PM] home. She was displaced from Riverside, the Riverside area, and she asked me, why am I against this? Why am I so opposed to the home initiative of and had to tell her so that we can put an end to stories like yours so that folks who have been in east Austin specifically are not pushed out or displaced any further. >> We need an affordability component added that will actually help those in east Austin that aren't making six figures a year. >> And we need to bring the community to the table instead of putting them on the table, all to be consumed by outside interests who are only looking to increase their profits. >> Vote no on home and postpone this vote and postpone this initiative and save of east Austin. >> Thank you. >> Next speaker is Michael Fossum, who has time donated by solar Mackenzie. Okay, you get four minutes. Yes. Following is [6:31:43 PM] four minutes. Yes. Following is Craig Nazar, who has time donated by Jessica Cohen. Are both of you here are Jessica. Thank you. You get four minutes, then. Melissa Hawthorne, Angela Garza and Robert Allen. If your name has been called, please approach the podium. It does not matter in which order. >> Just state your name when you start. >> My name is Michael Fossum with Austin heritage tree foundation. I live in south Austin. I'm opposed to the home phase one and ask that you vote against it. More protected and heritage trees will be removed in phases one and two, and the impervious cover will increase in phase two. If you must approve this, then I ask that you make the following amendments today. Cathy impervious cover at 45% and direct city staff to use this cap during their simulations and studies of regulations in phase two. Direct city staff to in phases one and two not weaken or exempt the protect Ed and [6:32:45 PM] exempt the protect Ed and heritage tree ordinance and not use alternative compliance to remove protected or heritage trees. I also saw a council member Ryan alters amendment online Ann and would tell him if he's watching that he should specify that alternative compliance will not nullify tree preservation ordinances. Now the slide shows what higher density might look like with three units with three stories each versus three units with only one story each with the same far and max gross floor area recommended by the PC. The units could be built with a small footprint and height, but could also be built with only one story occupying most of the lot. This is why the impervious cover needs to remain capped at 45. Note also that there may not be much room left here for heritage trees on these lots. Next slide please. So why should we care about this? This ordinance allows higher density at the cost of removing protected and heritage trees, thus reducing the ecological and health benefits they provide. [6:33:47 PM] health benefits they provide. This slide shows the ecological and health benefits provided by trees. The first section ecological benefits. The second section health benefits, and the last section revenue benefits. Heritage trees and private backyards provide numerous ecological benefits that are critical for meeting goals of the equity climate change, CO2 and air quality plans, as well as other city goals. >> Thank you, sir. >> Now have two minutes. Donated please. From Vega markina. Did >> Yes. He had time donated. >> Okay. I'm sorry. They added another two minutes for him. >> Thank you. Let's see. In addition, trees are important for the physical and mental health of the citizens and improved quality of life. The last two items are revenue generating items on the slide that can help ensure a healthy revenue for the city budget. Already, the tree canopy is 41% short of the 50% goal. There is less canopy in east Austin. Less [6:34:47 PM] less canopy in east Austin. Less than 2% are heritage trees out of a desired level of 5, there's available area to plant in public streets, but street trees do not provide the benefits of heritage trees. The largest area available to plant is 30, and that's in private backyards. There's no mitigation for private trees. So I ask you to preserve these benefits for the citizens of Austin by amending the ordinance to cap impervious cover at 45. Keep the protect and heritage tree ordinances out of phase two simulations and do not allow alternative compliance to greenlight the removal of trees. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Hello. Craig Naser, president Austin environmental Democrats. Yesterday I mistakenly emailed you are unaware ended home resolution. I've emailed you the amended version Ann. I will now read and abbreviated version. It [6:35:47 PM] read and abbreviated version. It passed by 80, whereas as Austin environmental Democrats is a democratic organization focusing on environmental issues. And. Whereas, because the home initiative is a complex proposal , all Austin environmental Democrats will specifically address environmental issues. And. Whereas the Austin's climate equity plan has a goal of equitably reaching net zero community wide greenhouse gas emissions by 2040. And. Whereas this equity plan calls for coordinated transportation, land use and anti-displacement strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while supporting diverse communities. And. Whereas, the equity plan calls for 135,000 housing units to be preserved and produced by 2027, including 6000 affordable housing units at 80. Median family income or below, with 75% of new housing located within a half mile of the city's activity centers. And whereas, FEMA estimates that up to 25% of [6:36:47 PM] estimates that up to 25% of economic losses resulting from flooding occur in areas not in a floodplain, but as a result of localized urban drainage. And. Whereas as the watershed protection department has stated that the home amendments will not substantially change stormwater runoff conditions at a neighborhood scale yet reported that 2250 citizens contacted the city to report localized flooding in 2017, a number that is likely to be higher in 2023 due to the effects of climate change. And. Whereas although impervious cover is limited to 45% in phase one, there has been no recommendations made for phase two, meaning that impervious cover limits could be increased beyond 45% in phase two. And. Whereas, the climate equity plan calls for at least 50% citywide tree canopy cover be achieved by 2050. And. Whereas no comprehensive modeling was presented showing the environmental impacts of different scenarios. And. Whereas the legislature recently passed legislate action that [6:37:49 PM] passed legislate action that greatly reduced commercial parkland dedication fees. And. Whereas watershed estimated in 2017 they had $1.4 billion in unmet needs for drainage and water quality erosion and park acquisition, now therefore, be it resolved given the potential environmental impact of the home initiative, which the public has not, has only had for a month to review since the initial recommendations were released, we urge the city council to postpone adoption of phase one until the public has had time to review the amendments and be it further resolved. The Austin environmental Democrats will not support phase one or phase two of the initiative without the addition of the following modeling showing the environmental impacts of multiple scenarios before the council votes on phase one of home and at least three months before adoption of phase to utilize green building techniques, greywater systems, rainwater collection systems and encourage solar for all new residential units. At three [6:38:49 PM] residential units. At three address localized flooding areas immediately rather than in the next bond election, where drainage issues are likely to compete with the infrastructure needs created by the home initiative of for limit impervious cover to 45% in both phases. Five preserve protected and mature trees on site in both phases. Since the tree ordinance allows trees eight inches or less to be removed and not replaced. Six ensure the acquisition of nearby parkland for areas with increased density . Austin environmental Democrats recognize that there are some very good policy initiatives in home, but many were skeptical that home will increase affordability or that it will decrease urban sprawl outside of the city in any significant way. We are also very concerned that home could add to the ongoing bifurcation of Austin. Thank you, sir. >> Good evening, Mr. Mayor. [6:39:50 PM] >> Good evening, Mr. Mayor. >> Council members. >> Truman's been home alone an awful long time now. So this has been very fast paced. There's been very little time for public education and for, you know, to find some middle ground. I'd be the I'm a code nerd and I would probably say, you know, the clown car of amendments that have come out in the last 24 hours don't know how anybody is supposed to keep up with this, and especially your layman person that got a purple postcard in the mail. I think that there can be some middle ground here. But I think that you really need to look at part one and part two together for there to be for the words to come together because code is complicated and this thing over here, you know, affects this thing over here. But you don't know that until, you know, fire. Ready, aim. And that's kind of where we're at. I think that studying the effects has really that's a really nice thought, but I really think that it's too late. You've already given away [6:40:51 PM] late. You've already given away the entitlement. And then there's the green, the gray versus green. I mean, we're trees. We all of these things, these, these have impacts. I live in Barton creek. >> I'm really terrified about the effects of densification, the lack of canopy and all of these things on the creek. >> And I live in the wildland urban interface area. And when you we're in the middle of a wildfire risk assessment and one of my neighbors was up here before and mean if you change setback X that doesn't change the distance that mean the fire hydrant is over there and the hose length is so far to get to my house. If there's not a setback for that hose to get to my house, I'm already in a zone where my house is red. I mean, there I'm in the you know, they're not setting up to save my house. That's just a fact. And then the evacuation routes to get out of my neighborhood. Eid mean, I've got a festival on [6:41:52 PM] Eid mean, I've got a festival on one side. >> I'm sorry, but your time is up. >> I'll send you another Truman picture, though. >> Show me that picture. >> And I appreciate you being here, and I appreciate your humanity. >> Thank you. >> Thank all of you all for being here. >> Natasha Harper, Madison, district one. >> I want to say that your team was amazing. They came out on Thanksgiving week on a late night evening to come talk with us about this home project. It's the first thing that we've really heard anybody interact with this about. We know Leslie pool had an open house downtown Austin, but there wasn't a lot of people of color who attended. And I think that everybody's like on everybody's got the right heart and right soul. It's just a lot of people have not been really well informed about it. And you have I know good people on both sides of this coin. I know that Hendrix and would have not known about the amendment that that passed through today about research if it wasn't for Jeremy Hendrix, who let us know that I know Carmen on the other side, who [6:42:53 PM] Carmen on the other side, who actually worked really hard day and nights, weekends. We actually had a meeting with Carmen on a Sunday right after Thanksgiving, after the meeting with district one's leaders and alexia, who knocked it out the park, came up with ideas as well . That would be more fitting for east Austin. And thank you for everyone who took the time to listen to them and their ideas and their input. The biggest thing here is that there's a lot of fear here. >> The bad thing here is that we don't do anything. We're gentrifying anyway. >> Today we have to do something. We have to work together. And I know I believe in all of us to work together in unison with all the talent we have in this city. There's no reason that we cannot figure this out together. Families are being gentrified so fast right now it's not even funny and they were really gentrified really fast during covet. So we have to do something together and work together already. It's just the way we've got to do it. The thing is that a lot of people I verified and we confirmed this and we even confirmed it with the meeting with our folks, good folks of district one as well. [6:43:53 PM] folks of district one as well. They came in that a lot of people are just are not aware. They don't understand what's going on. We had someone break down in tears because they're so scared that they don't understand. We're trying to pass through something when people are on holidays, when they should be thinking about their families. And that like Mrs. Truss with people, I'm asking for a postponement. That's what I'm asking to give people a chance. Thank you. >> Robert Allen. Monica Guzman, who has time? Don't hated by Martha Overton. Marva Overton. Are you are either of you here? I'm here, mark. >> Here. >> Okay. Thank you. You get four minutes. Jean Wilkins, Alex Choi , Liz Mcgee, and zeeshan Malik. Next. >> Okay. >> Good evening. Excuse me. [6:44:56 PM] >> Good evening. Excuse me. >> I'm Monica Guzman, policy director at go Austin. Vamos. Austin we don't want to keep the status quo because the status quo has moved and continues to move. >> The gentrification lever. What we do want is citywide neighborhood stability with deeply affordable housing for folks struggling to raise families in place and seniors to age in place. Improved drainage ordinances, environmental protection, increased urban canopy, access to starter homes for low and middle income by the way, last month, council members chief of staff said middle income is 50 to 90 K, yet according to hud, 65,400. Let me repeat that $65,400 for a household of one is considered low income. We want council to ensure citywide neighborhood stability, especially for low [6:45:57 PM] stability, especially for low income working class bipoc and other vulnerable communities in Austin's eastern crescent, we want council to postpone the home initiative vote by at least 7 to 8 months during which time staff is directed to work with the equity office to conduct authentic engagement of the low income working class bipoc and other vulnerable community and community based organizations. Burns for resident led amendments. You're insisting we're in a housing crisis. There's a demand for housing. What I find interesting relates to an earlier speaker who spoke about basic supply and demand. What she didn't say is this, quote, a similar relationship exists between price and demand. When the demand for the good increases is the price of the good also increases. And that is from the Harvard business school. Sure doesn't sound like affordable to me. Doing right by the community. Your constituents [6:46:59 PM] the community. Your constituents see the low income working class bipoc and other vulnerable residents who voted you in. Is the legacy any and all elected officials should want to be remembered by the following thoughts are mine alone. Marijuana Watson was once quoted as saying, quote, Austin, Texas is a truly exceptional place. It's not, end quote. As a native austinite, I wholeheartedly agree. Austin, Texas is a place I dreamed of owning a house, raising my child, watching my grandchildren play in the backyard, someday retire and eventually leave my house to them. >> Instead, I was a single parent and at times working more than one job and struggling paycheck to paycheck. >> Always looking for the apartment moving special, which also meant moving every single year. I'm a long time renter. My [6:47:59 PM] year. I'm a long time renter. My child and grandchildren now live in another city and at the rate council approves, drastic land development code changes benefiting developers and investors lacking responsible, equitable, resident led planning . >> Like many others, I await the knell signaling a need to move from the city I call home. >> What side are you on? My people. What side are you on? Affordable Katy. What side are you on? My people. What side are you on? The equity side. What side are you on? My people. What side are you on with community. >> My name is Jean Wilkins, long time resident and I live in district five. I oppose this home initiative as proposed and [6:49:00 PM] home initiative as proposed and feel that splitting the zoning change into two phases is really sneaky and not representative of the purple notification card sent out. A lot of people are going to be really surprised. I am against any plan that underhand promotes the demolition of existing modestly priced homes in the displacement of families. Both owners and renters. We need a safeguard that affordable homes are gained with a plan and not a pass for developers to build expensive townhomes and more stars in airbnbs. Any plan that is truly targeting affordability would not eliminate the restrictions on strs, which this plan is doing already. Our housing inventory has too many homes for this use and not for working families. Many spoke out about the negative environmental impact, including tree canopy destruction, heat island effect, fire dangers, flooding, future water quality loss and other issues. None of this is really being drilled down, looked at and addressed as it is being [6:50:01 PM] and addressed as it is being rushed through the infrastructure of current Austin , including transportation needs, are not there. I am a retired teacher after 37 years of service in this area, not wealthy and legitimately, I'm concerned with the inevitable land value increase and taxation increase. I might not be able to remain in my modest home and don't appreciate how this plan trivializes its build. Another unit, make three not happening. Get real, Alison alter, thank you. Thank you for your analysis on this issue. It must be darn lonely up there. >> At least I hope today this affirms hearing so many austinites really appreciate your concerns. >> All right. Hi, I'm Alex Choi. [6:51:06 PM] >> All right. Hi, I'm Alex Choi. I live in district one, and I support the home ordinance. I'll try to keep this short and sweet . It's. I think you got a long night ahead of you. >> I believe all empirical evidence and data shows that increasing different types of housing in Austin, available in Austin, can only lead to increased affordability and efficiency. >> And I'd also like to ask the council and the mayor to continue considering people who in addition or in addition to the speakers that have already gone, people who are not able to be here due to logistical issues, people such as students, such as workers Luz, such as people who might not have the emotional capacity to be here because frankly, owning a home is just not feasible for them right now. And it feels like the city can sometimes be doing nothing. Thank you. >> Good evening, y'all. >> My name is Liz Vicki and am a proud resident of district two. >> Shout out to council member [6:52:07 PM] >> Shout out to council member Fuentes and I support the home initiative. >> I moved here in 2017 with my husband who is a native austinite. And he is a local, a teacher in the local public schools as well. And basically we moved here because we believe we want to be closer to family, but also because we believe Austin is a city that is building towards the future and a future. I want to see where we can meet ambitious climate goals, where we can try to offer more opportunities to experience the city and to experience our community outside of a car and really, for me, the reason I support home is because I believe we need to make Austin more dense. I believe that we need this for community and also just for health, for walkability . In addition to meeting environmental goals related to carbon. Wow. This is nervous nerve inducing. So I think living in district two, there's going to be a lot of development that's going to come. No matter what. And I would really love as a resident and a homeowner to see that development not be [6:53:07 PM] see that development not be sprawl. I think that we all deserve access to neighborhoods where we can walk somewhere or bike somewhere safely, or we can access public transit and feel like so much of our city has currently been constructed for car use. So I would really love to see that inevitable development, be focused more towards a healthier way of living in a community. So yeah, that's basically it. I appreciate everything that you all are doing to wrestle with these tough questions because change is hard and it's a lot of time here spent. So thank you so much for everything that you're doing. Appreciate you. Bye >> Elizabeth would Todd Bergner or Lori Ross or bill bunch and Jen Ramos, if your name has been called, please approach the podium and state your name. Let's go straight to the podium. >> Feel free. Feel free to just [6:54:09 PM] >> Feel free. Feel free to just come forward and start your testimony and just state your name for the record, please. >> Sure. >> My name is Lauren Ross and I live in district nine. >> I am here in opposition to the proposed road home initiative and I'm supporting community powered atx as request for postponement and their requested amendments as the idea of a relationship between supply and demand is a market idea and market serve. One god that god is profit. This graph shows the percentage change in the number of Austin households between. 2017 and 2022 in income categories that green bar on the far right show shows that there were more new households in Austin with annual incomes of more than $200,000 a year than every other income bracket combined. [6:55:09 PM] combined. >> Their monthly housing budgets starts at $5,000 per month, and for many of them, it's a lot more. This is the market that drives Austin's housing system, and it's the market that drives us. The post, the proposed home initiative of the home initiative was crafted, drafted and brought to this council by our wealthiest residents, by the global investment community, by people who own the most, have the most to gain, and proportionately to their wealth, the least to lose from its consequences is to pretend that it will serve affordability and equity is delusional, and it's insulting. Austin working families desperately need more housing options and there are lots of actions that you could take that would actually create safe Andy and shelter for each and all of us. Some of those [6:56:10 PM] and all of us. Some of those actions will mean that our neighbors, our neighborhoods, will be more dense and they will be safer, responsibly and equitably, more dense. But home is not that. And I urge you tonight to vote no. Thank you. >> Good evening. Bill bunch, executive director and lawyer for save our springs alliance. I'm also an officer of the zilker neighborhood association, resident of district five. You have a resolution from the zna opposing this measure. >> This will do real and irrevocable harm to our community, to our environs, Swint and is hostile to the decades of our heritage. >> Doing otherwise more pavement or rooftops translates directly into more flooding, more water pollution, less groundwater, recharge. >> And this will decimate our [6:57:12 PM] >> And this will decimate our urban tree canopy that's already diminishing rapidly because of infill development. >> It will do nothing to reduce sprawl. >> The evidence is crystal clear on that. >> And if you had read Daryl Schlosser's column this morning in the independent, you should, because he makes that rather clear. >> This is not about affordability, this home thing is cynical and dishonest in the name itself. Homes are where single families live with mortgages and they stay there and they value the home as shelter and as community and neighborhood. And this is for investors who see a single family lot as an investment opportunity ready to cash in and maximize profits and that's what this is really about. >> You all know it. It has nothing to do with it's hostile to affordability because it's basically a giant tax increase that's hidden. >> So that you don't have to call it a tax increase for every [6:58:13 PM] call it a tax increase for every single person who wants to live and stay in their home. It's a huge tax increase. It's a direct threat to our most vulnerable community. >> As you've heard so much. Real quick on the process as mayor Watson, you were elected telling us you were going to do district by district zo planning and challenge each district to absorb and support infill development that hasn't happened. And then at the beginning of this, you said there was going to be a dialog, a conversation that never happened, postponed. >> Thank you, Jen Ramos, Linda Gordon, Denise, Hugh low, Mike Burnett, and Cindy Miska. >> Again, Jen Ramos, Linda Godinez, Hugh low, Mike Burnett and Cindy mishka. Come on down. >> If she's called your name, it's all yours. [6:59:14 PM] it's all yours. >> Once again, I'm going to change the timbre of the discussion. I wonder whether this thing is moot. >> The eastern eastern. I'm sorry. Eastern development and some of the developments up along the main road area have opened development on the east side. We hardly mean let's face it, you can't have one developer building and say it's okay for you, it's okay for you. But oh, wait, it's not okay for you. So you have a little equal protection problem as you go forward, which means effectively , given that the east has come to you with a specific request to execute all of the goals of the home initiative, the real question that sits on the table is why are we even looking at this? And so as you all well know, I find this to be capricious and arbitrary. On top of that little question at this point, given the fact that, in my opinion, this is moot, that opens the door to a question as to whether this is a taking Lang and so with that being the case, do us all a favor. Go ahead and vote this through and give us the opportunity for injunctive [7:00:15 PM] the opportunity for injunctive relief. >> Erp thank you for your time to see. >> Oh, by the way, for those of you that believe that these people are working in your best interest, we've heard the same exact things since mayor win about affordability and offering additional housing capable cities and offerings for both middle and low income and this is where we are again today. I keep hearing the same things over and over again. And to quote Homer Simpson, you've said this so often, it's lost all meaning. Thank you and good evening. >> Mario Cantu, Ana Aguirre, Carla Kenyon and max Marty Douglas, Keenan. >> Good evening. Council. >> My name is Mario Cantu. >> I'm from south Austin, a native here in Austin, Texas. >> You know, right now there's [7:01:16 PM] >> You know, right now there's 22 wars going on on this planet, right? >> And there's one going on here as well. And it's between the light and the darkness. That's existing here on this planet. >> And many people are being displaced all over. >> If you look at the other side of the planet right now, there's a lot of people being displaced and it's all because of dirt. >> It's just it's a matter of dirt that is all it is. And then when you get that dirt, you get the resources. And when you take the resources, you make a lot of money. These are the things that have been going on for a long time. >> And, you know, just just us as individuals, we're not just a citizen or a person. >> We're we're all human beings that live here. >> And there's a big shift that's going on between all of us. >> And I ask you to listen to each and every one of the individuals that come here, even the ones that are opposed, and even the ones that want this to take place, because there's been [7:02:17 PM] take place, because there's been individuals that have been displaced for a long, long time and think we have to recognize that and really focus onto that. >> And as mexicanos here, you know, Vanessa to chito Jose, you know, the mexicanos have been carrying a lot of the load for a long time around here, and not just here, but all over the place with building construct, action, the concrete that we're standing on right now, all these things have been going on for a very long time. >> And I ask you as individuals in mexicanos, Mexicana is to recognize that and give the people here also. So every individual that's come up today, the blacks, the Asians, the whites, everybody of all color to understand and that that you represent them and give them your full ability to know that you're doing your job and you're going to do the right thing. Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay. >> Good afternoon, mayor and [7:03:18 PM] >> Good afternoon, mayor and council members. My name is Ana Aguirre. I'm the president of the Austin neighborhoods council and immediate past chair of the southeast neighborhood plan contact team. The ANC thinks the mayor, council members Fuentes, Kelly vela, Allison alter and pool and the staff of council members harper-madison Ryan alter and qadri for responding to our request to meet. We were not invited to the table when this initiative was first considered and the ANC executive committee voted unanimously to oppose this initiative. As currently written and presented a resolution with recommendations including the need for data prior to taking any action. The contact team, because of catastrophic and deadly 2013 and 2015 floods, has major public safety concerns regarding creek and localized flooding and the drainage infrastructure for we know more roofs will result in increased stormwater runoff and flooding. This initiative is not about affordable housing. It does not require affordability. It will gentrify the remaining African-American, black, hispanic and Latino homeowners or renters in the eastern crescent, we stand with poder, a community power and the black and brown homeowners and renters [7:04:18 PM] and brown homeowners and renters vulnerable to gentrification. We have worked with past councils and some of you are here today on potential solutions to the housing affordability crisis. What is the status of those recommendations? What are the specific goals of the council or what is the data specifically outlining how home will allow public servants of the working class to live here? Many here today are concerned about gentrification and displacement, the primary recommendation being voiced is to include a deep, affordable housing requirement. You have been informed of the unintended consequences this initiative will have if this council chooses to proceed and not address these unintended consequences. At that point, we will know these consequences, including gentrification, are intended postpone your vote combined phases one and two, and consider a collaborative process that includes city staff, eastern crescent residents, environmental east neighborhoods and the development community come together with the plan that will work for the whole community. Only through this process will a good solution arise for Austin. Thank you for your time and consideration and [7:05:20 PM] your time and consideration and service to our community. >> My name is max Marty, a homeowner in district three. >> Thanks to all for being here so late. >> It's you know, I've been here since Santa Ana as well as getting there. I'm not an expert and I'm not paid to be here by any organized action. >> But I am someone who decided to move to Austin by choice of all the places in the country, of all the places in the world. I chose to live right here in Austin because Austin was a place where one could build a career or build a lifelong build lifelong friendships, or raise a family. And where your kids and parents could someday hope to do all this too. >> A place where new ideas can and do mingle with old traditions and where people aren't afraid to look ahead. >> And I had lived before this in a place where that used to have that same spirit once, but where some people became jaded of new housing and distrustful of change. >> So over time, I witnessed what happens when you combine a place where people want to live with a public policy that did [7:06:20 PM] with a public policy that did not allow that housing to keep up the result was stagnation, decay and disillusion as more people came in, everyone fought for smaller portions of the fixed pie of available housing. >> Instead of being a place for everyone, the city became a place where kids couldn't afford to buy a home, where they grew up, where parents and grandparents couldn't find housing that suits their needs at a price that they could afford. Where immigrants, whether from across the state or from across the world, could no longer add their distinctive culture, their ideas, their economic productivity or their tax dollars to the place they desire to call home. I urge us not to make this same mistake here. Don't let Austin make California's mistakes. Growth and prosperity come in many forms. Sometimes that growth can come from people like us deciding to make space in our own backyard beds. For that student who wants to stay and find a job after they graduate, or the grandmother who wants to move here to watch her kids grow up. I support the home ec because I want everyone to get the same chance to experience what I've experienced here. If given the opportunity. Yes I'd [7:07:20 PM] given the opportunity. Yes I'd like to make space for them in my own back yard. Please give me the chance to do so and thank you for your time. You're here, Kurt Phillips, Gwendolyn stroud. >> Richard English and Gail Dickinson. >> Hello. My name is Richard English and east Austin. And thank you again. Looking around the world at what's going on. And we're very happy that we're in a place where everybody can voice their opinion. And thanks for your patience. I know it's been a long day for you guys. So I'm actually would like to support the house initiative. Especially because Austin has grown from, from a small college town to more of a world renowned city and, and it's making it harder and harder to get around because everything's spread apart very much. And so with the [7:08:20 PM] apart very much. And so with the current regulation that we see that there's going to be a certain lot size with a certain amount of homes on it, again, it limits the amount of homes that are available and it pushes people out of the city mostly into the suburbs, because there's no place to be found here. So I think that this initiative could help reduce vehicle traffic and make public transit more viable because people live closer together. And if you look at other cities around the world and see how they've performed, the cities that have higher density, they usually have better public transportation. Ann the more bikeable, walkable and also more more enjoyable to visit and live in. Whereas cities that that actually focus on the one single family home concept that we've seen across the United States. They they're very car dependent, dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists and not great place to live in. So again, I think we're on a path right now where we [7:09:22 PM] on a path right now where we have people moving here. We can't stop that because it's a great place, an and by by offering additional choices for people to access, I think it opens up some possibility. I do not think that suddenly everybody's going to have, you know, three homes on their home site. There's going to be people that want it and people that don't. But I urge you to keep on the path to offer more options for homeowners and also for new residents. Thank you very much. Thank you. >> Yes, ma'am. Please go ahead. >> Hello. My name is Gail Dickinson. I'm a 34 year resident of Austin and I'm a teacher. In 1993, I bought my first house in pflugerville because back then, teachers couldn't afford houses in Austin either. This is not a new problem. It took me two loans plus working multiple jobs to pay for my house. >> My kids never got to go to vacation in a hotel because we just couldn't afford that. >> But somehow these urbanists think that I'm some wealthy, greedy landowner that just won't [7:10:22 PM] greedy landowner that just won't share my property. >> Leslie pool publicly stated that she would direct staff to examine the unintended consequences of her initiative. She promised there would be guardrails to address those consequences. One thing is very clear today's today you plan to vote on this initiative with no guardrails to protect the middle class. Austinites, austinites, like myself from displacement from skyrocketing taxes. How do I know this? Travis county will tax our homes to the optimal value and the realtors on our neighborhood listservs are drooling over the massive displacement that they know will happen. The turnover of middle class people like me that can't afford the taxes here, the unintended consequences include the people that you will displace in this process. People in east Austin, older austinites, teachers, firefighters. Et cetera. Mayor Watson wants solutions. So let me just give a few of them. First pay first responders and teachers a livable wage. Secondly subsidized housing for the middle income and lower income. Austinites that's what the other big cities do. Third, change the permitting process to [7:11:23 PM] change the permitting process to favor middle income housing processes. What would the money where would the money come from? How about aggressively identifying and taxing short term rentals? We're asking the billionaires who donate to your campaigns to donate to an endowment to support middle income owner ownership in Austin. Mayor Watson has indicated he wants to apparency and inclusion in its political process. Yet this radical change has been pushed through with little opportunity for public comment. The fact that this important meeting is being held at a time when most working austinites can attend removes their voices from the discourse and dehumanize us. You need to vote no and postpone this. >> Lauren Mauer, Maher, Heriberto Rivera, Michael Knaus, Lisa Allen and Stephen brown. Terry Tyler. Terry clarin. Williams mark Duncan. Please state your name. [7:12:26 PM] state your name. >> My name is Michael Nahas, mayor, city council. >> I'm an urban economist. >> I'm an expert in this area. >> And am strongly in favor of homes. >> Phase one. I've already messaged you all. I've talked to many of you. >> I'm happy to explain the effects to anybody here or any group that would like to hear them. Thank you for doing this. Thank you for staying late today. >> It's been a long day. Do you all are busy today? I'll cede my time. >> Thank you all. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> My name is Stephen brown. I am a fourth generation austinite . I also serve on the community development commission and I'm a long term resident of district one. As a sitting on the community development commission, we had the opportunity to hear from a lot of community members and we wrote a resolution asking that this vote be postponed and it be [7:13:27 PM] this vote be postponed and it be postponed because a lot of community members felt like there were no engagement done. >> There was not any engagement done, that allowed them to voice their opinion. >> And so stand here not only as a community member, but as a person on the community development commission in asking that y'all postpone this vote so that those members can have their voices reflected in the amendments and resolution actions that will affect their lives as this has. >> We have to be honest here, man. >> This this resolution, this home initiative does not create affordability. This this this affects the developers. This this does not protect the community member, the average community member that is struggling here in Austin. This does nothing for them. If someone was to sit here and tell me that, you know, this home initiative, most of the homes will be developed in west Austin, in other areas, then I would be like, okay, cool. This [7:14:28 PM] would be like, okay, cool. This is this is something that's going to provide housing for everyone. I want to live in west Austin, but but this is not this is not going to affect west Austin. This is going to affect the most vulnerable community members, and that's in east Austin. This home initiative does nothing to protect, as it's written right now. It does nothing to protect the community member that's in east Austin. The developers that that own most of east Austin will benefit more than the average community member right. And this be true. Let's just be honest here. At what point is any one of these council members and mayor, when is someone just going to look at us and say the future is coming and we don't see y'all here? >> Thank you for being here. Thank you. >> I'm mark duchin. >> I own a condo in district ten. I've recently had the [7:15:28 PM] ten. I've recently had the chance to sit down with any planning commissioners and council members or staff willing to listen. One of those council members supporting this plan. It feels plain as day to me that no amount of opposition will change minds. >> My understanding is that hundreds of people have spoken out in opposition at meetings like today at least 13,000 petitions have been filed with the city. >> I have to ask, would any number of opponents of petitions or data change any minds up there? And what does that say about our council? I want to share three stories from those meetings. One, council members seemed unaware that building multiple units in the same lot is going to require the units falling under a condo regime. As someone on a condo board, it's hard enough to find people who want to volunteer to manage a condo property and most of these new multi family units will be subject to one lot owner managing condos, which is a future complication for homebuyers who won't own their land. >> Another councilman was presented with rice university data showing dramatic gentrification and displacement in Houston and Houston's inner loop right after a similar policy was adopted there. >> The inner loop neighborhoods [7:16:29 PM] >> The inner loop neighborhoods showed dramatic displacement and a huge influx of wealthier, educated anglos and an equally large drop of poor, non-college educated people of color. The council member argued all kinds of factors could have caused that displaced moment. But there are three problems with this. One, the displacement. >> The report concludes displacement was much lower in the 1990s and then rapidly accelerated in the 2000 to the Houston reform was implemented just before 2003. >> The displacement was localized to inside the loop where the reform took place, not outside the loop. >> So we can't disambiguate every factor but the timing, geography, intensity ought to give any person that has who actually gives a about displacement. >> Some pause. >> And finally, we're told there'll be periodic reporting on the policy outcomes for the mayor's amendment. Two things are crucially absent, though. >> First, measuring how many supposed middle income homeowners are you going to use the policy to develop their property versus developer bought, scraped and built, lot built lots. Second, what's going to happen to the average land tax value? >> Thank you. [7:17:30 PM] >> Thank you. >> Please get that data. Mr. Mayor. >> Ben Gowdy, Karen Mcgraw. Eric, my Eisner, Bethany Carson, Martha leonino and Richard Brimer. If your name has been called, please approach any of the podiums and state your name. >> Mayor, council members. My name is Karen Mcgraw. I'm an architect. I've lived here over 40 years in Hyde park. >> I've been on the planning commission, the mini city task forces. >> I've chaired my own neighborhood planning Ann, and I provide architectural services and preservation planning services. Two minutes is short. I always say love, Austin, but living here means you have to fight for your house and your neighborhood every single day. I'm getting tired. 25 years ago, the city of Austin embarked on a program called neighborhood [7:18:31 PM] program called neighborhood planning and the purpose of neighborhood planning is infill development. That's all. That's it. That's the whole purpose. Thousands of neighbors participated in this program and develop neighborhood plans that identified how to infill their neighborhoods. What happened? We have no planning Lang nobody came back to the neighborhoods to talk about this. Nobody looked at what's happened. My neighborhood plan has added density places for infill, but we're not planning. And all of a sudden this council has decided we're going to use a sledge hammer approach. We're just going to hand it all to the speculators and let them build whatever they want, wherever they want. That's not planning and think your job is planning and think all of these housing options. People want are fine. Sure have lots of kinds of housing. We already have lots of kinds of housing, but where it belongs is the question. Ann because you're trying to run [7:19:32 PM] because you're trying to run homeowners out of here. You're trying to use the mcmansion ordinance to punish homeowners. Really, everything that we've done turned against on us. I sure hope you will rethink this. I think you need to put it back together with the other part of this, because think it's kind of a trick and have serious planning conversations with neighborhoods that have already done a lot of planning. Thank you. Please begin. >> Good evening. >> My name is Bethany Carson. >> I'm a renter in district four and speaking against the home initiative and supporting community powers. Request for a postponement. Austin does not have a general housing quantity issue. There are many luxury condos and above median rental units available. Austin has an affordable and deeply affordable housing crisis that is displacing communities of color [7:20:32 PM] displacing communities of color at alarming rates. Home will exacerbate this crisis by displacing long term low income residents from their houses. When property taxes rise due to the increase of the land value and on the speculative market. But it will also price existing renters out of the city due to new above market rent rate units that will be built as a result of up zoning with no affordable restrictions on new development as well as the lack of protections for existing Singh deeply affordable properties that will be targeted by investors for redevelopment at unrestricted development builds for those who can provide the most profit. Such as new tech workers moving from out of state and higher income residents moving into lower income neighborhoods, aka gentrification. Ann so reserve the up zoning and expedited permitting for clts and renter cooperatives. Any new development must be affordable and deeply affordable and cannot come at the expense of displacing resident in currently affordable housing. Speaking personally, despite working as salaried nonprofit job, when I was moving several years ago, I could not afford to rent a two bedroom apartment with a [7:21:33 PM] bedroom apartment with a roommate in the supposedly affordable Mueller development metrics used for affordability must produce actually affordable rents and mortgages and reflect hyperlocal neighborhood level realities so that we do not displace long term lower income residents. I want to close with a reminder that safe communities are resource communities. Please do not fall for the billionaires that are supporting this plan, telling you that it will be affordable because it will make our community less safe. This is a golden opportunity. Groups% like community powered brought so many communities representing those most impacted by the housing crisis to the table. Collaborate with us in 2024. Please stop home, listen to and fight for our communities, have our back and we'll have yours. Thank you. >> Please go ahead. >> Good evening, mayor. Members of the council. My name is Rick Brimer. I'm a resident of district six and I'm speaking against the home initiative. First, I'd like to say I support 100% the recommendation of the environmental commission, which [7:22:34 PM] environmental commission, which was passed last night. It is in your email now. >> I strongly encourage you to read it carefully. >> It addresses many of the environmental concerns raised today. I also support the recommended action of the community development commission on on Monday I sent to each of you my review of multiple studies from groups as diverse of the university of Texas, the city of Austin, Wharton school of business. The urban institute, the university of California, Harvard and the cato institute. These conclude that the goals of the home initiative are unlikely to be met by increasing housing density alone. Briefly these studies indicate the number of other policy changes have to be are also required for this type of policy to be successful. >> My personal study indicates the increased density along metro routes date route data in east Austin does not significantly increase rider ridership. Analysis of tcad and zillow records show that increased density through [7:23:35 PM] increased density through multifamily development increases property taxes in adjacent neighborhoods. Prices for condos in east Austin exceed 5050 $500,000 per unit. >> Affordable to those who make in excess of $130,000 a year. This is the upper 20% of income level in the United States. Almost 97% of the tree canopy of the city is not protected. Using existing order pieces from the city of Austin. Indeed the only winners from this initiative are the developers who will be constructing the new buildings and the city from additional tax revenues. The losers will be the low income people of color and those displaced by the ordinance and degraded environment infrastructure. >> Thanks for your time. Have a good evening. >> Hello. >> My name is Ben Goudie. >> I bought my first home here in Austin in 2021 at the age of [7:24:38 PM] in Austin in 2021 at the age of 35. >> It wasn't really, and it was in district eight. >> It wasn't really the house that I totally wanted. >> It was a little older. >> It was a little further outside of town, and it had some leaks. >> It still had some creeks, but I was really happy to have it and I'm here because I have one problem with the home initiative, and that's that it should have been done ten years ago. >> It would have made so many options for so many more people and I just want to say thank you for doing this tonight. >> Thank you for hearing us. >> And keep it up. >> Thank you. Cynthia. >> Or Leslie Kearns, bill mccamley two. Taylor Jackson, David Glenn. Anna Noel and naval. Please state your name [7:25:39 PM] naval. Please state your name when you are at the podium. >> Mr. Mayor, members of the council. My name is bill mccamley. I'm a resident and renter in district one and I am the executive director of transit forward, an Austin nonprofit with a responsibility to education and engagement regarding project connect. I've been here before you all, so I'm not going to repeat myself, but I will say that we can probably sum up why transit forward supports this in four numbers. >> The first is 2.5 billion. >> That's the amount of money we're going to need from the federal government in order to complete the light rail portion of project connect. I was on the phone literally four hours ago with the regional administration, and they reiterated what we already know the federal government loves our rail route. They love our funding model. But they said over and over again, you got to have more housing, more housing. Near transit allows more people to be able to take that transit and have a successful system. The second number is zero, as in net zero transit forward put out [7:26:39 PM] net zero transit forward put out a report that we worked with a grad student at UT in the spring showing that without more transit and more density, near transit stops, Austin will not will not meet its greenhouse gas reduction goals. So if we truly care about the environment and we believe, like I do, that global warming and climate change is one of our biggest threats, we do things like this. >> The third number is 10,000, as in $10,000. If someone, a family can give up their car because they have an affordable, accessible house that's near a transit system, they can save that amount of money on their budget every year. It's one of the most concrete things that we can do to increase affordability, which is the number one concern of austinites . >> The fourth number is also 10,000. Austin is going to need 10,000 workers per year for the next 17 years in order to meet all of our new transportation needs, including road expansion, project connect airport, you name it. That comes from workforce solutions. If we don't have more housing, our workers [7:27:40 PM] have more housing, our workers aren't going to be able to live here in Austin. It's going to be harder on them and it's going to be harder to get those workers you heard from the representatives from the ibew and the emt's union and the laborers. >> These aren't billionaires. These are folks that represent workers just like the aarp and habitat for humanity. Jimmy Carter's organization. >> These folks work for common folks who know how important this is. So we urge you to pass this. And also on a personal level, I've been watching this on and off all day. >> I don't know how many people have thanked you, but I've been in your position where I've waited hours to hear community testimony. I appreciate you all doing it. This is why democracy is important. Thank you for your great work. Appreciate y'all. >> Hello, mayor and council. I'm Taylor Jackson, CEO of the home builders association of greater Austin, here today, speaking in support of the home initiative of the greater Austin represents over 750 members as a member, companies and thousands of [7:28:42 PM] companies and thousands of professions across the home building industry who work together to provide safe, quality and reliable homes and services for Austin families. All Austin is at an affordability breaking point. The national association of home builders released a report earlier this year indicating that 73% of households cannot afford the median home price in greater Austin for every $1,000, the price of a home increases. 1100 households are priced out. The status quo is unacceptable. We need meaningful solutions to address the housing demand of today and to provide greater housing opportunity, opportunity than the current land use policy are designated for. The home initiative provides a modest step forward that will legalize more housing in a market that for too long has been unattainable for so many. The home initiative will help [7:29:43 PM] home initiative will help increase the supply and variety of housing, which is vital to lowering the cost of home ownership. It will provide an opportunity for our teachers, our first responders, our young families to enter the housing market with more affordable options, as in starter homes in Austin. The home initiative is a great first step that will allow middle income families to stay in Austin for the long term, to own a home and to build generational wealth. The of greater Austin is proud to join alongside with aarp, habitat for humanity, environment, Texas, and many others as a part of a growing coalition Ann of organizations coming together to support greater housing opportunities. Thank you. Dorothy Barnett. Barbara silly, who has time donated by Lewis Meneses. Okay, Ms. Silly gets four minutes. Franck Mumford, [7:30:47 PM] four minutes. Franck Mumford, Martha Bixler and Jim Bixler. >> I donate my time over here to donate my time. >> Silly. >> Yes. Mayor members of council. My name is Barbara. Silly we have an affordable housing crisis in Austin and this is the one point every everyone in this room will agree to. >> The council and some of the media support the idea that increasing the housing supply through through a massive rewrite of the zoning code will help resolve this crisis. The fundamental premise behind this policy is that increased supply will occur here when the zoning code is no longer a roadblock. [7:31:48 PM] code is no longer a roadblock. The next step in this logic train is that the increased supply will result in affordability. There is a great deal of irony in watching a Progressive of council argue for what is essentially the hallmark of reaganomics. The problem is, is that market forces will produce neither single family or multifamily affordable units. >> As a country, we are at the point that only high income families, those earning $100,000 and above can afford afford to purchase a home, according to the latest information from homebuilders. >> The data for apartments is even worse, according from two animation from statistics, a site that tracks real estate data. >> In 20 1212, the share of the [7:32:48 PM] >> In 20 1212, the share of the apartments that were built defined as luxury was 52. In 2018, it was four minutes. >> So you need to add two minutes. Okay >> Okay. >> About that. >> In 2018, it was 87 and couldn't find any more valid data. But think it's a little it isn't quite that high now. >> Well, I do not think that percentage now is quite that high. Bottom line is we are building a lot of apartments butts, but the overwhelming majority are not affordable and this fact of life is not going to change. >> We have an affordable problem in Austin and our tendency is to use a lens that says this is unique to our city. Unfortunately this is true throughout the world and across the us. >> Take a look at recent headlines. Rents for new apartments in Berlin are 40% [7:33:49 PM] apartments in Berlin are 40% more expensive. Berlin in Munich faced rent surges at double digit rates. >> The last international headline is from swissinfo. >> It reads how Google is driving rents in Zurich rents for flats in Zurich are reaching stratospheric levels. The relevancy for Austin is why we have lured Tesla Oracle, JP Morgan Schwab and yes, Google in a nutshell, our economic development strategies to lure the high tech industry to Austin has meant that lower income families cannot compete for the available housing. The second string to Austin's economic development strategy is created the intense competition for housing is tourism. The strong tourism market has fueled. It's fueled by events. S these are the people who are occupying the dwelling excess or dwelling [7:34:51 PM] dwelling excess or dwelling units. Most of the short term rental in Austin is no longer available for long term rental. Even worse, there is a structural economic market problem. >> Speaker your time has expired . >> Thank you and thank you for listening and I do hope you will postpone this. >> Thank you. >> Sorry once Martha Bixler and donating time is Jim Bixler, you get four minutes. Can >> Good evening mayor. Council members is the time are now working. >> It is now. >> Okay. Thank you. Please begin. I apologize for interrupting. >> Thank you. >> My name is Martha Bixler. My [7:35:52 PM] >> My name is Martha Bixler. My husband and I have lived in Austin for over 50 years. We live in a single family neighborhood and district five. As a matter of fact, we don't appear to be too well representative tonight. Many of us are old enough to know what you're doing. Why you're doing it, and the consequences of your actions. And yes, we've lived history that you longer folk that you younger folks have only read about. I am opposed to home . >> We know that the city council's efforts are intrinsically wrong, although this is an attempt to change building and lot regulations and hand them over in a silver platter to developers. >> It is also divisive and major . By claiming to aid those that need more affordable housing by common during the land of the single family neighborhoods, a usurpation of sorts the haves versus the have nots. It's discrimina patri many years ago, single family zoning was created to protect single family, single [7:36:54 PM] to protect single family, single family homeowners from multifamily development. The city council is trying to take our take away our right to be informed of what is being built adjacent to us and to be able to protest it. They are coming in through the back door Shaw by achieving their goals, by not changing the zoning, but changing the rules of zoning. >> Thus nothing to protest it and not putting it to a citywide vote. >> It is discriminatory, promotes gentrification and displacement of the aging population as well, and is environmentally irresponsible. We moved to a single family neighborhood for a breathable space privacy, a yard for our kids, peace and quiet and safety. >> We have it because we chose it and we worked long and hard for it. You need single family communities and neighborhood woods. >> We are a cohesive bind to the Austin community. Katy we donate [7:37:56 PM] Austin community. Katy we donate to the school for the arts medical community, your campaigns, and we hold your fundraisers. >> We are a peaceful, safe, beautiful areas of Austin, giving it character and charm. Our tree canopies help to keep the summer temperatures down. >> You want to change this whole dynamic with condos? >> Adas et cetera. Disregard for the historic importance as we have as well. Don't do something that can't be undone or go down in history as the ones that ruined Austin go back to the drawing board, take advantage of available programs. >> Trust. Et cetera. For those in need. >> Keep densification along the current and proposed transit corridors. >> That's what we voted for. Our traffic and air pollution is already at limits inside the loops. Make it about the people of Austin, not the developers, and bring it to a citywide vote [7:38:58 PM] and bring it to a citywide vote at lady bird Johnson's rolling over in her grave. So sos Beverly Sheffield. This is not about affordable housing. It's a grossly discriminating land grab against single family neighborhood by the city. The Austin land run for developers, plain and simple. >> Shame on you all. >> Thank you for the time. I'm not. >> And for the record, because. Because I'm not sure what your reference was to. You're not being represented, but district five is represented by councilmember Ryan alter, and he's been on the screen. He's at home because they he and his wife had a new baby last week. And so but he's he's particip waiting. So I want to make sure that there's not an inappropriate reference to his absence. There you go. That's the fastest he's ever proved me [7:40:05 PM] the fastest he's ever proved me right. >> Hi. >> David Moser, Amanda Carrillo, Patrick Lauren, Lynn Williams, and Ford Smith. >> All yours. >> It's all me. Guess yeah. My name is Lynn Williams, and I am a homeowner in district eight. >> And I also am a multi-generational homeowner. >> My house is owned by my 78 year old mother and also is occupied by my daughter, who is the reason why I'm here tonight. I'm also the executive director of home aid, not home made like cookies, but home aid. Austin and we are a nonprofit helping people all who are at risk or experiencing homelessness [7:41:06 PM] experiencing homelessness through construction, community engagement and education. My home I purchased two years ago in district eight because my daughter, who is 31 years old, suffered a massive stroke. She'd been a school teacher in Austin for 13 years. When it happened, and I needed to move here to help her. I sold my house in Houston. I left everything behind, and I came here to help her. When I got here, I realized I was going to stay, so I kept my promise to her that I would keep her in her south Austin neighborhood. Eid and we tried to purchase a home, which was very difficult. We were specifically purchasing a home in that area to make sure we could build an Adu in the backyard. So between calling the city and looking on the maps and trying to find an sf1 three house for sale, it was very stressful, very time consuming, and I wish the home initiative had had been in effect when I was searching for my house for my family. Two years ago. I I'm very supportive of this because it would have been a lot less stressful. And I've been here [7:42:07 PM] stressful. And I've been here listening to the people all day who say this is only for the rich, this is only for the council and the mayor. And I'm here to tell you that this is for me and my daughter and my family and all the people who think that this is only for the developers. I'm here to prove everybody wrong. And say, you know, I live paycheck to paycheck, just like a lot of people in this room, and I need to build an Adu and I need to find a place to build one because my daughter, who is a teacher, cannot afford a house whether she has a disability or not. She makes $58,000 a year and has never been able to afford a house in Austin. So thank you for promoting this. >> Please go ahead. Thank you. >> Hello, my name is Amanda Carrillo. I live in southeast Austin in district two. I oppose home the affordable the affordable requirement will will lead to higher property taxes and increase gentrification and rapid homelessness. >> This will not help the middle [7:43:07 PM] >> This will not help the middle income families, only the rich developers want to build in our neighborhoods to make money. This will give them the green light. >> Additionally, the lack of engaging marginalized communities will disproportionately impact middle and middle class, low income and Spanish speaking property owners without proper communication. >> This individuals may be uninformed about pending changes, putting them at higher risk for displacement or challenges in navigating the rezoning process. Language barriers would could worsen the issue for Spanish speaking property owners, hindering their ability to understand the changes and actively participating in the decision making. Again, I want to emphasize the majority of the community this is going to affect Spanish speakers and the city of Austin lacks the transparency and translation Ann in a timely manner. This is also happening during the holidays. >> So this is why we're asking you to please oppose oppose this. [7:44:08 PM] this. >> We also ask for your support council member Velasquez and Fuentes to please put a pause on this and say no to home. Thank you very much and have a good night. Silver avia Sypniewski. Noah Wright. Michael curry. Jason Hoffman. Ann please state your name. >> My name is Ford Smith. I live in district nine. >> I am for the housing initiative. >> I've mayor just left but got to listen to him speak on Tuesday night in front of a group of what I would assume are probably high net worth individuals and he got called out by a couple individuals asking about the housing initiative and why he supported it and think that he really simplified it extremely well. >> He said the way I see it is I have gotten mine and now it's time for everybody else to get theirs. And I think it says it very simply, beautifully so. >> Thank you very much. >> Hi, my name is Michael curry, [7:45:13 PM] >> Hi, my name is Michael curry, pro-democracy scholars and advocates council that outside of the electoral process, the best way to respond to anti-democrat trends in this country is to focus on democracy at the local level. Taking that to heart, I've tried to evaluate the city's actions to revise the land development code through a pro-democracy lens, as you've heard me invoke democratic principles on more than one occasion. One of the principal pillars of liberal democracy is respect for the rule of law. The idea that no one, especially the government, is above the law. And so I and others put considerable effort into forcing the city to provide notice and opportunity to protest as required by state law and the city code. It took two courts and the impending decision of a third to get the city to do that. And here we are today, and this council is poised to break the law once again. Section 211.004 of the Texas local [7:46:14 PM] 211.004 of the Texas local government code requires zoning regulations to be adopted in accordance with the comprehensive plan. Article ten, section six of the Austin city charter provides that all land development regulations, including zoning and the map and all city regulatory actions relating to land use, shall be consistent with the comprehensive plan. The code amendments you have before you here today would change the zoning regulations and authorized land use on single family zone property uses in ways that are irrefutable and consistent with the comprehensive plan. If you rush and adopt these changes today, you will unnecessarily violate the city charter and the Texas local government code. When the city flouts the law, it undermines democracy and it sends a terrible message to its citizens. Acting on phase one today is not only deceptive and premature, it violates our laws. Please don't do it. Thank you. >> We can take a deep breath [7:47:22 PM] >> We can take a deep breath while we're bringing up my presentation. Thank you. >>. >> Hi. All my name is Sylvia rybnovsky. I live in Travis heights, district nine. >> My rent was raised 33. >> This year to bring it up to market and to address my landlords. Raised property taxes, as she put it, public services and infrastructure here haven't improved significantly. So what are y'all paying for the house next door to me? Sold for $2.2 million this March next slide a dilapidated split level home on 0.6 acres of neglected land with an industrial dump in the front and chicken and quail coops in the back. Next slide. Note the historical valuation a 120% increase over five five years in June, when I left my neighbor a welcome, we kind of spoiled it in June, I left my new neighbor a welcome gift with a note and my number days later, I got a text from Ryan saying [7:48:23 PM] I got a text from Ryan saying that that he couldn't wait to meet and thanks for the gift. A few weeks later I saw boxes and bags on the front porch, so I went over to introduce myself to my new neighbor. I met his employee instead, installing a disco ball. Turns out Ryan lives in Seattle and along with his business partner, has a portfolio of 21 companies sorry, 21 properties nationwide and registered the cornhole and the cowboy pool. The home has been flipped to a short term rental. It averages $1,200 a night and sleeps up to 15. So back to my question about what homeowners are paying for with their raised property taxes. I just showed you, you are paying the price for an inflated housing market whose limited supply is boxing out long term, full time homeowners and only attracting those who can afford it by way of extra marketing from the community. Businesses and investors. We have a market problem. If supply increases and demand remains the same, the cost of the units will go down. So the home initiative is a step [7:49:24 PM] So the home initiative is a step towards addressing that by encouraging the development of more homes and more types of homes. District nine constituents only an entity who will yield returns in the very near future can afford our median home price of 1.1 million. Next slide the market is like a game of musical chairs. We need more chairs or like a big cake. We can cut smaller, more pieces. As long as I can't graduate to being a first time home buyer, I will continue to strain the rental market. Thank you for your time. >> Laurie Hayden. My Mary Sanger . Peggy Morton. Barbara Macarthur. Rey Vasquez. Scott Mackey. If your name has been called, please approach the [7:50:29 PM] called, please approach the podium and state your name. >> Hi, my name is Laurie Hayden. >> I live in the brentwood neighborhood in district seven and I am opposed to the home initiative and I wanted to discuss my concerns, my primary concern. Ann I'm not opposed to density per se, but I am opposed to any density initiative that does not have a meaningful, affordable requirement. And also I would like to note that people can already build ads and I'm not opposed to that. In fact, I want to tell you my story about building an Adu. But I and I believe also community power to we support that, but we believe that that opportunity should be available to middle and lower income people as well. So so, the program I participated in a number of years ago, I guess in 2016 was called the alley flat [7:51:30 PM] 2016 was called the alley flat initiative. And it was co-joined, I guess with the smart housing program. So basically we in a nutshell, what my husband and I were able to do in our attempt to convert our detached garage into an apartment, we went through this program and received a waiver of city permit fees in exchange for us agreeing to make our rental unit affordable and it was meaningful in fact, we agreed to provide, you know, we agreed to charge rent that was under 80% of mfi for five years. And we are charged and it's also all bills paid because we were allowed under that program to use one meter, the meter that our main house uses, the Adu was also able to use. So essentially the rent we charged was all [7:52:31 PM] the rent we charged was all bills paid and the rent we that was at the 80% in 2017 was 1064. >> Thank you. >> Thanks. >> Hi, my name is Barbara Macarthur. I'm in district seven and I live in brentwood to. You're about to conduct an experiment on over 170,000 family parcels based on the belief that the market will become altruistic and miraculously produce housing for the people. >> You were promising it to as you know, your own city study said that it was not zoning, but speculation and real estate investment that drove the price up. >> And they told this would and they said that they told you that this would continue the trend and displace more people. Your solution ignores the cause. So you are handing over the control of land to the actors that drove the prices up in the first place and pushed people out of the eastern crescent. You already did this experiment in east Austin with the infill options you pushed on those neighborhoods. Small lots more [7:53:33 PM] neighborhoods. Small lots more units. You know the results. Brown and black people removed and 400% increase in white population. Ann I cannot tell you how disingenuous it sounds to lower and middle income people that this gives people options. It gives developers and speculators options. The author of the currently touted pew study said that there was no displacement of black and brown in Houston. In contrast to the rice university study that showed 40 to 60% displacement of black and brown with the small lots, he also opined on a story of hispanic displacement in la silverlake that the trouble with these things is we're focusing on the people who get displaced instead of the people we want to move here. Maybe you could pass a plan that was as just as oriented as this is market oriented. And from a planning commissioner, sadly for a planning commissioner, said this in the Austin chronicle today, sadly, it's 2023 with the home initiative, if approved in its current form, would spur another forced relocation of black and [7:54:34 PM] forced relocation of black and brown residents as we approach the 100th anniversary of 1928, thank you. Susie. Brian Kent. >> Jen Grayson, Christian Gonzales, les Evan Bookout and Janice Bookout. >> Please state your name. Thank you. >> Jenny Grayson, district one council would never rezone property if not requested by a commercial property owner. And here you are rezoning 170,000 lots which were not requested to be rezoned by the owners. We have nearly 11,000 valid petitions against home if the opposed property owners were developers, you would never pass this initiative. >> Based on our strong opposition. >> A number of east Austin residents, including neighborhoods including my own, voted to oppose the current home options for middle income empowerment initiative, citing [7:55:34 PM] empowerment initiative, citing it lacks fundamental language defining affordability and other factors that will be detrimental to vulnerable homeowners and efforts to increase density in a safe, respectable manner and to ensure new homes are actually affordable. We sent a letter to council requesting that you write terms into the home initiative, specifically stating how the following concerns will be addressed in a legal and binding manner, increasing affordability lending options for home owners, reducing speculation, limiting short term rentals, upgrading the city's utilities and infrastructure and. And just addressing property taxes. As a community, we do not agree that such a broad, undefined, unrestricted rezoning change is the way to effectively or efficiently solve affordability after all, affordability requirements aren't even mentioned in the home options for middle income empowerment amendments and if a current home owner homeowner did want to take advantage of adding units to their land, they'd have [7:56:35 PM] units to their land, they'd have to tear down their current home, remove Singh the only remaining naturally occurring affordable housing options in Austin. This deadline is arbitary. There is no reason why this needs to be voted on today. We agree Austin needs more housing. We agree. Austin needs more affordable housing. We disagree by the means, by on the means by which council is going about this. Vote no and take the time to plan with the communities you serve. The tiny home builders are already out in full force advertising in chambers today. There's three of them. And don't worry, I've already passed. >> Thank you. >> They say to call out city council for $2,000 discount on their next tiny home. This looks bad for y'all. >> Well, don't know about it, would you? >> Would you go get a copy of that? >> Good evening. My name is Christian Gonzalez from district ten in Austin. Here to express my support of home. Austin's housing supply is not keeping pace with new jobs and incoming residents. Equally, income [7:57:35 PM] residents. Equally, income raises are not enough to combat rising home costs. Home along with recent changes to fha loans that allow homeowners utilize loans to build new homes on their property, will make it much easier for the average homeowner to benefit themselves and increase the housing supply. In Austin, an increase in the housing supply means that nearly that the nearly 78% of medics that serve the city of Austin but can't afford to live here, have a chance to live where they work. Home will allow Austin to organically densify without superseding current or restrictive covenants and keeping the same mandated restrictions on impervious cover . Urge you to keep Austin affordable and I urge you to vote yes on the home initiative. Thank you. Thank you. >> Chelsea burns is Amy Deluna. Stephen Gershon and Mary hill. If your name has been called, please approach the podium and [7:58:38 PM] please approach the podium and state your name. It does not matter what order you have been called in. If your name has been called, please approach your name been called ma'am? >> Yeah. Well then go ahead and come up and testify. >> Hi, my name is Evan Bookout. I'm a district four resident and I'm donating my time to my mom. >> Have you have you done the donation that we have requested? >> Oh, didn't know. Do we do that first? >> No, but they get four minutes. >> Thank you. >> Janice Bookout, district four. >> First, do no harm. >> Confirmation bias is the tendency to interpret information in a way that confirms your opinion. >> Confirmation bias kept doctors performing lobotomies, even as growing evidence showed the surgery was harmful. So I understand. >> I understand. >> We look at displacement and we think we've got to do something wrong. >> But what if the tools you're using are the wrong tools and the impacted people are telling you to stop? >> Erp this initiative is like an experiment. It's an experiment based on a supply side theory that only works in static markets. It's not dynamic [7:59:39 PM] static markets. It's not dynamic markets like Austin with unique submarket. It's in neighborhoods like Springdale or Riverside. So I analyzed the data and it doesn't look good. First supply driven experiments are not working. We're hearing of people getting evicted from affordable housing as the Wright rising mfi, which increased $22,000 in the last three years, outpaces their income in the last five years. We've actually had a net loss 4297 affordable units due to rising mfi and expiration dates, while adding 8854 displacement driving units in the eastern crescent neighborhoods through our, quote, affordable housing policies that are market driven. What do mean by displacement driving? 32 zip codes have a median income in a median income under Austin's mfi, 27 are under 80, 14 are under 60, and seven are under 50. Mfi are supposed affordable initiatives have effectively added unit units priced above the neighborhood income level. A factor known to [8:00:41 PM] income level. A factor known to drive displacement. According to our own UT uprooted study in 2023. For every one deeply affordable unit built through market driven incentives, we have added 28 units priced above the reach of the residents in the neighborhoods they were placed in. Since affordability unlocked in 2019, we've only added 678 units of affordable to the residents living there and incentivize the placements of 15,647 overpriced units in our most at risk zip codes. This policy was passed despite the objections of the people who were most impacted. And going back further east, Riverside corridor master plan opposed by organizers passed by council claimed to incentivize affordable housing in the Riverside area. Since that time 78741 has seen exactly two units of affordable. To the neighborhood and 2200 affordable, unaffordable ones. And we know that the desired development zone played a pivotal role in the exodus of our black community members, as some might draw rather cynical [8:01:41 PM] some might draw rather cynical view that the word affordability is being used to justify speculation and modern day colonization. I believe that most people believe that they're doing good, but then most of the world's evil is done by well-meaning people who believe they know what's best. Over and over, we keep hearing the council and count council after council say, but we have to do something while not listening to the neighbors. They claim to serve. And every time the experiment has not just failed, but caused harm. The evidence is mounting. Yet we keep experimenting. Lang home is a supply driven experiment with no affordability requirements. Community powered has multiple alternatives that are in your inbox and on the agenda. Don't leave the dais for this vote or vote no or postpone and consider the alternatives. We're here to support you in doing that. Whatever you do first, do no harm. >> Hello. My name is Amy Deluna [8:02:43 PM] >> Hello. My name is Amy Deluna and all I want for Christmas is triplexes. I am a resident of district nine and am here to speak in favor of the home initiative. >> I work for the state in. Many of my coworkers and I are middle income earners. >> Several of my colleagues work in Austin, but live outside of the city because they cannot afford homes here in Austin I have coworkers who commute as far as new braunfels and temple. Many of the people I work with devote so much of their time in themselves to serving residents of Texas. >> They and other public servants should be able to live in the city that they work in. >> I want anyone who wishes to live in Austin to be able to do so and think that the home initiative is a step in the right direction to accomplish that. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. >> Mayor, ma'am, would you mind terribly if the d1 staff found you and took a picture of your [8:03:45 PM] you and took a picture of your gingerbread triplex? Please. Thank you. >> Next speaker is Jim Duncan, who has time donated by Mike. Mayor is Mike here? >> Thank you. >> You can just pull your chair up to it if you want. >> All right. Whatever >> And Bryant Duncan. Okay so Mr. Duncan gets four minutes. Six. >> You should have six two, and then another donated. >> The other person is not present. >> Four minutes. You have four minutes. You got him. Well, first of all, mayor, council members, city manager, Jesus, thank you for allowing me to speak today. >> My name is Jim Duncan and I live in district ten. I'm a retired city planner who has worked with a lot of cities and drafted a lot of codes over the last 60 years before the [8:04:46 PM] last 60 years before the enclosure. I wouldn't normally say this. I'm a former San Francisco resident and I own an airbnb. Usually it's not relevant, but for the record, while I am probably one of the strongest persons to agree that Austin's land use code and development approval process, this is an abomination and it needs serious, refreshing and updating. I don't think that the home initiative is before you today as currently drafted, is the right answer. For as a planner, I wanted to look at it and where it came from, and it's an outgrowth. Think you all are aware in the last five years there's been a nationwide discussion on doing away with single family zoning. The first [8:05:47 PM] single family zoning. The first major city to do that was Minneapolis. So I wanted to see what had happened in Minneapolis in the five years since they adopted it in 2018. And I wanted to compare it with Austin because Austin and Minneapolis are two separate cities and two very different cities. The do need to do click it here or you. Okay so I came up with four reasons why it is a not a good fit as it is drafted before you today. And I'm not saying that they're not portions of it that might be applicable. I'm just saying it is not ready to adopt out and put into a place which buttoned up is the red one, right? >> One. >> Okay, here we go. >> Okay. >> Got it. I should know this after serving with council member Allison alter for a long time, Austin and Minneapolis are very dissimilar. In fact, a lot [8:06:49 PM] very dissimilar. In fact, a lot of you might not be aware of this, but because it's a wonderful city. But it is. Let me just go ahead and click several of these because it's taking the time to first of all, we're three times bigger than Minneapolis. Second of all, we're growing a lot faster. Minneapolis is more is seeking growth more than we are. Growth is coming to us. We're the city of Austin. And this is unique. And I think we all need to when you're talking about land use regulations, remember this city of Austin is unique among all major metropolitan areas in this country in terms of how we dominate the metro area. Half of the Austin metro area is in the city of Austin. In Minneapolis, it's only 10. The city of Minneapolis, as compared to the city of Austin. It's like the two councilmember districts in [8:07:49 PM] two councilmember districts in the core of the city. So when you're applying land use regulations, you have to think differently. You have to think about the urban and the suburban portions Luz and that is why adopt ING a blanket zoning ordinance over the entire jurisdiction of Austin makes no sense, I can assure you. In Minneapolis is that if the city of Minneapolis wanted to adopt what you're adopting today and what they adopted in 2018, tried to apply it to Eagan or any of their major suburbs, there are 218 suburbs surrounding Minneapolis. There are 22 surrounding us. Thought had six minutes go for let me go fast then know your time is your time is up. >> Now that was four minutes. Four minutes. Okay. >> Thank you. >> And Jim, thank you for the [8:08:50 PM] >> And Jim, thank you for the book. Thank you for the book. You. Anna Aber, haam. >> Linda Washington, Laura Grimm . Ben Livingston. Elizabeth Gallagher. My Marie campo. Robert hale. Shane Johnson Ann. Who has time donated by Jeremy Garza. Okay, so who's waving? >> I'm Jeremy. >> Shane. >> Thank you. Shane gets four minutes. >> Evening council. My name is Robert hale. I'm a longtime austinite and resident of district eight, and I'm also a city planner, professional [8:09:51 PM] city planner, professional planner with about 30 years of experience. >> Most of that on city staff working to interpret, implement and try and improve our land development code. >> I think everybody in the room agrees that our current code and our current market is not working at all. >> It's pricing regular austinites out of home ownership and increasingly out of even renting and everybody here wants to change that. I think the general idea is that if we build more housing that the price will go down. But the housing market is not that simple. And the home initiative is as currently written, is not going to achieve its stated goals. However you can change that. >> You can change that in several different ways by adopting several of the amendments that are before you tonight. >> Limiting short term rentals, every short term rental that's taken off is one more home that's available for a Austin family working to preserve the existing units that are on this on the on the lots that exist now and it's also going to take an investment. Mayor Watson, [8:10:52 PM] an investment. Mayor Watson, when you were mayor, first time around, we faced a real crisis in the downtown, the downtown Ann was dead. I mean, remember the old city annex? I mean, that place was a dump. I try not to. Yeah, exactly. Have bad dreams myself, but you face that challenge head on with vision and with leadership and with city money. And because of that, you were able to turn downtown around. And I'm asking you to do that again. Ann make another investment in the city. We can do low interest loans to existing homeowners wanting to add another unit and we can make a committed long term investors Swint into a trust fund for low income housing. The housing affordability complex problem is very complex and it's not going to be solved with one simple solution. The good news is there are so many good answers. You've heard them tonight in this room, and there are even more in your districts. So please take the ideas tonight back to your districts. Talk to the people and come back with with a plan [8:11:53 PM] and come back with with a plan that achieves everything you knew you wanted to do. >> Mayor, I'd like to give a real quick little add and recognition because I think four of my colleagues on the dais are in fact, bringing something along the lines of the finance social support idea is something that will be on our agenda next week. >> Excellent. Yeah >> Thank you. >> Okay, you can do it anyway. Okay >> Please. >> Please, Mr. Johnson, they're setting up a video to play. >> You'll need, like, five seconds if anyone else was called, please make your way to the podium. >> There you go. Okay. Black >> And I'm a city councilor in Raleigh, North Carolina. Raleigh and Austin are similar in many ways. We both are rapidly growing southern cities with a strong tech presence and a democratic majority that hopes to build Progressive visions of the future. >> We also both grapple with a deep history of racism and equity and gentrification. >> I had the pleasure to visit [8:12:55 PM] >> I had the pleasure to visit Austin twice this year, once to speak on a south by southwest panel and another time to speak at the university of Austin's law school. >> So every time I travel, I ask people living there to tell me about the social issues they are facing every single person mentioned housing in Raleigh, up zoning without affordability requirements has fueled gentrification and displacement. >> Raleigh's rent surge reflects this trend. In 2021, our rents spiked by 21, outpacing the national average. Like Texas and North Carolina, cities can't mandate inclusionary zoning, which has led to a surge in market rate and luxury housing benefiting developers, mostly while displacing low income homeowners, homeowners and renters. In the last two years, the fabric of our city has changed forever. Once thriving working communities of color are now replaced by mcmansions and million dollar homes increased property taxes increase rental rates, increased home costs, more than one in every four household are facing affordability challenge and a December 2022 report showed that Raleigh rent grew at the fastest [8:13:57 PM] Raleigh rent grew at the fastest rate among any of the 50 most populous metropolitan areas. My background is in climate and environmental advocacy, so I know the importance of building denser and more walkable cities in order to act on the climate crisis. But density and walkability in a city mean little if low income communities that rely on public transportation are displaced and cannot experience them unless that's the intended purpose. As Austin's council must consider the consequences and vote against initiatives like home prioritizing instead, genuine middle income housing solution over developer profits. As elected officials, we have a due diligence to focus on real solutions like community land trusts, deeply affordable housing and creative financing, ensuring that housing remains accessible. So it's crucial for cities like Austin and Raleigh to be deeply thoughtful about what we are building, what future are we working towards, and if it's collective for everyone to be able to be a part of a thriving tapestry city that [8:14:59 PM] of a thriving tapestry city that makes up our beautiful southern cities, we have the opportunity to learn from the pitfalls of cities like San Francisco, Atlanta and New York, where people are leaving in mass and make decisions that truly address the housing affordable crisis. I hope that Austin council members choose to vote no on the home initiative. >> Thank you, mayor. City council Shane Johnson. He and pronouns district seven resident. First, I want to start with some breaking news that just in the last few days, the Austin cooperative business association formally backed out of endorsing the home initiative . >> Once they realized what it truly does, we have time to postpone the vote and do this the right way. >> We cannot, under any circumstances, allow home to pass right now without postpone ING, because if we do this plan, even with the amendments listed this morning, Lang home will legally prohibit us from requiring new units to be affordable. All because that is how the policy works when we [8:15:59 PM] how the policy works when we have already given the entitlements away, we cannot then later acquire affordability and we will be blocking ourselves from truly building and requiring deeply affordable housing by doing something like a density bonus. And we can also then ban a percent from being strs. >> Things like that. >> And I'm afraid, I'm afraid that if many of you vote, we add these events on, you'll see it as political cover to then vote in favor of this disastrous policy that will uproot families. I was chair of the climate equity plan and this would never have passed our analysis. >> Please postpone the vote. >> Terry Myers is Leonard Weiss. Laura Weigand Tobin Weigand. George Oberg. Jeremiah ers can go. [8:16:59 PM] go. >> Sure. >> Okay. I live in Hancock and district nine. I serve on the city for 14 years on the landmark commission. >> During that time, the demolitions of historic houses of actual historic buildings in Austin rose from about 5000 per year to over 9000 a year. And those are only the houses that went to the landmark commission. Others were administratively approved for demolitions. I'm opposed to the home initiative as it threatens older central city neighborhoods both east and west, but particularly in east Austin. My husband and I moved here in 1989. We were looking for an older house, but equally important, we were looking for an established neighborhood, and after two years, 200 showings and three realtors firing us, I saw a realtor pounding a sign in the yard of a rundown, but [8:18:02 PM] the yard of a rundown, but historic bungalow. I waited for her to leave and I jumped out of the car and I ripped that sign out of the yard. >> I went and got my husband. >> We put in an offer on the house. It had been vacant for ten years, hadn't had water, electricity or gas for ten years. It was only painted on the front street side of the house. It had no ac or heat, only a fireplace. It was perfect it, but equally perfect was it was in a nice older neighborhood with tree lined streets and family cars and dogs and it was very pleasant neighborhood. But it was also dense of the 12 houses in my block, seven had Adas and or garage apartments, including mine. >> Thank you. >> We can do that without home. >> Thank you. Meredith Oberg. [8:19:03 PM] >> Thank you. Meredith Oberg. >> I'm sorry. Meredith Murray. Scott Collier. Sam haitham. Sharon brown. Shaw shiva Watson. Chris flores. Rebecca green. If your name has been called, please state your name at the podium. >> Chavis Watson. >> Please go ahead. >> I'm Chavis Watson and I represent every council district in the city of Austin. >> Those of us who stand up for all austinites wants to know if there's been a constitutional lens applied to the home initiative. >> Does this petition uphold or not? >> Our lives, our liberties, or our pursuit of happiness? [8:20:04 PM] our pursuit of happiness? >> I doubt it does. Bottom line, I think the court of public opinion has spoken against item one. Your role and your oath is to receive and embrace us. But also to align what we've said here today as a city of Austin, 2023 net zero zo didn't find the home initiative to reduce carbon emissions, nor does it speak to the balance between the amount of greenhouse gas that's produced and the amount that's removed from the atmosphere. >> For we won't ever achieve net zero by 2030, 2050, or even 2100. >> With this initiative. Affordable housing is a nasty chronological term that hasn't worked out in Chicago. Los Angeles and definitely not in Austin. What's affordable in this initiative if it speaks nothing to the 700% increase in property taxes over the past few years, let's get some housing development finance corporations established so renters can own their dwellings. That's working in the bronx as perhaps the only felon in the chambers tonight, anything that only speaks to the middle class as the home initiative does, doesn't include me, nor allows me to join the table. Are you aware of this foundation? Communities [8:21:05 PM] foundation? Communities continues to gain more housing lots across Austin. And isn't that called affordable? Well you're unable to get in with a felony charge in your past five years, and this was before the home initiative that speaks to affordability. Whereas the truth. Leslie, I've known you for years on the dais, can't afford to live in d7 anymore. Natasha and Vanessa, nothing's been created that can be included in in d1 or d2. Mckenzie I can't. I got to move to Killeen. Perhaps because I can't afford anything north of Anderson mill. Allison, thank you for continuing to show up where your counterparts are not to see this initiative for what it is. You all can continue to violate our pursuit of happiness, but not for long. The people will rise again, as we did in 2020. And Kirk, I know you don't want that. If continue to be passed. >> Thank you, sir. >> One another social uprising. >> Thank you. No on this. Thank you. No, on this. Thank you. >> Will come back to lawsuits. Like I said, I don't even need. >> Sir, your time is up. >> Give a what you're talking about. You have showed your in this city. We, you, you and me share the last name. The same last name your. Really out of here until you show that you [8:22:05 PM] here until you show that you uphold the constitution. Keep speaking as long as I want. >> No, you. You really had to wait. >> Actually, speaking, would you please ask him to leave my eyes on you to Vanessa my eyes on you too. >> It's time to go affordable. >> For who? Affordable for who? Affordable for who know people losing their house every day in this city. Every day. >> That's right. Evictions are up. >> Homelessness is higher than it's ever been, than it's ever been. You remember my face? The one you can't shut up. The one you can't turn off his money. Steve Allen tried to do that. Thank you. Straight up. Yeah. Yeah. You know, I was wondering, as black and handshakes are coming, that city, I want to let you know you all go your own goal, uphold the constitution, strike like that. >> Thank you for being with us. >> Good evening. Elected people. >> My name is Chris flores. I am [8:23:05 PM] >> My name is Chris flores. I am a resident of district ten. I left you a letter in your city hall mailboxes asking for amendments to the proposed codes for fairness in density Fauci. I'm using my two minutes tonight to ask you to give us a visual that we can get behind. Something that brings the generations and the socio economic classes together. Will you please invite the expertise of neutral university of Texas school of architecture to draw us a map? Some sort of overlay that will give us a view of how we will live here with several million more people in beauty and in harmony and in good health, will you show us what our dwellings will look like by income level with this visual, we can picture ourselves within our beloved city. >> Thank you. >> Karl Mcclain. Paul Hudspeth, Judy fork, John Passero ward Tisdale. Karen Castro. [8:24:11 PM] Tisdale. Karen Castro. >> If your name has been called, just please come forward and state your name for the record and start talking. >> Ward Tisdale, district five. >> I live in the south Southwood neighborhood, own a home there about nine years. >> I am here with strong yes, for home. I remember reading in March of 22 that from abhors report that that the median price of home was. $624,000. And remember that day saying Lang they've done it. We're now no longer an affordable city. We've been going on that path for many years. But this is not a housing affordability problem. It's a crisis. And so something needs to be done. I have a ability to, to build an Adu in my backyard. [8:25:15 PM] to build an Adu in my backyard. I don't have one, but all I could do that. But this would be just another unit that would be available for me to do. So it's not really a radical change, but it is an opportunity for this council to say yes because previous councils said no, no, no. And what happened? The chickens came home to roost. We have a problem. We have a crisis. And so we need to take steps. This isn't a panacea. It's not going to fix it all. But this is a great step forward . And so in closing, I would I would recommend that you make a decision for the future, not the past. Choose love over fear. There's a lot of fear going on here today and pun intended, this is a home run. Knock it out of the park. Thank you. Thank you. [8:26:17 PM] you. >> Please proceed. >> I'm John Passero. I my wife Karen, and I have a home in district seven. >> And in honor of our I feel I feel the presence of the PayPal mafia here a little bit. >> So in their honor, I want to talk about the development philosophy of moving fast and breaking things, which is also, for building rockets. And you know, you build your best guess at a rocket, you know, whether it works or not off the bat, you know, test your assumptions. If it falls out of the sky, make another one, incorporate your learning every. Every time it fails, you learn something. And the key thing is, is you don't put people on it until it works. You know, you just don't do that [8:27:18 PM] You know, you just don't do that . Now, it's not a great philosophy for city planning. >> I think, at least as we're talking about it tonight, you are immediately pulling in 170,000 lots. >> One once the appraisals have been in the property values go up, development has begun. There's no undo, there's no undo button on this. And if any of our assumptions about the benefits are incorrect, you know, then then we're looking at possibly, you know, non-zero chance of one or more of these things, you know, loss of our tree scape, loss of our flood flash flood resiliency, displacement of people who can't afford to redevelop in order to pay their property tax overloading of city services. And, you know, finally a failure to provide the wanted affordable ability. So I think we have to have to go the way of, refining the home, proposal with a [8:28:21 PM] the home, proposal with a research. >> Thank you, sir. Thank, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Please begin. >> Hi. My name is Carl Mclean and members of the city council. Thank you. I support this resolution out of personal experience and hope for the future. I'm a lifelong Texan, and I've lived in Austin now for a decade. I happen to live in councilwoman alter's district, and in my zip code, seven, eight, 759, the median home price is now $670,000. Now, I've played by the rules, save where I could for those ten years, got a well-paying job, and I've been renting that whole time. But at today's rates, a mortgage payment on a house like that is 90% of my income for the year. Put another way, with the purchase budget that I have, I cannot afford a single house in [8:29:22 PM] cannot afford a single house in that zip code. Now, the irony is I could have bought a house in the same area ten years ago when home prices were half of that value. But like many of my fellow renters who are half of this city, I cannot afford a time machine, let alone a house. What our next generation austinites supposed to afford? Currently, nothing but want you to think about my friends, many who provide essential work for this city. My next door neighbor , an Austin schoolteacher, starting on 51,000, just had to move to Kyle because of high rents. Yes, I've seen the same sad story happen again and again in my neighborhood. Nurses is gone. >> Firefighters gone. >> Ann artists gone. Musicians gone. All moving out of the area because they are unable to afford rent or property taxes. The way things are going, we are throttling the character of our community with ever higher home prices and rents. Austin is no longer weird or inclusive or vibrant. It's just generically [8:30:24 PM] vibrant. It's just generically expensive of the plain truth is that this displacement, what's called gentrifying nation, is happening now. It's been happening for decades, not because of more density, but because inventories are so low. So vacancies are rock bottom. Sales dates fly by, and for ten years I've watched weird move away and sameness take root. >> Thank you. >> Hello, I'm Karen Padro district seven. >> I'm usually a pretty big fan of letting fantasy live. >> That said, this when reality hits, it can hit hard. >> It seems our city and our city and our lives have gotten in the way of some wheeler dealers dreams and the real world of course, we want affordable housing, but to those people who believe this proposal will provide that be prepared to [8:31:26 PM] will provide that be prepared to be smacked by the reality that deceit is built into this plan. >> And although it might seem like a little thing to some, from where will the water for all the people in this densely packed city come? I do hope that's part of the fat cats dream. >> But but one thing I got to wonder is how did their dreams get precedence over ours? And Ed two city council to council member pool we met at the rosedale school precinct. >> We met at the rosedale school precinct on election day morning when you won your first term, you had my vote and I've been grateful for your representation through many unnerving proposals, through the years you've stood on the side of reason many times, and for that I thank you. That said, I so want to believe that the person out canvasing for votes that day [8:32:27 PM] out canvasing for votes that day , the one with integrity, wanting to do the right thing for our city, is still in there. Are you there, sir? Thank you. For Sylvia chulita Rodriguez. >> Zachary for Faddis. Jeff. Jeff Kessel, Diane molina, rishi Bartz. Ray caraway. Zenobia Joseph. If your name has been called, please state your name at the podium. >> Hello, my name is rishi Bhatt and I'm a resident of district [8:33:30 PM] and I'm a resident of district one. I will be speaking in favor of the home initiative. I have been a resident of Austin since 2007 and have lived all over the city and watched it rapidly grow. My wife and I are both fortunate that we're able to own a small home in a centrally located that provides us the type of unique lifestyle that Austin provides biking to work or to restaurants, taking the train downtown or to Austin fc games, walking our dog on the hike and bike trail. But I know that these things are not accessible to everyone. Ann over the years we've had countless close friends move away from central Austin or leave Austin entirely because home ownership was out of reach for them. These friends were teachers, social workers, a professor and the director of a local nonprofit. They brought so much to the community, both in the work that they did and outside of it, but they had to make the difficult [8:34:32 PM] they had to make the difficult decision to leave the place that they loved. We talk a lot in Austin about equity and diversity. Nothing could further that goal more than making home ownership in Austin accessible for people who aren't tech workers like me or didn't move here in the 90s, the home initiative can help Austin keep the vibrancy that so many cities are losing right now because of the lack of affordable housing. Thank you. Thank you. >> Hi. Good evening. >> My name is Diana molina and I reside in district nine. As someone who moved here when I was still a kid and who has a lot of family living here as well. I'm very invested in the future of the city. >> I want to commend all of you for bringing the home initiative to vote with so much community input, giving us an opportunity to speak out like this and putting up with all of it throughout the days. >> I also understand that a single policy cannot alone solve [8:35:32 PM] single policy cannot alone solve all of the issues with housing. >> It's going to take a lot more to undo the harm of exclusionary zoning. >> But this is a good beginning. Those of us with good manners and upbringing, we learn that as children that you finish what's on your plate before you get up and get seconds. Put another way you infill before you sprawl, keeping the status quo equals more roads, more highways and more car dependency. We cannot afford that. Thank you all for being here. >> May those of you voting in favor of home weather, the storms, the frivolous lawsuits that may come knowing that those of you reading for you outnumber those against. >> Thank you. Miss Joseph. >> Thank you, mayor. >> Council. I'm Zenobia Joseph. I'll just preface by saying a five year old little hispanic girl gave me this smiley face yesterday and she said, miss Joseph, I want to pray for you [8:36:32 PM] Joseph, I want to pray for you and council. >> I want to pray for you to do. >> I hope that you will listen to the members in the community who have stated opposition to the home initiative, the E stands for empowerment as a matter of transparency, I want you to know that I sent my comments to the internal revenue service eo class at irs.gov council member pool. I'm relying on the October 26, 2023, presentation, which is the first document in backup, specifically on October 25th, 2023, the $10 million pro-housing grant was submitted to hud on October 26th, 2023. >> That is actually when you had your joint hearing on page two of the document, and that is where the staff actually relied on project connect number three, page three on the document specifies that there was actually 66,000 jobs that were created since 2010. >> Let's talk about the history in 2014. [8:37:33 PM] in 2014. >> The project connect north corridor locally preferred alternative specified that 58% of the jobs would be in the north corridor by 2035. In 2018, capital metro actually eliminated northeast west connectivity north of us 183 on July 27th, 2020, council actually unilaterally eliminated three northeast metro rapids, specifically Samsung to apple. >> Appreciate the conversation that you had about fair housing during the work session. >> I would ask Mackenzie Kelly to recognize the need to comply with title six and not just the fair housing act of 1968. I want you to recognize that my comments are in the context of title six of the civil rights act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color or national origin. And I do recognize that my comments equate to a mere exercise in futility. But it is important for you to recognize that that is how you get your federal funding. So for all the community members Wright to the irs, if you have any questions at this time. >> Thank you. Appreciate it. Mr. >> Joseph Ann dinkler parker [8:38:34 PM] >> Joseph Ann dinkler parker Welch. Ingrid Morton, Linda Jackson and Hans Mack. Nissen >> Welcome. Mr. Dinkler. >> Do we need a stretch break or a deep breathe break? I'm Ann dinkler. Appreciate the time y'all have given this issue. Appreciate definitely appreciate the staff's professionalism throughout this whole exercise and want, city manager Jesus Garza to extend my thanks to his staff home has been described as a way to keep teachers and firefighters in Austin. There is no question that we want these residents to have housing, but what about the musicians and baristas who make less than 80? Mfi we add a story allow construction and setbacks as [8:39:35 PM] construction and setbacks as density bonuses to get affordable housing. Why aren't we doing this in home? You are adding two units to single family. One and two and one unit to three. Yet we are not requiring anything in the way of affordable housing below 80% where the need is the greatest. You're giving away entitled tenants. Why not require for a fee that could be used for affordable housing? If you add additional units or use some other method to address this use, we do not need to upset Ann to get affordable, affordable Katy Portland has been called up as a model for increasing missing middle, but on closer examination it's different than home in it emphasizes detached homes, whereas Portland required shared walls which make the units cheaper and helped reduce carbon. Both Portland, the American Austin institute of [8:40:36 PM] American Austin institute of architects, aia, the planning commission, and your own staff suggested reduced far as a means of increasing affordability. Yet home goes from. 0.4 to 0.65. >> Thank you. >> Reduce the bar. >> Liliana Mendoza Judy Gradford . Julio Rojas Aguilar. Kai gray. Angelica Benton molina. Go ahead. Okay. >> My name is lulu Rojas Aguilar I'm speaking in favor for home. I stand before you as a new home owner, a title I wear with gratitude and knowing that today, affording a home in Austin seems like catching a shooting star. I consider myself lucky, but luck shouldn't determine who gets to be part of this incredible city. As we look [8:41:38 PM] this incredible city. As we look at popular neighborhoods with soaring prices, we must recognize that it's not a stroke of genius or secret code that made current homeowners fortunate. It's a supply and demand dance. The demand for mixed use, walkable housing and vibrant areas is driving costs to the sky. Let's face it, the demand won't diminish unless we make Austin into a city no one desires. The only sensible solution is to increase supply by this will allow us to maintain our vibrant community. Imagine a future where more diverse ethnic and economic groups contribute to the richness of our city, where being an austinite isn't just about luck, but opportunity. Let's shape Austin's destiny, not leave it to chance and let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We are, Austin. We make our own path for the people, letting their the people are letting their desires be known through prices. It's time to let our city adjust. Thank you. And let's make sure the doors of Austin's vibrant [8:42:38 PM] doors of Austin's vibrant futures are open for all. >> Hi, my name is Kai. >> I actually want to talk about affordability unlocked for a second. So. So affordability and lugo is a great program in the sense that it provided deeply affordable housing and it was kind of worked where it worked best with larger projects and with nonprofits building the housing, with government subsidies. So when affordability unlocked came up, who was coming up supporting it? It was the same people who were here supporting home. We were in supportive of that because we are in support of deeply affordable housing now. A lot of the people who've been opposed from the they've been saying they're worried about affordability, but how did they react to affordability and lots? Well, I can tell you they sued to block it, which is which is a and what they said was, well, we care so much about the process that's more important than actually producing affordable housing. I don't buy that. And I don't think you should either. [8:43:38 PM] don't think you should either. But in addition to that, there's been a lot of discussion that houses on shared lots are very expensive. So I did some analysis. Can you go to the next page? These are the parameters we searched. Go to the next page . Here is the area we looked in. These are all the houses go to the next page. And so these are the cheapest houses that have sold in the last two years as green are the houses that are on shared lots. So it's kind of weird that shared lots apparently are very expensive, but they also are the cheapest houses that have been produced in this area in the last two years. Purple are the ones in the floodplain, so what I usually tell people is if you want to buy under this price range, you need to be on a shared lot or you need to live in the floodplain. Next page. Then decided to look for things currently on the market next page and this is again, this is and anyone can do this. You can look at what's curling in the market. Green are things on shared lots? Purple is on the floodplain and the ones at the top are the least expensive. So currently if you want to buy something under 400,000 in this area are pretty much the options are shared. Lots so it's [8:44:39 PM] are shared. Lots so it's confusing when people say shared lots are so expensive because I'm like the factual data obviously proves that's not true. It doesn't even make any sense. Oh, thank you. Thank you for all your work. >> And I apologize how I pronounce this name. Adam teleonomic. Angelica Benton molina. Tai huang, Adam Stachowiak. Michael Rhodes and felicity Maxwell. If your name has been called, please approach the podium and state your name. >> All right. I'm taiho, a homeowner in district five. I believe there's a place that Austin could one day become when it comes to housing. This place has the most extensive environmental review process, the most community input and local control. It's really stuck it to the greedy developers. No one has taken longer to craft [8:45:39 PM] one has taken longer to craft the perfect plan than them. This place is California. For anyone excited for San Francisco rents traffic. >> Yeah, they're still waiting on their perfect plan. >> According to legend. I say this to highlight the fact that this is the trajectory of our status quo. A lot of people mentioned the Houston study as proof that upzoning failed. Well, I'm here to tell you that there's a counterexample in most major American cities that have single family zoning similar to ours set up. Now it's yielded the exact things that the opposition warned about high housing costs, gentrification, environmental degradation, degradation, an endless sprawl backed up my California example. According to a uc Berkeley study in 2022, la is 77% single family zoned, and those areas have a median home value of $811,000 compared to flexibly zoned areas which had a median home value of $405,000. San Jose 94. Single family zoned sf despite being on a small peninsula, 76% single [8:46:39 PM] a small peninsula, 76% single family zoning combined that with the years long permitting process and some of the lowest rates of housing approvals and building relative to relative to their growth, the result has been one of the worst housing crises in our country. People here love saying don't California, my Texas. But if you make California nimby decisions, you're going to get California results. Meanwhile the cities that adopted flexible zoning, such as Minneapolis, Portland, Tyson and Virginia, had some of the lowest rent growth from 2017 to 2023, according to a pew study. So today could either be a great first step among many that will be needed in the future or it can be a footnote on the path to a certain future that we can already see in other cities. >> Thank you. >> Good evening. >> My name is Scott Mackey. I'm a resident of district three. For the last ten years, I've been a homeowner for five of those years. >> When we talk about home affordability, we in Austin, my [8:47:40 PM] affordability, we in Austin, my gut reaction is to say that we've already lost. I think many in this room would agree that being said, I also am in favor of doing what we can to create great new opportunities. >> And in that regard, I am in favor of this. >> I'm forgetting the word for what this is the home initiative here to serve any opportunity that we have for our citizens and individuals to increase density on our lots is an opportunity for the creativity we see when a person designs a home, it's an opportunity for an artist, the sort that are being priced out of this city every single day. To live in a back lot for an affordable house. And it's an opportunity for us, at least in a small way, to reverse the overwhelming trend that we've been seeing, which is people, artists and everyday citizens create culture. >> Capital follows culture, capital kills culture. When culture is killed, people have [8:48:43 PM] culture is killed, people have to leave. I don't think this solves our affordable crisis, but at least as an opportunity for more people to have a chance to stay in central Austin or there in the middle of the city, living the life that made the city what it is. Thank you all. Thank you. >> Hi, felicity Maxwell, d5 resident and Ora board member. >> Good evening, mayor. Mayor pro tem and members of the council. >> I want to thank council member pool for bringing forward this initiative and to the excellent work by her staff throughout supporting this effort. Thank you to the home co sponsors on the dais and to the council members who have brought thoughtful amendments designed to strengthen home phase one. And thank you to my council member Ryan alter for dialing in today. I am so glad we have another new resident in district five. >> I have the blessing to live in zilker, one of the best neighborhoods in Austin. >> I'm lucky to have a partner who is a native austinite and knew early on he wanted to live in south Austin mostly to get away from his parents living near UT. We're raising two of course, perfectly perfect children in a great community. I [8:49:44 PM] children in a great community. I support home because I want these same opportunities for everyone Ann. I want the zilker neighborhood to be a blessing more people can enjoy for families to enroll more kids in zilker elementary to enjoy the trail of lights swims in Barton springs pool and have their kids play on south Austin baseball teams to walk to Alamo drafthouse to Umlauf sculpture garden and drink margaritas at Chuy's on Barton springs road, or to have the same amazing opportunities my family has had just because we had the luck to buy a house in a special part of Austin over ten years ago. And unlike some prominent zilker residents, I don't believe you have to own a single family house or have a mortgage to care about your neighborhood and believe, yes, I live in a 13 unit condo regime. It's actually pretty great. So please allow more housing types of different sizes at more price points by supporting the home initiative. I'd very much like to share my amazing neighborhood with more. Austinites thank you. >> Go ahead, please. [8:50:48 PM] >> Go ahead, please. >> My name is Michael Rhodes. I'm a resident of district five and I came here to speak in favor of the home reforms. Now I'd like to thank Ora and everyone with this organization for their work. Organize housing in support of this measure and I'm not going to speak long, but I just want to say that I think any measure that will increase the number of housing and building new housing and more densely in Austin is a good thing. And I'd like to see continued work on this front, even after we move on from this measure. >> And, you know, my sister, she lived in Houston. >> She and her husband had a beautiful home in a dense neighborhood that could never be built here in Austin today because as lot sizes are too large, among other issues. >> So I'd like to see continued work on this effort and thank everyone who's worked to bring this forward today. [8:51:49 PM] this forward today. >> Thank you. Richard Sullivan. >> Greg Hansen, Curtis Rogers, Katrina Martinez, Cathy Goodwin. If your name has been called, please approach the podium and state your name. Alex Soltero scooter Cheatham, who has time donated by Laurie Wildrick and Lynn Marshall. Who is raising their hand. Thank you. Is scooter here? And if is Lynn here? Okay, so who's Laurie? Thank you. Miss scooter gets six minutes if you're at the podium, please proceed. >> My name is Kathy Goodwin. [8:52:49 PM] >> My name is Kathy Goodwin. >> I live in district nine. I've lived in the street on cherrywood. In cherrywood in 864 square foot house. Since I'm becoming increasingly alarmed as that more and more people who move into these small houses have four cars in each at each home. So right now, in the homes right around where I live, there's a total of 12 to 15 cars either in the driveways or in the streets. And I find that if we have three houses on a lot, that's going to increase that problem. And we don't really have a solution for that. But my main reason here is my concern that there is no provision in this, idea for low income housing. And this happens all the time. You know, we keep, we keep talking about affordable housing, but don't know what that means really. But I do know what low income housing means. And so I'm asking you tonight if [8:53:50 PM] And so I'm asking you tonight if you would consider if you would postpone on this until we get somebody who can come up with some solutions about how we're going to have affordable housing . The only example I have of I asked a young woman who is a co-owner of a boutique housing building company, and I said, well, what do you think about this building some affordable houses? And she says, well, I can just tell you that we're going to get the highest price we can get for our houses that we build. So, I'm, I'm curious at the people, all the young people who are so sure that this is going to work, that we actually will have that. But that's not my main concern. There's good things about this and not good things about it, but the main thing that I think is really intolerable is that we have no, nothing has come up about affordable housing. We have no provisions for it. Thank [8:54:50 PM] have no provisions for it. Thank you. >> Please proceed. >> Hello. >> Good evening. >> Should say morning, noon, afternoon and evening. I'm scooter Cheatham. I'm an architect planner. I live in. I live in district four. Our business is in. District one. I'm speaking in opposition and I'm doing that. I think only one other architect in the in the speaking lineup has spoken against it. But I want. To I want to invoke, the, the wisdom of new urbanism as I learned it, [8:55:51 PM] of new urbanism as I learned it, learned about it through Andre duany, who created the urbanism, the congress of new urbanism and hank Dittmer. Hank. Hank Dittmer and I went to school at the same time in the community and regional planning. And duany, when he came to us, he came to Austin in 2008 and 2011 and didn't get to meet him in 2008. But it when he came back, he was harshly critical of our approach to new urbanism. And one of the things he said and was that it was really a mistake to rip up the fabric of the city because the fabric of the city is what gives you the, you know, the DNA, the feel of Austin. And he was actually not in favor of the corridor plan because he said the corridor plan creates walls. I would say now, like a trump wall between neighborhoods. So [8:56:53 PM] wall between neighborhoods. So you you lose that connective tissue that you really need and. He proposed that when back at that time, there was a big issue around concordia and several other big projects in the neighboring neighborhoods were fighting against the developers. And the city council is having to referee that out. And duany made the comment that what every every city needs is, is a department for a town architect that that can actually work with neighborhoods and help them make decisions at the smallest possible level. And I don't think we're doing that. I mean, I think a lot of people tonight have sort of seen this as a rabbit and jam it, wham, bam, thank you, ma'am approach. And I think the council is just I think you can tell that you're going to have to reach out and make a stronger connection. One [8:57:54 PM] make a stronger connection. One other thing I want to talk about is don't think I don't think the council can honestly address the market. I think, you know, we're sort of throwing this idea out there and see what the market does. Will the developers I know don't develop unless they can make a lot of money and they don't do affordable housing. The other thing is, is there's been a discussion about taxation. So my colleague Lynn Marshall and another couple of us have talked to someone on the appraisal board and the council has nothing to do with the appraisal board makes their own decisions and I know that someone has spoken here who was on the planning commission and said that they have talked to people on the appraisal board and said that up zoning doesn't lead to taxation, higher taxation. Well, I think that's a pretty hard thing to prove right now since the taxes have risen as much as they have. But in our [8:58:55 PM] they have. But in our conversation there are two kinds of two kinds of problems with taxes, us and one of them is in this in the case of the home initiative, if you have a homestead and you have any acreage at all and you put one unit on your property that's a residential unit, you give up. This person said you lift the veil on your homestead exemption . I would call it a bear trap so that only the square footage of your house is your homestead. So your taxes shoot up on every bit of your property. The rest of your property. And I think that's one of the failings that's, you know, that people don't really seem to understand, don't know about yet. But that's one of the big dangers of the home initiative. I just urge you to take more time, finish the research, engage the community. And not pass it right now. Thank [8:59:59 PM] And not pass it right now. Thank you. Greg graml, Dwight scales, Kelly martin, Alejandra Mireles, Gracie Pinkel. >> Please state your name. >> My name is parker Welch. I was called earlier. I think it's fitting that this item comes before council at Christmas time . If you recall the story, Joseph and Mary returned to their home town in Bethlehem to be registered for the census. >> Beth aleichem is a little under five miles from the temple in Jerusalem, about as far as crestview or highland are from here at city hall. >> I'm not sure we would even call it a suburb when they arrive. There is no room for them at the kataluma, the lodging place. You may have heard this translated as an inn, [9:00:59 PM] heard this translated as an inn, but elsewhere in the same gospel it refers to the guest chambers of a private home. What today we call an accessory dwelling unit. To poor to rent or build a home for themselves. In Bethlehem, Joseph and Mary have no option but to take shelter with farm animals during her pregnancy, even after Jesus is born, they have nowhere for him to sleep but the trough where the animals eat. So because there was not enough shelter in the villages of central judea, with the crowds streaming in the Christmas story tells us Jesus was born where the livestock were kept in a time before sanitation, even before modern medicine. Most Christians believe our lord's first affliction on this Earth was a shortage of housing. And then, as now, Christmas teaches us [9:02:03 PM] as now, Christmas teaches us that when there is not enough housing to go around, it is the poor, it is the newcomers, and it is young families who suffer for whatever your faith, whatever your opinions about the proper translation of ancient Greek, we should all agree that no child in our city should have to grow up in these circumstances. >> No mother should have to worry about where her child is. >> Thank you. Thank you. Thank and it could be that we're meeting on Sunday. >> Hi. Hi. >> I'm Gracie Pinkel. >> I have lived in Austin for most of my life and. >> And I'm asking that you please vote no on this initiative or at the very least, postpone it. >> I will say that I wish that I [9:03:05 PM] >> I will say that I wish that I had the time myself as someone who is a community member, to learn more about what this initiative would actually do, especially since it's being advertised as something that is going to create more affordable housing. When if you look at the people who are actually pushing it and backing it, it is all people who are actually like some of the speakers have said before, are most likely going to use that to profit off of which if you're trying to profit, you're not going to create affordable housing. >> I know I have lived here for most of my life, like I said, and I have always seen rent go up and up and up and up, and my wages have not gone up at all. >> I make $10 an hour at one job and $16 an hour at the other, and probably about 70, if not more of my income goes to rent. >> And it's just continually to go up. >> So this I agree that we need a solution for affordable housing, but it seems very clear to me that this is not it. >> And at the very least, first we need time to educate the community about what is actually in this initiative or to create amendments in the initiative to [9:04:07 PM] amendments in the initiative to raise require affordability in these possible new housing units . >> I really ask that council member Velasquez and council member Fuentes really consider voting to postpone Ann or voting to say no to this initiative. Just please, I really ask. No. >> My council member, councilman, council member qadri, we've talked about you've come into one of the shops I've worked before and we've, we've bonded over the fact that you have expressed how much you care about creating affordable housing and how much you care about how so many of us are being displaced because of the rents and I believe you. >> And what you say. And if you really do believe that, please reverse your support. Thank you. I beg of you, please. >> Thank you, Zach Schlachter, Ashley Hamilton, Paul Robbins, Aurora Salcedo, Philip Wylie. Stephen wolf, Jay mason, chito. [9:05:14 PM] Stephen wolf, Jay mason, chito. Maria Renee morales. >> Cruz. Daniella Gutierrez. Please state your name. >> Hi, I'm Stephen wolf. I've lived in Austin district ten for 30 years. I'm a homeowner there and I appreciate you spending this day with me. I've been here since the beginning, today and I've learned a lot. >> I hope you've learned a lot as well. >> I had some other prepared remarks, but I'm just going to speak off the cuff here. >> I learned today that there's something called phase two, which I was unaware of until this evening. I learned something called a preservation bonus, a density bonus, something called a condo regime, which maybe need to go research those things and learn about them. >> My point is that I don't think I've had enough time since we got the little purple card in [9:06:18 PM] we got the little purple card in the mail to adequately research and come to an informed opinion on whether I support this or not . I originally registered to speak against this request Singh that you vote no on this, but now think maybe I'm getting to yes if there are appropriate amendments to address some of the issues that have been brought forth this evening. I'm not going to go into any of those issues. >> I just want to reiterate that that I do hope you postpone the decision on this so that more time, more thought can go into making this appropriate for everyone. >> Concern Eid thank you. >> Thanks for staying. Katy Brookings Alice woods are you registered to speak or you're just showing me your. >> Oh great. Okay. Gus Pena. >> Hello, mayor and council. My [9:07:19 PM] >> Hello, mayor and council. My name is Alice woods. I'm a community outreach consultant and affordable housing advocate. I want to thank you all so much for your time spent here tonight listening to testimony Rainey. I serve on the executive committee of the Austin housing coalition and wanted to share a letter on behalf of that coalition Ann in support of home. The Austin housing coalition comprises nonprofits, affordable housing developers and housing and policy experts and other interested organizations, businesses and residents who support the development of safe, affordable housing. For Austin residents. While our focus is generally on subsidized, affordable housing, we recognize that legalizing all housing types is necessary to combat Austin's housing crisis, including missing middle housing. With this in mind, we strongly urge city council to support the adoption of the land development code changes that will allow for three dwelling units per single family lot and for the construction of smaller single family homes than are allowed under the current code in importantly for the Austin housing coalition, allowing for the construction of this middle income housing at no cost to the city also frees up city housing [9:08:20 PM] city also frees up city housing bond funds to be used to develop more deeply affordable units and permanent supportive housing. Housing types that our coalition members work hard to develop and which generally require additional city subsidies to be successful while allowing austinites the option to build and live in a greater diversity of housing types and sizes than are currently available under our current code gives households more affordable, flexible and multigenerational living options as these changes can create opportune uses for existing homeowners to utilize a portion of their lot to create another smaller dwelling. Helping austinites stay in their neighborhoods rather than be displaced by rising rents and property taxes, which is of great importance to our organization. These policies can create opportunities for seniors to age in place by providing them with different housing options and can allow families to stay together more easily and intergenerational and non traditional households sharing in the cost of housing. The Austin housing coalition urges city council to prioritize these policy changes to allow austinites more flexibility, affordability and missing middle [9:09:21 PM] affordability and missing middle housing options. Thank you. Judge. Block Sophia Gluck, Natalie Frenzel. Yasmeen Smith. >> Do Dan Brickley. Marissa Peralez. >> Good evening. >> My name is Yasmin Smith. I'm a proud and born and raised austinite and have the pleasure of serving as vice president of justice and advocacy for the Austin area urban league. And we have signed in opposition of home as currently drafted and asked for a postpone men. We do not oppose. We do not oppose home because we do not want things to change. We are a pro density, however, and we believe that decent density without adequate regulations is not a tool for affordability. We believe that the status quo is not working and that it is negligent, not to actively address foreseeable negative impacts to the most vulnerable of our population. Luz will not [9:10:22 PM] of our population. Luz will not go into repeating the multitude of arguments amendments lived experience and data points you've heard today. Instead, I'll use my time to discuss the opportunity we have, because today by far and large, you did not hear home versus anti home rhetoric. No. Rather, by and large, you heard pro home without modifications versus pro home with modifications. By and large, you heard that we as austinites need more homes, but that those most at risk of being displaced should be prioritized during this continuous, seemingly debate, I led a thought exercise with a person from each side of the camp going census tract by census tract zip code by zip code armed with their computers, data, ideologies and lived experiences. We began a conversation on how our differentiate logic theories by which we consume and analyze available data modifies the premises by which we define harm and benefit and for whom we prioritize prioritizing those definitions. We began an honest and transparent and yes, sometimes intense discussion, not debate, on what areas there are for potential compromise to lessen. Sorry compromise with shared intent that we all want to lessen displacement. This is [9:11:23 PM] to lessen displacement. This is an opportunity we should see. We want to see sees before the vote of this magnitude, the difficult work of pulling together content matter experts of all types together pro and pro with modifications into a room to build understanding Lang. I urge you to think if you think this room has already been built, think about that room and think about who is missing and who actually have power. This is the work that is yet to be done. This is the work. Due diligence required requires equity should be a part of the plan, not an afterthought thought. Thereafter, we anxiously await for the layers of protection. You didn't think was enough to be put in the base resolution itself. Thank you. Thank you. John Foxworth. Cynthia Vasquez. >> If your name has been called, please make your way to the podium and state your name. >> The podium is empty and your name has been called. Just go to the podium. Oh very good. >> Go ahead. I want to go ahead. >> If your name has been called, go to the podium and start [9:12:23 PM] go to the podium and start talking. >> All right. >> Good evening. I'm Natalie Frenzel. I live in d7 one today. We've seen the community conflict, anguish and anger caused by the home initiative process. Mayor Watson, you've responded to community conflict before, specifically over the zilker vision planning process. >> Yes, by very wisely saying we should recognize that really good people can often disagree. >> My recommendation is that we cool off for a spell so we could all benefit from a little time and perspective. >> Mayor Watson, your words were wise then, and you and this council should apply for that conflict resolution move tonight and postpone on voting on this six month old home initiative. >> Council member Allison alter you astutely observed that this home initiative goes much further than the code. Next rewrite it. Let's let's think about code next code next took [9:13:24 PM] about code next code next took five years. >> This this six month old home initiative is taking one tenth of that. >> Imagine in Austin, the city's comprehensive development plan took two years. The home initiative is taking one quarter of that. >> The city of Austin spent more time engaging with the community on the Q2 soccer stadium than it has on the home initiative. From 2018 through 2021. >> Council in austinites took 36 months to analyze and deliberate the effects of a stadium and sports franchise on the community. The home initiative will society affect many more aspects of our lives, including our social fabric, human geography, infrastructure, demand, taxes and more. But inexplicably, this council wants to take literally only one sixth of the time. Austinites had to [9:14:24 PM] of the time. Austinites had to deliberate on sports center tainment shorting austinites of time to properly deliberate and ask questions an insult. >> Thank you. Please proceed. >> Hello, my name is John Foxworth. >> I'm a 40 plus year homeowner and a council district nine. >> I've had the privilege of working on the central Austin neighborhood planning team that brought us uno, the densest area in the city. It took two years of planning to bring more than two years of planning to bring you that. >> We are going to quick. >> I'm asking for you to postpone this current resolution so we can get it right. >> I'm not against density, like I said, blocks from my home. >> The densest in the city. I am mainly concerned about how this [9:15:26 PM] mainly concerned about how this going forward without guardrails will affect gentrification. I won't go on and on about gentrification, about for our neighbors in the east, but I want that to be taken into consider nation. >> I'm going to blur a few other things we're giving away entitlements. We should not do that. >> W should provide incentives to provide affordable housing. We should provide subsidized subsidies to help the people that can't afford it. >> I think we should give out density bonuses. >> I don't think it should be a free for all for what will happen when you just give it to developers. You got to plan. That's what we did to give you the densest area in the city. It didn't happen overnight. It didn't happen a few months and it had a lot of community engagement. Talking with the neighborhoods and getting it done right. So let's take more time. Let's get it right and let's get some affordable housing and not run off our neighbors who can't afford it. Thank you. Thank you. [9:16:27 PM] Thank you. Thank you. >> It's on. >> Thank you. >> Hey. Hey. >> My name is Cynthia Vasquez. I'm an east Austin chicana native, daughter of Tonya and Alex Vasquez. >> And I'm writing that gentrification wave. From 78702278744. >> If this home initiative passes without an affordable overlay, I don't know where the freak I'll be living over the next two years. >> Like many of my east side riders and my south side neighbors, I would love to stay living in the communities that I grew up in, worked in, played and prayed in some of us are simply trying to live life in the homes that our families literally built with their own hands. >> They sustain these properties with their very own hands, time and energy. >> Some of us are not in this for profit. [9:17:29 PM] for profit. >> We would like to live without the pressures of gentrified taxes and avoid Austin's evolution from homeowner to renter to houseless. >> I rented an area, Ms. >> Fuentes, where gentrification has slowly crept upon many of my unsuspecting and elderly neighbors for three years, and every year we are faced with threats from our landlord to raise rent to 2500 or even 3000. >> I'm going to skip down because listening to everybody's testimony, Ms. >> Velasquez, Ms. >> Natasha, I don't know if you recall meeting me in 2018, but I met you in 2018 at the sustainable food center at a food justice meeting, and you told me, oh, I'm from the east side too. >> I used to ride in chicano park in my lowriders. >> I felt an instant connection. >> Mr. Velasquez is a few months ago, or maybe a couple of months ago, you were at come and take it live reading a proclamation rep zero two on your hand. >> Vanessa, you show up to our [9:18:30 PM] >> Vanessa, you show up to our friends of grand meadow park meetings. Have any three of y'all gone back to that community city? >> Have you gone back to come and take it live to tell them what you're about to do? >> Have you gone back to the food justice conversation to tell them and Vanessa, have you gone to the Franck? >> Ma'am, your time is expired. Thank you. >> Please proceed. >> Hi, my name is Dan Brickley. >> I represent. >> I represent my family and I live in district five. >> My,. >> I. >> I would like to say, you know , they say you can't fight city hall. >> I my first time I ever came down to this space was for mcmansion. >> And I didn't know anything about it. I was a neophyte, but I circuitously went through crazy channels to build a [9:19:30 PM] crazy channels to build a multi-generation family for my home, a multi-generational home for my family. In 2010, for my mother in law and my well, now children who didn't have at the time and I wound up founding. I'm a founder of the friends of zilker neighborhood association because of the difficulty of it, we had to build a multigenerational family in my neighborhood. Zilker Ann and I beat my head on the walls and I've been down here and I've spoken to lots of folks and I just honestly this is almost like a love letter to you. >> Leslie pool. >> Because I honestly thought that no one could change their mind. >> I just. >> I just thought that, like, you know, like people just weren't going to change their mind and my mother in law lives, she's watching my children right now. >> They're not here. >> I've got a 7 to 9 year old. >> They're they're home and my mother in law right across the river and they're here because [9:20:31 PM] river and they're here because of a multi-gen professional. She had to sign a waiver that she's over 65 and she lives there. >> And that's insane. Like and it has to say, like, can someone else walk into her property? >> Like, you know, which is contained in our home? >> The circuitous things that we've done to make multigenerational homes in our neighborhoods is it's wild. >> I love this town. >> I love you all. I love you, Mr. Mayor. I love you all so much. I love this town. >> I don't care. I love the people who disagree with me. I really do. >> I love you all. And thank you so much. >> And I support it's with love. I tell you, your time is up. Laurie >> An ice. Jonathan Kinney. Aditya Badami. Sorry be. If your name has been called, please approach the podium. >> I'm Jonathan Kinney. >> Thank you all long evening [9:21:31 PM] >> Thank you all long evening for you. >> Didn't need to be love us right? Doesn't need to be like this. >> Last time I was up here, I'm going to speak about pretty much the same thing you've heard is an issue with process. >> I have met with my councilman for the first time yesterday, second time today. I wish that had happened a long time ago. >> He spoke a little bit about how land code hasn't changed in a long time. And I feel like we need to really pause for a second and think about it, identifying the problems and needs that we all have of when we use blanket terms like affordability that include so many other issues like health, health, home prices, salaries, utilities, food costs. There are so many other things that go into that. >> Changing the land code is like taking a battering ram [9:22:32 PM] like taking a battering ram before someone screams. Why don't we just knock and ask questions and talk? >> Nobody is. Everybody is speaking for the same thing up here. It is just a difference in process. When creating a task force with goals of compact and higher density development compatible with surrounding single family neighborhood needs, meetings, hundreds of meetings with work sessions with the community taking years to plan out a coherent vision that includes business leaders, council members, neighborhood leaders, community leaders, police and fire, environmental experts, health experts, UT, aid underhoused representation in music and arts infrastructure . >> Preservationists, environmentalists. Builders. >> If this sounds familiar, this was Mueller and Ed. >> I understand that that was on [9:23:35 PM] >> I understand that that was on a blanket track of land that was easy to do, but that shouldn't make us shy away from hard work. >> Let's do the hard work. >> Thank you. Your time expired. Please go ahead. >> Hello, council people. All I'm Audie, a proud resident of district one. And I'm glad to be here. On a more dire note, I think Mok community in America is falling apart. I think we're living in our own siloed echo chambers of thought. And this is propagated by the fact that the American dream is a false narrative ofowning a big home and having a big backyard when in reality it's just community. And that's all we have is, is, is, is us. And Austin's special in that regard. I think any time you go on a walk, you are greeted with a hi, how are you? And a million smiles and their community truly exists here and I think home will be able to make Austin a more inclusive and [9:24:38 PM] make Austin a more inclusive and sustainable community. For two reasons. I think >> One not only will it give people the chance to be located in, close to city centers, but also will open up the chance for us to focus on more important areas such as transit and parks which are crucial for building community through home. >> I think we can be Austin conserve and an example for all the city upon a shining hill. I think that's what Ronald Reagan said, to other other places is how we can be a home for all. And cheers and think I'm the last person. So let's go. To mayor. >> All the speakers have been called and. Thank you. Members. >> This is the way I would [9:25:39 PM] >> This is the way I would suggest that we proceed. But I'll first do is I will recognize lies a motion and a second so that we have an item that's on the to be discussed at which point, if there's questions that members have of, we'll have discussion and questions related to that. If there's questions of staff that someone wants to ask, they can call staff up and we'll allow for questions. And then what I'll do is recognize individual members for motions to amend based upon the amendments that have been proposed and put on the message board or have been modified during the course of the day based upon discussion. And what we've heard from speakers and the order that I intend to go in on amendments just so that you'll know and can be prepared would be council member pool council member vela council member. Qadri council member. Allison alter council [9:26:41 PM] member. Allison alter council member Ryan alter and then I'll have a proposed amendment. So with that I will recognize council member pool for a motion in related to the proposed ordinance. >> Thank you, mayor. >> And I move to approve the base ordinance as recommended by the planning commission. >> Councilmember pool moves to approve the base ordinance as recommended by the planning commission and seconded by council member vela. With that, members, are there any members of the council that wish to ask questions of staff? We have assistant city manager Briseno here and she can help us navigate that process. Are there any questions? Council member Allison alter you're recognized. >> So I have questions that relate to some amendments. I don't know if you want me to ask the questions now or when I would rather have the amendments on the floor if, if that would work, fine. >> If that works for you, that's fine. Are there any questions [9:27:41 PM] fine. Are there any questions with regard to the motion to adopt the base ordinance? Yes. With that being the case, then I will recognize council member pool member tirz council member pool is going to be recognized for two motions to amend the first motion to amend is labeled council member pool motion sheet. It doesn't have a number on it, but it begins with I move to amend part 18 of the ordinance to read and then the remainder of the proposed amendment council member pool you're recognized for a motion to amend. Thank you, mayor. >> And this amendment is related to the effective date of the home ordinance, which also gives city departments enough time to develop Erp the processes necessary to support the program. >> And I move approval. >> Council member pool moves to amend the base motion with motion to amend number one. Is there a second to the motion? Second amended by the mayor pro tem? Is there discussion or [9:28:41 PM] tem? Is there discussion or desire to ask questions of staff with regard to this motion to amend and any discussion without objection, the motion to amend by councilmember pool motion number one is adopted. Councilmember Ryan alter I'm I'm looking up at you, but if I miss you, cry out. Okay or maybe have somebody else cry out. Don't know. >> We don't talk about crying right now. >> Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay. Good point. That will take us to councilmember pool motion sheet number two. This is a motion that it's labeled motion sheet number two. And and it creates a new part of the base motion. Councilmember pool, you're recognized. >> Thank you, mayor. And this motion is to add direction. It is specifically related to an [9:29:44 PM] is specifically related to an amendment that may come later. >> I'll go ahead and read that into the and have some questions related to that. Do you want me to go ahead and lay this? >> Explain explain what it is that you're you're saying? >> Well, as part of the changes, the law department had recommended, removing short term rental limitations specific to two unit residential use. >> So the city manager and the staff could work up the specific changes that were necessary. It short term rentals had law has said they need to be removed from this section because they are they have been changed by other legal action and we need to have a holistic approach to how we handle short term rentals . >> I'm happy to hold off on the questions that I was going to ask of our legal staff specific to this until we get to this section later, then let's then I'll pull down pool. [9:30:46 PM] I'll pull down pool. >> I'll motion to amend number two. And we'll go to councilmember vela's proposal motion. >> That sounds good. >> Thank you, sir. >> Thank you. Councilmember vela, you are recognized on, councilmember vela. Motion sheet number one on members. You have motion sheet number one on councilmember vela is going to be recognized on three proposed amendments. Councilmember vela, item number one, motion to amend. Number one. >> Thank you, mayor. Motion to amend. Number one, would you do a handful of things? The first of all, it would be for two and three units. We would use the standard definition of a floor area ratio without any of the mcmansion exceptions. In other words, the calculation that set out is a is a far calculation. The traditional and normal calc relation. That's the first [9:31:48 PM] relation. That's the first change that it would make. The second change that it would make would be to increase the far floor for a three unit configuration. From 4350ft S to 4350ft S. From 3750ft S. Some of the exemptions in the mcmansion Ann far calculations are related to parking. So it's kind of just trying to give the smallest units a little bit more room so they could potentially work in park Singh as needed. It's not mandating that it goes to parking, but it is adding a little bit more room to the smallest configuration. It's also a way to incentivize essentially the three unit configured Ann, make sure that it is the three unit configuration, even on a on a [9:32:49 PM] configuration, even on a on a small lot is, is a realistic configuration. Ann and then the, the final change would be right now the far limits for any two units in a three unit dwelling would be the same as the far limit for just two units. Right now there's a distinction between the two unit far independently of this, the home ordinance and the and the three unit configured option. The difference is very small. It's 0.55 for one and 0.50 for the other. I would just make those both 0.55 for consistency sake, just so that you know, the same number of units have the same far regardless of the what section of the code they're working from. >> Councilmember vela moves to approve his motion to his motion to amend. Number one, is there a second to that motion seconded by the mayor pro tem de [9:33:50 PM] by the mayor pro tem de discussion on the motion to amend councilmember Allison alter thank you. >> I'd like to ask staff if they could bring up their latest models while we talk through the far options I've asked had asked them to have those available. >> We do have those models available. And while those are being pulled up, I'm going to ask Keith Mars to come up to the podium. And Lauren Middleton Pratt to come up to another podium. Keith is from Lauren is from planning, and they'll help us navigate answering questions by calling up appropriate staff to answer questions. Thank you. >> Thank you. And, as we go, I'll just, you know, there is a way in which my amendment is an alternative amendment to this amendment. And so I just don't know how you want to how you want to, handle that. Okay, so what I would suggest is, you ask the questions and work through the modeling and then make as an argument what the, what the alternative would be. [9:34:50 PM] alternative would be. >> We have a motion on the floor for if you decide what you want to do is make a substitute motion to amend, then I would accept that and we can vote on that as a substitute motion or or if his motion were to fail, you could then I would then recognize you to offer that amendment. >> Okay. Okay. So if we could bring up the actual images of the. Thank you. So, so staff as I understand it, these models represent what is possible based on the base ordinance, not our amendments. That correct. So doesn't have this amendment which gives additional far for the three units. Is that correct . >> Okay. >> Okay. So what I wanted to start with just confirming that. So we're all on the same page. That was not meant to be a trick question. So can you tell me what might change in these models if we were to, adopt [9:35:51 PM] models if we were to, adopt motion two of mine, which is a simple it's just simply the option one that staff wrote in the latest memo as being an option to reduce the unit sizes, which we would believe have an impact on affordability. So mine just exempts garages without giving additional far as staff proposed as alternative one. So if staff option one was adopted, what would be different in these models. >> Councilmember Keith Morris, assistant director, development services department. >> We can't hear you. >> My apologies. >> Keith Mars, assistant director of development services . I believe we will need some of our technical staff to be able to better answer those questions. Lindy Garwood is available to answer. >> Good evening, mayor. And council. Linda Garwood development services. >> So for these units, they are [9:36:51 PM] >> So for these units, they are built under the base proposal like was confirmed prior to basically any the any one unit would still be capped at the point four and the two units could then could right now, if one unit was capped at 0.4 in these models, the other unit could only be 0.12 to reach the point five. >> In this scenario. So that's on the proposal right now. The second unit could be 0.15. So that would be the differentiation in the size of the particular units with counting garages. These models take garage exceptions into account and most of them do to have garages for at least for typically one unit per or excuse me, one garage per unit. So each would have to get smaller by that amount of square feet because the garage would then be [9:37:51 PM] because the garage would then be calculated in into the far. >> Okay. And what would happen to these models? Under council member Taylor's motion to include garages in the calculations, but also increase the permissible far so, so yes. >> So the models would likely get smaller as the garages would now count for far. So they would have to right now they're exempted. So they count as zero and they would count as part of the far. So all the units would have to get smaller and with the point with the units, it's only two units that have to count to the point. >> Five, five. >> And so, so it just would have it would mean that there's a little bit more flexibility in how the far is distributed across the two units. But the three unit cap, as a site of 0.65, I believe would remain the same under council member villas proposal. [9:38:52 PM] proposal. >> So he's adding additional, he's adding additional square footage even in areas where are you trying to go back out of this from what you've, you've presented so what I was proposing is what staff was proposing, which was what was proposing when they had the conversation at our work session, which was to exempt the garages, which has the effect of reducing the sizes of these buildings by the amount of the garages, if they choose to do garages, they don't choose to do garages. They get to build the same amount. Correct of square footage. That is what I recommended last week. That is what staff recommended. And because we didn't want to set, we didn't want to incentivize the garages, what council member villa is doing, as I understand it, is he is also exempting the garages. But then he is giving them back that square footage. So you're still incentivizing in the same way as you did last [9:39:53 PM] the same way as you did last week, the possibility of having the garages you get to choose or you can have a bigger one, but it's not it's not actually saying that you shouldn't do garage spaces. You should do house space. I believe that council member villas amendment by changing the square feet that can be distribute did will aid smaller lots to have units of more more livable space. >> With the 0.55 distribution for two units it just allows the second unit to be a slightly larger but it still the entire site is still capped at 0.65. So how, how each house uses that far would be up to them. They could still have a carport or a garage. >> So under either of ours, they can choose whether to use a carport, a garage or have living [9:40:55 PM] carport, a garage or have living space. That's true for both of us. Both of us are saying we should exempt garages. Council member villa is giving them an additional 600ft S. And I just want to be really clear that if you take a 5750 lot that we've been telling everybody that you get a 0.65 far on, if you're doing three units, you then get 40 to 50, which is a 0.75 far. So you're not you're not getting what we talked about that that was important. And then when you do that, the more far you give it for every three units, the less incentive people have to adopt the preservation and the sustainability bonus. So by adding this additional 600ft S, you are actually giving them more far for this window of sizes and don't know exactly the math for the sizes between 57 and 50 and what it would be above that. But it there is a range of which you're getting [9:41:58 PM] range of which you're getting more than the 0.65 far and you can have the garages and so we're just getting these units bigger and bigger. And one of the things that people have been talking about, Wright, is that we are encouraging large units, with the actual details of what we're doing while we're claiming that we want to have small units that people can live in that will be more affordable, and again, I don't know if anybody understood what we were just talking about because it's complicated, but that's what happens with zoning and the details do matter here. So what, what council member villa is proposing is different than what our staff proposed and is different than what I was talking about. So. Staff you proposed this alternative. Can you explain why you proposed this alternative to the planning commission that exempted garages but didn't add additional far? >> Yes. So council so the [9:43:01 PM] >> Yes. So council so the planning commission exempted garages similar to the subchapter F and Eid. We tried to stay as close to the planning commission recommendation as possible while still making and I'm sorry it didn't. >> I'm getting confused with the exempting the garages. It's exempting them from the calculation is what I meant to be saying. >> So yes. So yes, we tried to stay as close to the planning commission recommendation as possible while still streamlining it. And making it easier for our review staff. So our recommendation reflects that. >> Okay, so your recommendation is exempting garages from the is not exempting garages from the calculation. I just want to the terminology is confusing, but. Yes, one alternative that we suggested was to include the garages into the far, and another would be. To adjust the far to an in a different way. [9:44:04 PM] far to an in a different way. >> But but yes, in relation to the garages, we did recommend, just including them in the base calculation like I had recommended because it makes it more streamlined for our staff to not have to, to not have to consider specific exemptions. Luz based on how a garage is oriented or how it's applied to the property. Okay >> So if we so if we agree that we want to include garages as in the far calculation burns the difference between my amendment and council member villa's ignoring the two unit part is that he's giving them an additional 600ft, which for a base lot of 5750 gives them another point like another point one far, which gives them a much bigger size. >> Yes. By increasing the allowed square footage and the statement being greater, [9:45:04 PM] statement being greater, whichever is the greater of for lots that are under 6600ft S. The square footage would be the larger option to select and it is then greater than the 0.65. >> Okay. >> So I think that is you know, I'm uncomfortable with that because I think that is providing more and more size when we want to say that we are getting small units and if we want to have the small units and we want to incentivize preservation, which is being incentivized by giving them a additional space, the more space we give them in the base, the less likely they are to adopt the preservation incentive and keep the other the other house. So my alternative is the staff motion alternative one, which which would not include garages in the far calculations but does not increase the far even further. And I will just point [9:46:06 PM] further. And I will just point out that they have a second option, which I think reduces the far. So maybe, you know, staff could also talk about why you thought we should be reducing the far further in your second option do you want to answer and then I'll recognize council member pool. The second alternative to the far that staff proposed is lowering the 0.55 for two units to 0.5 because that more closely aligns with what is being constructed today under mcmansion. Thank you, councilmember pool. >> So I think what I think what we're attempting to do here is ensure that this particular space, it could be 200ft S, could [9:47:08 PM] space, it could be 200ft S, could on three, it could be a total of 600ft S. It's flexible. >> So people could use it as garage space or they could choose to use it as as a bedroom, for example. >> But we don't want to double dip. >> We don't want to both exempt the garage space and add 0.05 to the far because then that would be offering that space twice. So both staff and I believe council member villa and think you as well council member alter are saying we only want to do one of these. So let's be clear on that. >> I did want to ask the maker of the motion, Mr. Vela, to confirm that that the additional far that you are talking about in this instance is on a smaller lot. >> Is that correct? >> Councilmember villa that is a correct. >> Council member. Pool the difference really between putting that two unit part of the motion aside, the difference [9:48:11 PM] the motion aside, the difference between myself and councilmember Allison alter is proposal is that for the smallest lots, they will get a minimum of if it's three units, 1450 per unit as opposed to the without my amendment with her amendment, the three units would be 12 50ft S per unit. You know, so I'm giving them basically I'm saying that for the smallest lots, I want to make sure that the housing that's on there, it has a little bit more far to work with. So we can get a three bedroom, two bath. You know, that that's basically I just want to give the smallest lots a little bit more flex ability. So to make sure that we're getting, you know, like the family sized units that that's that's the main difference right there. They will be a little bit bigger. But the difference would be 12 50ft S in her amendment for the smallest lots versus 14 50ft S. In my version. I'll [9:49:12 PM] 50ft S. In my version. I'll recognize councilmember Allison alter and then I'll recognize councilmember vela to close. >> So I would like to ask the planning director to, you know, you recommend actually reducing the far further for you know, encouraging the preservation incentive and this is increasing Lang the far by one point on those smaller lots which is also going to be happening where it's closer in the all the lots will be closer in and so it's going to have a much bigger impact in those areas. So of the two options from a planning perspective, I've given what you presented to us, what would be what would make more sense. >> Lauren Middleton Pratt planning director the purpose for us as staff giving you the options is to allow you to have the policy deliberation and discussion. So we as staff would [9:50:13 PM] discussion. So we as staff would prefer that you all discuss between the two options and, and choose the best option for. >> I'm asking because you actually propose something that was a lower far because you thought it would be better in your option. So staff's recommendation is what we've proposed and so it's what I proposed, which is option one or option two. I just picked one of the two, correct? Yes ma'am. Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Councilmember Bailey, you're recognized to close on your motion to amend number one again, just just trying to give folks a little more flexibility in the design and structure of the small, smallest lots to make sure that, again, we can get family sized units honestly, another consideration, especially with so much kind of work from home, [9:51:14 PM] so much kind of work from home, a study, you know, an office like that because I know a lot of so again, I just want to make sure that we're we're trying to give people as much flexibility in the design and I would move adoption of my amendment. All right. Councilmember villa has moved to adoption and it's been seconded. Is there objection? Ann councilmember I object. Okay, fair enough. Thank you. Sorry that's what I'm asking for. Yeah. >> And. And I will make a substitute motion, and we can, if mine passes, then we can deal with the two unit piece. >> As I've already. >> I've already said I would like to move. >> I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I've called for a vote. I'll recognize. I'm going to go ahead and recognize you for a substitute motion. But typically, after the vote has been called, it's too late to make a substitute motion. But without objection, I'll allow for a substitute motion to be made. No objection. >> So I would make a substitute motion to move passage of your motion. Motion to number two, please. [9:52:16 PM] please. >> Members, you have in front of you. Councilman Allison alter motion sheet number two. That is the sub she makes that as a substitute motion staff's recommend motion. Is there a second to the substitute motion? Is there a second? Is there a second? The substitute motion fails for lack of a second. That will take us back to the main motion, which is Vella motion to amend. Number one on know that there's objection from two. Is there any other objection? Without objection, no. Said there was two people that objected and that would be, you and council member Kelly. So there would be the motion passes . A motion to amend is adopted with two voting no. Nine voting in favor, and the two voting no or council member Allison alter and council member Kelly. That will take us to Vella motion on [9:53:18 PM] will take us to Vella motion on to amend number two members. It is listed as council member Vella motion sheet number two. I'll recognize council member Vella. >> Thank you, mayor. I also on the prior one, just wanted to point out that the calculation, the other goal of both the prior amendment that just passed and this one we're trying to simplify my processes. The calculation for the garages, you know, the builder has to submit it. The city staff has to approve it, offer that 200 foot garage exemption. And we're trying to get rid of that. We're trying to also just streamline internal city processes to make our administrative workload smaller for this next amendment. Is very much in that same vein right now. This amendment would make the minimum front yard setback, take it down to 15ft and Ed right now, the current [9:54:19 PM] and Ed right now, the current calculation in the mcmansion area is this kind of front yard because Austin has had different out front yard setbacks over the years. It has moved over the years. And so you've got potentially similar neighborhoods or different neighborhoods with different setbacks. So it's hard to just use one standard and what we're have been doing is this whole front yard setback and bridging where you have to hire a surveyor to get a bunch of the setbacks and the your the setback that you get is the average of Ken don't know the calculation, but it's the average of some kind of combination of other, you know, properties around you. This would just say 15ft front yard setback with just 15ft. Save everybody a time and effort. And again, just trying to streamline the process. Also just trying to give folks since, you know, again, thinking about small lots , heritage trees, you know, [9:55:20 PM] , heritage trees, you know, different kind of things that come up, give them a little more space on their own lot to actually fit the three unit configuration. Again, this is also kind of trying to promote the three unit configuration option as much as we can. So we do get the boost to our housing supply that that we need. >> Councilmember Vila moves to approve Vila motion to amend. Number two two. Is there a second second by councilmember Harper Madison members we're going to go to discussion and I'm going to recognize councilmember Allison alter for discussion on and you also have in your packet that councilmember councilmember Allison alter motion sheet number one, that is a proposed I'm sorry, is it number. Three well, I don't have a number. Three [9:56:28 PM] Three I'm sorry. It's. Councilmember. It's labeled councilmember alter Allison alter motion sheet number three for item one is how it's labeled Eid that will be offered Ed. As I understand it, as a substitute motion. And I will recognize her at the appropriate time for a substitute motion. So if you want to get those in front of you and with that, I'll recognize councilmember Allison alter for questions of staff. >> Thank you. So as I understand , hand the difference between my motion and councilmember vela's is a is five feet. So I think we currently are at 25. I'm proposing that we go to 20 for the minimum front yard setback, which would still allow the porches to go another five feet in. And council member Vila is proposing to go. To a 15 foot front yard setback. Staff you recommended a 20 foot yard setback in your memo. Can you [9:57:30 PM] setback in your memo. Can you speak to why you recommended a 20 foot yard? Set front yard setback. >> Just a point of clarification. >> Since the mayor stepped off, have you made a motion or are you just asking questions? I'm asking questions first because I have to. He wanted to go to the bathroom and. And we need just want to make sure I was starting in the right spot. >> So let's proceed with questions. >> We're going to have our technical staff come and respond to the question. >> I apologize for the step away. >> Talk to our staff for just a minute. Keith Mars, assistant director of development services . So in part, why staff recommended the 20 foot setback [9:58:31 PM] recommended the 20 foot setback is to just get away from setback averaging. >> It's administratively difficult and this was a more streamlined approach. >> And why did you pick 20 and as the number as I understand the motions are 15ft and 20ft. >> I think that that's a that's similar to the prior question of or scenario of this being a policy matter. I will say the 25 foot requirement and then go a lot to lot on residential, especially of having to go through the average setback exercise wise is difficult for staff and on those that are that are submitting I think the 25 foot was recommended as a this is commonly seen for the for the averaging exercise so I think both council member Vila and are agreeing on the benefit that you just mentioned and for moving [9:59:31 PM] just mentioned and for moving away from the average ING, I am concerned about going too far on those front yard setbacks. >> You need those setbacks for public safety reasons and other kinds of things as well. And you put a 20 foot number, you didn't put 15 on when you had the choice of putting it. So I'm asking you to speak to the choice. And it is a policy question. But there are also planning principles that out assume that our planning department can share. >> Councilmember can you just talk more, talk more deeply with staff? That's the best answer I can provide at this time. >> Before we take any more discussion on this item, members , under our rules, I need to entertain a motion and it hurts me to do this. But if we want, if it. Yeah, motion is made by councilmember pool and it's second by councilmember qadri [10:00:32 PM] second by councilmember qadri that the council meet after 10:00. This is the first time we've done this this year. And let's. We don't have to do it. That's a good point. We it does. It doesn't have to be done. But the fact that we've even got a motion on the floor hurts my soul. With that being said, is there any objection? >> I object. Object >> Council councilmember Kelly, council member Allison alter and council member harper-madison object to going past 10:00 the vote then is 8 to 3 for us to continue with regard to this item. The motion to go past 10:00 is adopted. With that, I'll recognize councilmember pool for discussion on the amendment number two, I think the five foot difference and maybe the maker of the initial amendment motion would want to [10:01:33 PM] amendment motion would want to speak to it. >> It allows some flexibility of the siting of where the additional unit might be. And if especially if you're working with small lots, you may need that additional five feet to fit everything in. >> And so in line with what we are really trying to do is to make things simpler and to infuse these processes with the flexibility necessary to reach our our goal, which is more achievable. Pool housing. >> The five feet can, I think we will find that that may actually make it possible in many instances to get a second or a third unit on some of the lots in the city. >> I'm organized councilmember Vila, and then I'm going to recognize councilmember Allison alter for a motion, a substitute motion. Councilmember Vila, thank you for those comments. >> Councilmember pool completely agree with. We are again, we got to preserve our trees. But but they are sometimes in the middle [10:02:34 PM] they are sometimes in the middle of the lot and they make it very, very hard to build. So we think we've got to give people the ability to kind of move around the various objects and features of individual lots that that could make it virtually impossible to build one other note that I would add is that at the farther the setback, the longer the driveway has to be until you get to your garage or you get to your carport or you get to wherever you know you're going to park your car. In other words, the difference between 15ft from setback and a 25ft front setback is a ten feet of sidewalk and driveway. Impervious cover. And if we're not going to be changed, the impervious cover limits, then I'd rather use that impervious cover for housing than use that impervious cover for additional driveway and sidewalk space. So that's the other thing. The [10:03:36 PM] that's the other thing. The closer the setback is to the street, the less concrete we have to pour to get to the house. >> Councilmember Allison alter, you're recognized to make a substitute motion. >> Okay. Mean if staff can't give a compelling reason for a recommendation that they themselves put in writing to us, then did you want to say something, counselor? >> Yes. >> I have spoken with colleagues and have a better response for you. So staff did recommend 20ft. However, there was the recommendation that you can encroach beyond the 20ft with the front porch down to 15ft. >> As we understand, this is similar to the recommendation of the 15 foot front yard setback, right? >> Which was my motion. I mean, is my motion if I make the motion. But I don't know whether to make a motion, if staff can't justify their own motion, their own recommendation here. >> So I think that that is the justification of the 20ft. It was a staff was looking at a they again offer two [10:04:37 PM] they again offer two alternatives and looking at the setbacks, they were looking at a reduction from the 25ft and 20ft seemed like a reasonable reduction. I don't know that a staff considered or deliberated on going to the 15ft, but I think that is where they landed on the recommendation for the 20ft. >> That's correct. >> Assistant city manager. >> And then to further that, the setback is at 20ft. However, if you are if you are constructing a front porch, you can go to 15. And that was the staff recommends motion. So I'm well aware of what the staff recommendation was. >> That's what I was proposing. I was just hoping that you could contrast the two. I mean, if I have a second, I'll make the motion. But I have a sense that if the staff can't provide a justification for their own recommendation, then I'm not sure where this goes here. >> Do you want to make a motion? >> I'll make the motion, but have no idea if I have a second [10:05:37 PM] have no idea if I have a second councilmember alter moves, makes a substitute motion. >> It is. It's recognized as councilmember. A alter motion sheet number three. It's a substitute motion to amend the main motion. It's a substitute to council. Bella's motion to amend number two. Is there a second? Is there a second? >> Yeah, is there a second? >> The motion to amend by most the substitute motion to amend by councilmember Allison alter fails for lack of a second members. That takes us back to the main motion to amend which is councilmember Bella motion to amend number two councilmember Lyle recognize you for a brief closing move passage councilmember Bella moves the passage of the motion to amend number two. It's been seconded. Is there objection? I object. Councilmember Kelly and councilmember Allison alter will be shown voting no. So the motion to amend number two, [10:06:37 PM] motion to amend number two, Avella passes on a vote of 9 to 2 to that will take us to Vella motion sheet number three, version two Vella motion sheet number three. Version two. I will recognize this as Vella motion to amend. Number three. Councilmember Vella, you're recognized for discussion and to make a motion. >> Thank you, mayor. The final motion. This is a very again, very narrow motion targeted toward large corner lots, which are going to be some of the best lots for creating three units on because, you know, if a wish had a little picture but don't but you know if you look at a house that that is on a corner you know the front is facing the main street and then the side of [10:07:37 PM] main street and then the side of the house is facing the side street. And what you could potentially do in those situations is reconfigure it to where you have, you know, either two houses facing the main street and one facing the side street or one facing. But you get that kind of corner house. You get three houses on that corner where before you just had one corner. Lots are generally larger, lots a little bit larger than your other lots. So most folks will have a little bit more space to work with on those corner lots. So again, the problem with that configuration right now under the current code is that, you know, normally you just have a five foot setback between homes. But when you're on a side street, you have a 15 foot setback from the side street. And so that would again push the houses. It would make the configuration a little bit different. The we worked with staff. We originally had it set as a as a five foot side street setback. But the version two went from it's a five foot side [10:08:39 PM] went from it's a five foot side street setback on level one streets. Which are your smallest kind of neighborhood streets and a. Ten foot side street. Setbacks. If the street is a level two street, we ran that by transportation staff and transportation recommend that level one streets are slow and simple. Level two streets are a little faster. And so you want to have that that a little bit more visibility at the corner and a clearance and but again this is just trying to give folks flexibility and make sure that we actually get the supply that we're looking for out of out of the home initiative members councilmember Vella moves to amend the main motion with councilmember. >> This is number three councilmember Vella motion sheet number three, version two. Is there a second Singh by the mayor pro tem discussion on this item or questions of staff? If [10:09:40 PM] item or questions of staff? If hearing none is there objection? >> I object. >> All right. Councilmember the motion to amend is adopted with council members Kelly and council member Allison alter being shown as voting no. It passes on a vote of 9 to 2 members that will take us to council member Kadri's motion to amend. It is labeled council member qadri motion sheet. It is at the top. It says item one. It's a motion to amend item one, but that's for the main motion. I'm going to discuss this as qadri motion to amend. Number one, and I'll recognize councilmember qadri to discuss and make a motion on motion to amend number one. Great. >> Thank you, mayor. And I share everyone's frustration that we're not out by 230 today, but. But. But guess it is what it is. So the historic preservation [10:10:42 PM] So the historic preservation motion addresses staff's memo of considerations that was released last Friday. And I just want to once again emphasize how valuable this preservation bonus is to our city, and especially in district nine, while preserving existing structures furthers the city's affordability, cultural preservation and climate goals by diverting construction debris from the landfill. So I believe this amendment will help ensure the program's success. And with that, I move passage of qadri motion members councilmember qadri moves to amend the base motion with qadri motion to amend number one. >> It is second by councilmember Velasquez. Is there any discussion on qadri motion to amend? Number one, councilmember Allison alter thank you. >> So I have a lot of significant concerns with how well the preservation bonus will work and whether we were actually noticed for it. But I support the addition of this language to the ordinance. >> Is there. >> Councilmember Kelly yeah, I [10:11:44 PM] >> Councilmember Kelly yeah, I just wanted to thank councilmember qadri for the thoughtful work him and his staff did to create this amendment. >> Is there any objection to adoption of the qadri motion to amend number one? Without objection, qadri motion to amend. Number one is adopted members. That will take us to councilmember Allison alter's motion sheet number. What's labeled motion sheet number one? I will recognize this as Alice in councilmember Allison alter your motion to amend number one, and I'll recognize councilmember Allison alter to discuss motion one to amend number one members. By the way, it shows in the main heading motion sheet number one for item one, version two. >> Thank you. As I mentioned earlier today, the ordinance as drafted would expand short term rentals beyond our existing limits and allow 100% of a newly developed site under this use to be a multi unit short term [10:12:46 PM] be a multi unit short term rental. Short term rentals have a role now, but I really don't hear the concern raised in our community that we have to have too few short term rentals given that, I would prefer that any expansion of short term rentals be considered more comprehend actively rather than using this item as a vehicle to change our existing limits on this, use. Increasing the potential for high income investor driven use of our limited housing stock does not, in my estimation. Further, our housing supply goals. Voting in favor of this motion does not mean you are against strs or don't believe they have a role to play in our city. But strs are already allowed today, and if our goal is to produce housing, then let's ensure that what gets produced is housing, not hotels. Today, someone can use a unit for an str. This would simply hold to that situation, for they can use one unit for an str. This would simply hold to that situation for now until we deal with strs more comprehensively. My motion does nothing to further prohibit strs. It simply keeps our current rules in place [10:13:47 PM] keeps our current rules in place until we can have a more substantive conversation on what makes the most sense to create opportunities for housing without creating unnecessary harm. So I would move approval. >> Councilmember Allison alter move for adoption of her motion to amend the base motion motion motion to amend. Number one. It is seconded by councilmember Fuentes. Is there further discussion? Councilmember Kelly I do have questions for staff if they're able to speak to this amendment. >> We have Daniel ward making his way to the podium from councilmember Kelly. >> You have the floor. >> After reviewing this amendment, I had some questions related to any challenges or unforeseen challenges maybe that might come as a result of passing this amendment. >> Could you maybe speak to some of those if they exist? >> Sure. Daniel ward, development services. >> The language being proposed used essentially mimics existing [10:14:48 PM] used essentially mimics existing language in the code regarding to family residential use. >> It does take that standard and then also apply it to duplex residential use with a slightly later date. But the difficulties that exist around enforcement of short term rentals are difficult today. They don't become more difficult based on this amendment. Okay. >> Thank you for explaining that. >> I know that we talked about this as a question that I had raised at a previous work session that we had related to a briefing on this item. >> And it's my understanding that there will be a larger overhaul of the str ordinances and that will come back to council at a later time. Is that still the general idea? I think that was something that Trish link actually brought to us. I just wanted to verify. >> Councilmember that is correct. We are working on a whole listic approach to strs that we will be bringing forward to council in the future. Okay >> So does anything related to just for my clarity's sake, is [10:15:48 PM] just for my clarity's sake, is anything in home currently, aside from this amendment that prevent us from going back and I guess utilizing that process, for example, to apply it to home? >> Does that question make sense? >> I just thought about it in my head. Are you asking me or are you asking me? >> I'm asking if. Veronica well, if I might jump in if it were to be to do anything like that, the motion to amend that councilmember pool had that I pulled back and said we'll bring up later is one that specifically references allowing and giving direction to allow staff to do that on a holistic approach. Thank you for reminding me of that and the community also following along has been it's been great. >> I appreciate that. >> So no, no further questions. >> Great. The I'll recognize councilmember Allison alter to close us. >> So if you give somebody the right I'm sorry. >> Councilmember Bella has a [10:16:49 PM] >> Councilmember Bella has a question. Let me go to him and then I'll let you close. >> And this would be. I'm not 100% sure of, but I guess it's a question for law and or staff. But would this treat units differ only based on. I'm just trying to understand because my concern would be since the last time the last court case that we had where the folks out of I think Houston or something like that sued us saying that we can't treat residents of Austin different than non residents of Austin for the purposes of issuing a short term rental license. And then, you know, the federal court overturned. Is that is that correct? Ms. Link tirz link with the law department. >> This amendment would apply it on a unit basis and it would apply to irrespective if it was owner occupied or non-owner occupied. >> But guess my concern would be are we treating Singh similar [10:17:50 PM] are we treating Singh similar parties in different manners based on kind of arbitrary principles? That was my concern or that was what I took out of the federal cases that we lost on the str is that basically they're like, stop subdividing everybody into little categories and saying that they can and you can't. You have to have a general broad rule if is that is that my understanding correct? >> This amendment does not focus on whether it is an owner occupied property or a non-owner occupied property. >> It is at a use level. >> Knell. So this limited action would apply if it is an owner occupied property or if it is a non owner occupied property and that is consistent with the decision from the courts and can you tell us exactly because again, I'm not seeing the full context for it. >> How does it work? What does it actually do? >> So this limitation means that if someone was to apply for a short term rental license, whether they live there or not, [10:18:50 PM] whether they live there or not, if one of the units could be used as a short term rental regularly, the other one could be used as a short term rental for 30 days out of a calendar year. >> That is our existing rule for two unit setup. Erp. >> That is correct. >> All right. Thank you very much. Can I ask a code to a couple of questions too? Sure. And just again, I know you had commented it didn't quite get the full scope of it in terms of enforcement. How how how would code enforce this type of rule or I should say also, I guess, how is code currently enforcing this type of rule? >> Sure. Again, Daniel, [10:19:51 PM] >> Sure. Again, Daniel, development services, this urrent rule again applies in the current code. This rule applies to a two family residential use. >> A lot of people call that garage apartment Adu, with a 30 day limitation and it is admittedly difficult to enforce. >> We currently don't have any data sharing with the hosting platforms. And so in enforcement, especially on the margins, is difficult. Trying to prove what day was the 31st day that someone used a unit as their short term rental, but again, in terms of difficulty of enforcement, this mimics what's in the current code and then expands it to duplex residential use as well. So it doesn't create new complications for us. It just maintains the existing ones that we have. >> I got it. Thank you very much. Thank you. >> Councilmember pool, then councilmember Kelly. >> Thanks, mayor. >> I wanted and I see that councilmember Ryan alter has his [10:20:52 PM] councilmember Ryan alter has his hand up too. >> I would like to. >> He's got staff help. Sit with him. >> Yeah, true. >> So maybe Ms. Link, could I ask you a series of questions? What I want to do is kind of unpack this a little bit because could you explain kind of the history of how we got to here today? >> Why strs are even under discussion when Ann it wasn't a part of homes specifically, but it was in that part of the code and then why legal wanted to remove this language if you could, please. >> So the resolutions that were initiated, the resolutions that initiated this set of code changes, there are ones about accessory dwelling units, there are the home and then also the occupancy limits. >> And in looking at all of those, we were looking at the revisions to the two unit use. [10:21:52 PM] revisions to the two unit use. >> So duplex and then our existing two family and while this is happening, we also have direction from the courts that we will need to change our short term rental regulations and so when we do that, our recommendation, the department's recommendation has been and is to do that on a holistic way. >> So to achieve that, we were we're recommending stripping that out of this set of code as part of this set of code changes . And then when we come back, we will deal with the short term rental regulations kind of in one piece. And also just kind of fundamentally, we don't necessarily like pieces in different parts of the code. So we would want them all kind of together. So you can confirm and just to confirm with you, it was the legal department's proposal to remove the language limiting strs in the two unit residential use category. >> Yes. >> As part of so that we can do a holistic change and the removal of that language wasn't [10:22:53 PM] removal of that language wasn't part of the home initiative and the code changes that were proposed, correct? No, it is a result of changes that we will need to make as an organization based on some court decisions and you address questions regarding the removal of that language, limiting str use both in public meetings and in the council and planning commission. >> And as we can go back and read Lau's answers to these questions, you've pointed to the fact that strs currently have to register with the city and follow our code. >> Is that right? That is correct. >> That would not change here with this set of code changes either. >> So, colleagues, we have an amendment with council member Allison alter that would reinsert that language. >> But as I understand it, that's not the recommendation of the legal staff. The recommendation from staff remains that we deal with strs in a holistic way as a part of a larger effort and. Ms. [10:23:54 PM] larger effort and. Ms. >> Link, can you sorry, I didn't realize you had walked away. >> Can you confirm that your recommendation on treating this in a holistic manner, which I think you have said has not changed? >> That is correct. Council member and I jinxed myself by walking away. >> That you did. >> But think that's the recommendation from the law department has not changed. Thank you. It's not a it's not a deadly change. >> So, colleagues think we all have concerns about how many stars are taking up too much of our housing stock. We have, unfortunately run up against court rulings which constrain our ability to prohibit or regulate them as fully as many of us would like. And I would footnote that by saying as many of us would like for literally three years, this isn't the first time that some of us on the dais have taken on strs. >> I support having limitations on strs. I'm eager to do it across the city and across [10:24:56 PM] across the city and across residential uses, including the single family and multifamily Zones. >> We can't afford the loss of housing in our city, but we have some constraints and we need to work through them. So I'm eager to get started on the holistic look and that mayor is speaks to the direction that I mentioned earlier in the meeting. It would be direction to the city manager that we take up strs holistically as legal staff is recommending find ways to manage and enforce our Austin code rules more effectively, which all of us fervently would like to do. >> And the hang on one second. What I'm willing to do to for clarity purposes is council member Allison alter has a motion and a second I'm going to recognize those that still have questions. But based upon what councilmember pools questions were of legal staff and what her motion sheet number two, who was is which is to give direction [10:25:59 PM] is which is to give direction that indicates that it can the city staff can come back to us with a holistic approach. I'm willing to accept that as a motion to amend the amendment so that the direction would be part of the Allison alter motion to amend. If that's what you would like to do. Councilmember pool yes. >> Yes. >> If the maker of the initial yes. >> She didn't if you if you make the motion I'll look for a second and we'll vote yes, sir. Your motion to amend the amendment. Thank you, mayor. Councilmember pool moves to amend alter amendment number one motion to amend number one. It is seconded by councilmember Velasquez that is the motion that's on the floor. Let me ask if there's clarify. Councilmember Allison alter. >> I want to just clarify the motion. Are you adding direction to in addition, have a holistic response to keeping so mine [10:27:00 PM] response to keeping so mine keeps the tier rules as they are and then you're adding hers as a holistic response? Yes. As as her moving forward. >> Yes. As hers was written as part of these changes, the law department recommended removing short term rental limitation options specific to unit residential use so that the city manager can propose and city council could consider changes to short term rental regulations using a holistic approach. Therefore, the city manager is directed to continue working on a proposal to regulate short term rentals with the particular focus on the changes adopted in this ordinance and to bring back the proposed holistic changes when they are ready. It would not change your motion, it would just add direction as we go forward on short term rentals, I would consider that a friendly amendment. >> Yes. Well motion has been made. >> And second, to amend the amendment. Mayor pro tem. >> So is staff's understanding that it would go in for now and then be changed later to be in a different section of code and [10:28:02 PM] different section of code and removed from home. >> My expectation is that we would group all of the short term rental regulations together so that they would not be kind of sprinkled throughout. >> Okay. >> And legal is okay with that process. >> S if the council wants to keep it in here, that then that is the council's decision and we can work with that. >> Okay. >> Thank you, councilmember Vila. >> Mayor, actually you called on council Ryan alter already know. >> Just recognize that I was going to get to him so you're right. But. But that was on the right. Now. That was on the main motion to amend what I'm calling on is discussion on the motion to amend alter amendment number one, and then I'll come back to the main motion. So thank you, councilmember Vila. >> Thank you, ma'am. Sorry miss link, but one more question on what is the time line on on getting a comprehensive regulation back to council? [10:29:03 PM] regulation back to council? Because I feel like there's going to be a little academic in the sense of, you know, we're not going to have products, you know, homes under this for, you know, some time. I mean, it's got to pass. It's going to be rules. And then obviously people are going to build. In other words, so the regulations that apply to the units are are, you know, hypothetical at this point. In other words, when are you going to have a comprehensive item back before, you know, we're the first folks are getting the keys to their new units. >> So the motion that passed earlier today says that the ordinance would go into effect in its normal ten days and then the but it wouldn't apply to an application until February of 2024. >> I don't anticipate that we would have it back before that time period. >> You know, it takes us a little time to do, you know, changes. >> No, and I completely understand. But guess my point would be that there going to start building, you know what [10:30:05 PM] start building, you know what I'm saying? Like none. Like in other words, none of these 2 or 3 residential units that were, you know, these are yet they don't exist and they will not exist for mean toward the end of 2024. You know what I'm saying? Like, you know in other words, are we looking at an regulation sometime in 2024 that would be the plan. >> Councilmember vela, just want to point out that the existing the removal of the existing rules would impact housing units already on the ground today, not just new construction on. So it impacts all of the existing two unit structures today and if you were to go to get financing for 100% versus a 30 day, you may make different choices about building your units for starters. I don't think that we ever had a discussion here that we were trying to encourage strs with this process. And again, strs have a role. I'm not saying they're never a role in in this case. I'm simply trying to keep [10:31:06 PM] case. I'm simply trying to keep those protections as when we go to change it. If we've taken away, if we've given them the right to have an str, we're going to have to deal with that. And it does impact many, many units because it's not just the new ones that are coming on. So this is, I think, a prudent precaution, that, that, you know, strs is a quagmire to regulate. But I think it sets us up in a better position for the comprehensive of, investigation, which, you know, I don't really have a sense of where that's going to come out, but I would like to go into that with the strongest hand that we have in the process and appreciate that. >> And I agree. I'm just trying to kind of understand where we are with the regulations and kind of trying to get a better grasp of that. But appreciate that we have we don't have the type of regulations that we need and I look forward to seeing a more comprehensive approach. >> Councilmember pool, I'm going to recognize you to close on [10:32:07 PM] to recognize you to close on your motion to amend the. >> Sure. And I just had one question for miss link by by removing it with staff's recommendation to take that language out. Did that mean then that we would be bereft of regulations or you had mentioned there sprinkled elsewhere in other parts of the code, or was that sufficient until we grouped them all together under one title? So we have a set of regulations that apply to strs regularly, regularly in chapter 25 to and then this for the secondary unit to family residential had its own special str regulation in. >> And so anything we bring back to council, our goal would be to simplify and have those as all consolidated in one place as possible, all for staff's ease of implementation by staff and forcement purposes and also for [10:33:09 PM] forcement purposes and also for the public. >> So that they know all of the regulations that would apply to short term rentals as it relates to zoning right? >> So my. Yeah, I'll go ahead and close think what we're doing here isn't really the most elegant approach by allowing it to, by reinserting it after staff had removed it. >> I, I trust staff. If this is the way we move forward, they will do everything in their power to move expeditious members the vote is on the motion to amend the amendment and that is to provide the pool clarify action or pool direction on to the Allison alter motion to amend. >> Number one. Is there any objection to the motion to amend the amend ment without objection, the motion to amend the amendment is adopted that will now take us back to the main motion, which is the motion to amend by councilmember [10:34:09 PM] to amend by councilmember Allison alter, as it is now amended, council member Kelly will recognize you. I had you down as someone wishing to be part of the discussion and then I'll recognize council member Ryan alter. Thank you, mayor, for the recognition after further consideration, I'll go ahead and yield my time. Great councilmember Ryan alter, you're recognized. >> I'll pass. >> All right, mayor. >> Before the council votes yes, I do need to make one edit to the motion that was in the. Councilmember Allison alter version. Two on the second part, that's amending lines 211 through 213 and two, 22 through 224. And currently it reads, include a dwelling unit in a duplex or two unit, it should say residential use. And it says except as provided. >> And I need that actually to say a two unit residence shall use described in Ann 25 2773g. >> So instead of except as [10:35:10 PM] >> So instead of except as provide and will needs to say described in. Let me make sure I understood what you said. >> Item four would read include a dwelling unit in a duplex or two unit. You would delete the words except as provided by so that it would read or two unit read residential use as as described in in section 25 2773g correct members Ann and can explain why I needed to make that change if that would be helpful to the dice. Well, hang on. Let me get why don't you do that? Okay. And then I'll ask for a motion to amend. >> So this for our in current code says you cannot use the short term rental this way. And [10:36:10 PM] short term rental this way. And so in rereading this, as you're discussing it, I realize that I have inadvertently stripped out the use completely, which is not the intention of the motion and so I'm clarifying that you would be on one of the units, you would be limited to 30 days as I described earlier, members, I'm going to recognize councilmember Allison alter to make a motion to amend her main motion and the motion to amend that I will accept it's a motion to amend the amendment of Allison alter motion number one. >> It will read parentheses for close parentheses include add a dwelling unit in a duplex or two unit residential use as as described in in section. 25 2773g or secondary apartment except as provided by section. 25 21463c six seconds three [10:37:14 PM] 25 21463c six seconds three apartment regulations. Councilmember alter makes that. Allison alter makes that motion. It is seconded by councilmember pool members. It is the it is a motion to amend. Allison alter motion to amend number one is there discussion on there being no discussion? Is there any objection to the motion to amend? Allison alter motion to amend. Number one here Singh no objection. Without objection. The motion to amend is adopted. Now we're back to the main motion to amend, and it's been amended twice, once by a motion to amend by councilmember pool, once by a motion to amend by staff via councilmember Allison alter, and now we're back to the main motion to amend. Is there any further discussion, councilmember Fuentes? >> Thank you. I just want to thank councilmember Allison alter for bringing this forward. [10:38:15 PM] alter for bringing this forward. >> I understand that we are going to revisit the topic of strs at a later time and that this will get repealed at a at a later time. But I think today it's important that we're really clear that we are wanting to build housing for people who live in Austin. So I appreciate you for bringing this forward. >> Thank you. Councilmember any further discussion? Is there any objection to the to the motion to amend as amended? This is Allison alter, a motion to amend number one as amended and without objection. Allison alter motion to amend number one as amended is adopted without objection, that will take us to councilmember Ryan alter. I will discuss this as. Ryan alter motion to amend. Number one, I'll recognize councilmember Ryan alter to discuss his amendment and to make a motion just looking to save some trees. >> I move adoption. >> Everybody wants to. [10:39:27 PM] >> Everybody wants to. >> Well, we could start without all these motion sheets, but I'm not going to say anything about that. I'm teasing, of course. Councilmember Ryan alter moves to amend the main motion with Ryan alter motion to amend number one. It is seconded by the mayor pro tem. Is there any discussion? Councilmember Allison alter. >> Thank you. I appreciate the interest in preserving trees and the spirit in which this amendment is being offered. I am, however, concerned about the potential for manipulation and abuse when we offer alternative compliance methods. So I'm going to abstain on this amendment and I will look closely at the recommendations when they return to see what actually comes back. >> Thank you. Is there any further discussion, councilmember Kelly? >> Trees are important, so I'm supporting this. >> Okay. >> Well, okay. Any further discussion on. Without objection on the motion to amend by councilmember Ryan alter, a motion to amend number one by [10:40:29 PM] motion to amend number one by Ryan alter is adopted with council member Allison alter being shown abstaining. Members that will take us. To what's Ann motion to amend number one members let me we discussed this earlier, but we're making significant changes and some of them are very innovative. And under those circumstances, I think it's important for us to have data that we can analyze to make determinations about how things are being done, how effective they are, whether they're unintended consequences. I won't go through each item in this, but I will point out that it will determine Ann provide us data and outcomes on the amount of units created as a result of this ordinance. We're also looking at how we can determine the effectiveness of the preservation bonus, housing market analysis and information on where these units are being [10:41:31 PM] on where these units are being built. The amendment also seeks geographical information Ann and . Items related to density. I will point out one thing that that we need to take note of, and that is in item F, it says the report shall consider the Austin climate equity plan in water forward strategic housing blueprint and the Austin strategic mobility. It says partnership that should be plan. So my motion will be the sheet that you have with partnership deleted and the word plan in being placed in there. It's seconded by councilmember Velasquez. Did discussion and I'll recognize councilmember Allison alter for a motion to amend the amendment. It councilmember Allison alter [10:42:33 PM] councilmember Allison alter thank you, mayor. >> I think it is important to study this. And one of the things that we've been talking a lot about is the size of the homes that we're going to see. So I would like to make an amendment to add a number five under your data metrics from enacting of the home initiative, including that's part a to read mean and median measures of gross floor area floor area ratio and impervious cover to the number of units falling under different gross floor area ranges and any other related metrics identified by staff members. >> You've heard the motion by councilmember Allison alter to amend the amendment. I'll second that motion. Think that that is a good amendment to the amendment. Is there any discussion on the motion to amend? Watson amendment number one? Without objection, the motion to amend Watson amendment number one is adopted, and that will take us back to the main motion on Watson amendment number one. As amended by the Allison alter amendment. Is [10:43:34 PM] Allison alter amendment. Is there any discussion on the Watson motion to amend number one as amended? Is there any objection? Without objection, Watson amendment number one, as amended, is adopted members. That takes us back to the main motion, which is the, as you recall, the motion made by councilmember pool, and that is the base to adopt the base ordinance that was recommended by the planning commission. I'll recognize members who wish to participate in discussion any anyone wishing to be recognized. >> Are we making comments? >> Go ahead. Yeah. This time to make comments. Councilmember Vella, then councilmember Allison alter and then councilmember Kelly. >> And actually have just have a very brief question. >> Okay. Please. >> Just wanted to make sure that on the preservation bonus there, we're talking about there's not a fourth unit in the preservation bonus. Was that or is that if staff could that was [10:44:34 PM] is that if staff could that was not included in Irish link is coming up with more details on that. Got it. Just wanted to make sure because I know there was some some notice concerns on that. >> The draft ordinance does not include the fourth unit. >> Got it. Thank you. >> Planning commission's direction recognized that we needed to analyze that. >> Got it. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. >> Thank you. Councilmember Vella, councilmember Allison alter, you're recognized. >> Thank you. Guess I'm going to go go first here. So, first of all, thank you to all of you who showed up today. There are hundreds of you that came to make your voices heard for and against. And this is democracy at work. And I want to just say that I appreciate your time and your willingness to share your insights and experiences. We are fortunate in Austin that we have an engaged community Katy it is our responsibility and our privilege to hear from you, [10:45:35 PM] privilege to hear from you, whether it's today and in other in other settings about how you want this community to evolve. I believe that my colleagues and I agree on the goal of working to create housing opportunities for those who the market often leaves behind and our public servants and service workers, to name just a few. I also understand the desire to do something and we have taken a number of steps already as a council, both this one and previous ones. But as many have noted, we also have a responsibility to do no harm and after as much consideration as was possible in a very tight timeframe, I must conclude that many of the promises are very unlikely to transpire. The devil truly is in the details and we have not gotten the details right as proposed tonight. Let me share a few concerns that remain in terms of the scale of the size of buildings that will be allowed in neighborhoods. [10:46:36 PM] be allowed in neighborhoods. This goes much farther than any of the previously contemplated land development code drafts much, much, much further. I believe that as drafted, this proposal is still likely to encourage mcmansions. There are no safeguards against people just building bigger homes than they can now with a guest house and pool house with no other inhabitants living in those additional units where you do get ads, the rules will encourage large expense of ads, not tiny homes as far limits do not apply outside mcmansion boundaries and thus will not protect any of the most vulnerable areas in our city. Those areas will see larger and more expensive units. The large far limits where we do have them will mean the preservation and sustainable city incentives will be ineffective and we will see more demolitions as drafted. The preservation incentive is likely to stay facade needs not existing affordable homes. The preservation and sustainability incentives have large loopholes [10:47:38 PM] incentives have large loopholes and will be very, very challenging to implement. I worry as many of our speakers suggested today, that this will promote displacement. By all calculations, I don't have confidence that this proposal will deliver on the promise to create units that teachers and other public servants can afford after all, there is no affordability mechanism, not even a fee to contribute to affordable housing. What we have before us today is going to complicate how we consider a small lot sizes and phase two in many, many ways. And this may set us up to continue to be stuck in the courts. As you can see, my reservation burns are both many and real, and I had proposed plan to offer a postponement and may have even had a second. But I want to read the dais and I don't want to make us have to go through that process. But if I had my druthers, that's what we would be doing on the boat, on the boat, folks. [10:48:39 PM] boat, folks. >> No, no, no, no, we're not. No, we're not going to do that. We're not going to allow you to disrupt the meeting. We have a motion on the floor. We've gone through a number of amendments. We are getting ready to vote this is now time for council to make its comment after we've closed public comment. But do not disrupt the meeting. >> We have learned over the years that when crafting policy, especially zoning policy, the details matter wishful thinking simply does not make effective policy. We I've been on the losing end of many votes that are nine two or similar margins, like the time when I did not believe the rushed repeal of our camping ban was fully baked and the time when I thought the former city manager didn't merit a raise. I've cast very lonely votes in opposition both then and other times, but I've never regretted any of them. Tonight I will be voting no for all our sakes. I hope I'm wrong about [10:49:40 PM] sakes. I hope I'm wrong about the policy outcomes we will see from the majority's decision today. But I think many of our most vulnerable austinites are right. The benefits of this policy aren't going to trickle down. And the main opportunities this will open up will surely be for real estate speculation and preying on the vulnerable. >> Thank you. Council member. Further, further discussion. Council councilmember Kelly. Council member qadri and then councilmember Harper Madison. Councilmember Kelly, thank you. >> As a public servant and elected official, I've prioritized the well-being and concerns of my constituents. >> Above all else. While acknowledging the importance of initiatives like home, I've genuine reservations based on the feedback from the community and potential unforeseen consequences is my position is rooted in a commitment to thoroughly understand, ending and addressing the implications of any initiative before establishing where I stand on an issue. [10:50:42 PM] issue. >> So my dedication to staying consistent districts remains unwavering. Lang earlier today, Mrs. Reitmeyer from district six shared a heartfelt narrative from her upbringing when the city she lived in changed the zoning on her family's property. >> She stood here in front of us today and recounted the profound impact of the property taxes immediately rising after the rezoning, and she had to leave behind her friends, neighbors and countless memories abruptly. >> Ultimately, her family lost their rezone farm because of the drastic increase in property taxes. >> Her family could no longer afford. >> Shortly after she fell into depression, her story resonated with my own painful experience of eviction during my youth as a renter, our family had to abruptly uproot severing ties with friends, classmates and neighbors, forcing us to rebuild our lives from scratch. The potential for unintended displacement and our lack of clarity on that, if it will or will not happen as a result of the home initiative, is deeply troubling to me. Without adequate safeguards, I find myself gravely concerned that others will be at risk for displacement. [10:51:43 PM] displacement. >> And it's not something I've just heard from Mrs. Reitmeyer when I've been in the community. >> Many other speakers today were worried about this. It's clear that the tangible concern of risk looms large in our community and the unknown consequences on our collective well-being raise serious reservations with me about the passage of this item. I represent a diverse community of constituents in Austin and have approached the home initiative with as thoughtful and measured perspective as I could. I held several community meetings and did significant outreach related to the item. Listening to many of those diverse perspectives. >> But I also acknowledge the importance of addressing housing challenges in our community, even though I can't support this item at this time. >> My decision, again, is rooted in the genuine concerns raised by constituents who fear unforeseen outcomes associated with the home initiative. I firmly believe in the necessity of a comprehensive approach to affordable housing and remain committed to the examination of the potential impacts of this on the community. Furthermore Shaw, I want to ensure that I remain dedicated and transparent to [10:52:45 PM] dedicated and transparent to continue to emphasize the need for continued dialog. Careful consideration and looking into possible repercussions by prioritizing the concerns of those I represent, I will aim to ensure that any housing initiative adopted by the city aligns with the best interests of the residents of the city of Austin and my district. With the least number of unintended consequences as possible. And as the discussion around housing solutions evolves, I remain open to further collaboration and community engagement to address Austin's housing needs while safeguarding my constituents well- being. Wants needs and voices. I just cannot, not in good faith, support this today. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Councilmember. Councilmember qadri. >> Sorry, my voice is going. Talk about occupancy limits first and then I'll go into the home initiative. But I just want to thank all the hard work by our city staff, especially the law and development services, as well as the planning commission and all our engaged community members and advocates. And I [10:53:45 PM] members and advocates. And I want to thank my fellow council members for voting. Nine one in favor of initiating the elimination of occupancy limits back in June, as we heard from our speakers today, action today will help further ensure all types of people can live in all types of places. And as we worked with law and development services on occupancy limits, we learned about some challenges with some inspections for a small group of properties, code enforcement shortcomings transcend occupancy limits and highlight the challenge we have as a city for renters, which amount to 55% of Austin. So my office looks forward to working with councilmember Kelly's office. Know this has been brought up city staff and stakeholders to explore better use of our code enforcement tools in the new year. And I just want to highlight policy making is not a one and done business. Oftentimes we have to revisit the decisions Luz we make and find ways to build upon them, improve them and augment them. We know many in our community are concerned with large homes and large lots in our central city, and that's why [10:54:46 PM] our central city, and that's why I look forward to working alongside my colleagues to address subchapter subchapter F in our code to address the size of single unit homes and better incentivize more units, which is the heart of the home initiative . And with that, I'd like to talk about the home initiative really quick. But but I do want- to thank the mayor for keeping this, you know, this ship sailing. It was it was rocky at times. But we've made it. And want to thank all our neighbors who came out today, whatever side you came on. And I like to live in a in a reality of rainbows and butterflies. So I want to say everyone was always civil and happy and smiling. We really appreciate it because this is your city, this city. You know, should work for you and regardless of what side you came on and what you believe and how you feel after the vote that takes place today, I just saw a deep love of city and a deep love of neighbor. So I just want to thank everyone who came out and spoke today. Your participation Ann matters. I'm grateful for it, and I'm sure we [10:55:46 PM] grateful for it, and I'm sure we all look forward to many more council meetings with folks coming out land use policy in America is deeply complicated and deeply problematic. After the court struck down explicitly segregationist laws, city across the country, including here in Austin, can use zoning and other means to divide our communities along racial lines. As red lining minimum lot size prohibited prohibitions against multi-unit buildings and discriminated against renters haunt our history and our present and our current land development code has not been updated since 1984. And look this up. As I was writing my speech in 1984, the population of Austin, Texas, was about 448,000 people. It is currently well over a million. We're the 10th largest city in the country. So the gentrification and displacement and skyrocketing housing costs we see today are happening not because we are making changes, it's because we have not made these changes and it's instead [10:56:47 PM] these changes and it's instead it's all happening because we've stubbornly stuck to our status quo. Home is not a silver bullet , but it's a step towards progress. Yes, the balance between walkable, transit friendly neighbor, neighborhood scale density and preservation doesn't have to be a zero sum game, and with the home initiative, it won't be here in Austin. And that's because our planning commission was able to work with both the Austin infill coalition and preservation Austin to produce the preservation incentive. Here we have a fantastic collaboration of two groups who haven't always been on the same side and think it's a wonderful addition to councilmember pool home initiative. It encourages a kind of missing middle density endorsed by reimagine Austin comprehensive plan while also incentivizing the preservation of our existing housing stock in district nine. As I've said many times, has the most to gain from this addition because our neighborhood, our neighborhoods, have the largest number of homes built. Before 1960, building [10:57:48 PM] built. Before 1960, building homes don't account for neighborhood character, the character of any neighborhood is its people. And the goal of this is to make sure that folks like Gracie hope, next time I'm at the store that she works with, I will talk to her about home and why I might have voted the way that I did. It's so that folks in the city can afford to live in this city, and that has not been the case. There's a reason that we are the largest city in the country that is losing our black population and it's and it's because of these antiquated policies that we just latch on to and that we need to move away from. So this preservation, this preservation incentive is a meaningful tool in our toolbox to preserve neighborhood charm for generations to come, while also providing options for gentle density. By no means is it perfect. Any decision we make is never a one and done deal. It's a work in progress and with regular reviews and conversations with residents, we can revisit and streamline it [10:58:49 PM] can revisit and streamline it and provide the best options that benefit our entire community. >> Thank you, councilmember councilmember harper-madison, followed by the mayor pro tem. >> Thank you, mayor and colleagues. I'll keep it brief. I wrote a bunch of stuff, but you guys don't want to hear all of it. The most important parts are. Are,. Are things that have already been said. I really hate when we categorize it like on whichever side you shook out on, you came and you showed up and you spoke with your heart. Whether or not that was disruptive and not especially civil or meek and quiet. And you did it for the first time. You showed up. And that's what it's supposed to be all about. Am I opinion. So I really just want to say thank you to our staff. Our staff and our staffs, the folks who work so hard, all the community members, regardless of what it is you contributed to the conversation today, you contributed. And that matters. Our, our kids are watching us and, you know, my, my high [10:59:53 PM] and, you know, my, my high schooler is poised to, to get in trouble at home because we don't encourage truancy. You know the walkout that they're going to have over or an item that, you know that we've had a difficult conversation about at home about ceasefire and my kids going to have to, for the first time make a decision about where they are politically. And I think it's perfect. I think it's perfect that we get to have a difficult conversation at home and the people's building and the city where I was born and raised. This is what we're supposed to be doing. I really want to thank our staff members. When you get the opportunity to pass by the d1 office, you'll see that special shout out to Nikki Mccullough for decorating our office. It says the east pole. And I'm just saying this was like. And so for your dedication , for this comprehensive exploration of the initiative, [11:00:55 PM] exploration of the initiative, for all the ways in which, you know, municipal government is a juggernaut, it's not supposed to move too fast to help to, you know, curb instances of missed conduct and, you know, all the other yucky things that happen when things go too fast. It to some degree is going to have to be a little more nimble and a little more flexible so that there are the opportunities for the voices that contribute to these conversations, to help us make policy better. So my hope is that this isn't the last conversation that we have about phase one, about phase two, about everything that happened subsequent to that. And when we leave it like that, it feels less like anybody lost and more like this is a continuation. And so it's not goodbye. It's see you later. I. I really appreciate the amount of energy that's gone into the dialog. I think Austin's future does not just include ten years from now or even one year. Frankly, I think at this rate, we're [11:01:55 PM] think at this rate, we're talking about tomorrow. We're talking about yesterday. I think there was a lady who spoke earlier, which I really appreciated her. Her contribution to the dialog. Miss Donna, she was a teacher who said she's supposed to be resting right now and that her families lived in this community since she was 12 years old. That means did the math. She was born in 1951. What I wanted to say and what I couldn't say to her because, you know, you could tell how she felt and to contradict how people feel is there's an air of condescension in that that's unforgivable. I never want to come across as patronizing, but the truth of the matter is, when we should have been fighting is when miss Donna was three years old. Because in 1948, the policy that we passed about minimum lot sizes is when we should have started this fight. And then again. And again and again. And again. So I don't ever want us to get it twisted. This body of folks up here, some of whom [11:02:55 PM] folks up here, some of whom haven't even seen their 35th birthday yet, they didn't ruin Austin. So when you say things like that, I recognize that, you know, you're feeling so passionate, but it's outlandish. It's not true. It's not real. And the truth of the matter is, we should have been fighting this fight for a long time. We're just now getting there. We're just now catching up. And I suspect it's going to be a fight that we fight forever. We'll never stop fighting this fight. We're the 10th now, fully suspect that one day we'll be in the top five. And as we grow and climb and get there, this fight won't stop. And my hope is that we don't tear each other to pieces. On the way there, I. I don't have to remind anybody in the room because folks talk too much and speculate a lot. But very recently I took the opportunity to take some time off from my heart and my head and my health because, you know, I don't necessary primarily hate it when we disagree. But I got to tell you, the way my anxiety [11:03:56 PM] to tell you, the way my anxiety is set up when we disagree and you tear people apart, it has a real effect on humans. And I want us to give a little more thought and consideration to what that does to a person who all I did was say, I think I can contribute to something, something to the city that I grew up in. I think we all owe a debt to the society that we live in for the freedom that we get to appreciate. And I wasn't going to sign up for the military, so I signed up for this. And I'm not hiding in a foxhole, but sometimes sitting up here fighting with and for the same people feels like it. And wish it didn't. And I'd like for us to really all think about that moving forward when we're interacting with one another and when you're interacting with the people who signed up to do the job. I wouldn't say that anybody sitting up here isn't doing what they think is the right thing to do and to tear them apart. As a person is wrong and frankly, you know, not to simplify it, but it's mean and it's not necessary. I'll leave us with this. I think this initiative [11:04:58 PM] this. I think this initiative will provide us the opportunity to give the power of choice, the power of choice back to homeowners and to homebuyers. And that's why I'm voting yes and no other reason. Ann, I wish you all a very happy holiday season. We'll see you one more time before we, you know, do all the things that we celebrate. But do recognize that our jewish brothers and sisters are celebrating a special day already. And as we move into the season, folks are going to be celebrating how they do so. And I hope that everybody does so safely and happily and with peace in their hearts. >> Thank you, councilmember mayor pro tem, followed by councilmember Vella. >> I hate going after Natasha, hate following you. >> You know, I also had learned along the way about the 1984 code and I was actually born in 1984. >> So I'm now one of the older ones on the dais, believe it or not. >> Why did you look at me when you said that. >> And I read a really [11:06:01 PM] >> And I read a really interesting article on a website that was about how in that year, essentially duplexes became illegal. >> And I've thought about that as I drive around the community and I look at what types of housing stock available and I think about where do we see duplex is and how old are they and what kind of housing stock is being built as new builds and what kind of housing stock is naturally aging into market rate, affordable housing. And so that really struck me when I thought about, you know, it may be specific lines of code, but generally there was a sentiment in the mid 80s that it should either be apartments or it should be single family homes. And then somewhere through the years, the lots kept getting bigger and the regulations kept kept becoming more burdensome and more cost, you know, more cost expensive. Now we're looking at how convoluted our processes is. >> There's an amendment that council member Vella brought. I don't know if a layperson could read this and understand what this setback is supposed to be or how someone's supposed to [11:07:01 PM] or how someone's supposed to design a unit and be in compliance with these burdensome regulations. >> And so I just keep going back to it. Shouldn't be that hard. We should all be able to agree because I think there's a lot of the same values that we've been hearing from people today. So many people turning up to speak new faces and voices that I've never talked to before that are telling real stories about how they picked a lot, how they wanted to make sure they had a parent or a child that could be somewhere nearby them and still have their own autonomy. And that's exactly what I've heard as I've talked to the community throughout the years. And you don't always hear it here in chambers. You oftentimes hear people on different sides of the aisle. >> And so think about the first place that I ever lived where I didn't have to have roommates. And it was a 423 square foot apartment built in the early 70s. >> And I want to make sure that if we can learn anything from the wrongs of outlawing missing middle housing and duplexes and small courtyard apartments, it's that we need to be thinking [11:08:02 PM] that we need to be thinking about what ten, 20, 30, 40 years down the road looks like, because is somewhere down the line there's going to be someone who needs to live closer to work or needs to live closer to an aging parent or has another situation. And they need their housing to be more flexible. Well, there's a lot of folks right now that are in big houses. And as they as they age and they retire, they realize, I don't need this many bedrooms. Maybe it's time for the next person to be able to grow a life in this particular area. But there's just nowhere else for them to go and stay close to their social support network. And so I hope that this initiative really launches us into getting it right for future generations. So the little kids that we've seen in the audience today have a have a way to grow up. And if they want to go to school here and they want to build their life here, that we're able to do that. So I think that this is a really smart move. I'm appreciative of councilmember pool taking this initiative and really stepping up into this leadership role. So it's not common that that she's on the dais and having these [11:09:02 PM] on the dais and having these moments where people are saying, you know, you're not understanding it because I know her very well. I've I've seen her really think through a lot of issues throughout the years. And she's a very contemplative person. She's willing to listen. She has a big heart and I think this is just a really big moment for our community to be able to set ourselves up for success in the future. >> So thank you, mayor pro tem councilmember vela. >> I just wanted to thank everyone that came to testify today. A phenomenal day listening to 500 people. And I wanted to thank you, mayor and the mayor pro tem for handling the entire day, including some, you know, tough moments with with patience and class and humor. It was a good meeting. I learned a lot and love this community. And I just appreciate how everything went down and tempers get hot, but they cool off and we move along and we got [11:10:04 PM] off and we move along and we got it done. So thank you very much. >> Thank you. Councilmember councilmember qadri, do you need to be recognized? >> Yeah, I was going to make a quick comment because I realize my whole speech didn't thank the person who's brought home together and why we're all here tonight. So I just wanted to thank councilmember pool and her staff for working on this. It's a labor of love. And, you know, I've always believed Austin is a city worth fighting for. And I think this is kind of, kind of cements that. >> Thank you, councilmember councilmember pool will recognize you to close on the motion. >> She's films. Oh dang, those bathroom runs. >> It's a good thing it's a good thing. Had to call on qadri. And you missed his. Thank you. Council member pool. I will call on you to close. >> Great. I want to thank everyone who came out today, especially those who waited all day to speak. [11:11:07 PM] day to speak. >> It was an extraordinary effort. >> And thank you all. Thank you all. >> My thanks to all the city staff who have contributed to the home effort in particular planning, staff and leadership for their tremendous effort over the past several months to get us here. I want to acknowledge the extraordinary work of the planning commission working group on those key amendments that reflect community input, and that helped meet the goals of the home initiative to promote smaller single family homes and provide option for homeowners. These amendments reflect two of my key priorities ensuring smaller structures and preserving existing homes. >> My deep appreciation Ann to all the community partners and stakeholders and constituents and organizations who have supported this initiative of representing their members and themselves and their neighbors. [11:12:07 PM] themselves and their neighbors. >> There's a wide spectrum of support labor unions, advocates for older adults, transit and housing advocates and small business groups. >> The home initiative has garnered national notice as well , reflecting broader documents and housing concerns. Well beyond Austin city limits. But I'm particularly grateful to the community partners who have dedicated so much of their time and efforts to home air Austin preservation in Austin. >> Aarp, Texas Austin infill coalition and environment, Texas housing works. Austin aura habit bat for humanity and Austin board of realtors. >> Austin association. Leona capital, metro and transit forward. The list of supporters is much longer than I am naming here. I thank you all for advocating for your members and for your community. [11:13:07 PM] for your community. >> I think we can celebrate this moment and the achievement tonight as we create more housing opportunities across the city. I want to thank my colleagues who have supported home and who are making this journey possible. >> And I want to echo council member qadri and thank the mayor for keeping our ship on an even keel as we proceeded today. >> This ensures decorum and fairness in our process. So that everyone is heard, heard and respected. >> I'm looking forward to home phase. Two >> These are tools that work together and no, no, no, no, no. >> Let please, please. I'm going to have to ask you to leave. If you can't act appropriately, go home. I would hate I would hate [11:14:09 PM] home. I would hate I would hate even if we disagree to have to ask people to leave at this point because they don't act appropriately. Please please act appropriately. >> Thank you, mayor. >> I'll continue. >> Respect thoughtfully. I'm looking forward to home. >> Phase two. >> These are tools that work together and we need a full toolbox if we're going to make any progress on our housing emergency. We need to continue with our efforts on capital, a affordable housing as we have been for years with housing bond dollars, federal and local funding, along with our housing partners in the community and of course, people who can afford luxury housing, have no housing shortage. We need to take better care of those caught in the middle who don't qualify for subsidies. We are losing our workers, our teachers, nurses, aces. And up here on the dais, [11:15:10 PM] aces. And up here on the dais, we see the staffing shortages and recruiting challenges in our city departments and our first responder agencies is home. Phase one. An is an important step and offers more options, but it's only the first step. We need home phase two. >> If we truly want to create more starter homes to give younger generations a better foothold and with each step forward, we create a better future for them and for everyone. Mayor, thank you so much. >> Colleagues. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Councilmember pool. Thank you. Councilmember pool member Rogers. We will now vote and the vote is on the main motion as it was amended. All those in favor. >> No, no, no, no, no, no. >> All those in favor of the motion indicate by raising your [11:16:12 PM] motion indicate by raising your hand. All those opposed. Raise your hand. Yes he voted yes. Members hours before we announce the vote, I also want to say thank you to the staff. We deeply appreciate and not just the staff in the manager's office and our professional staff, but the staff of all of the council members and my staff as well. The role that you played, folks, this is important, significant work and we all appreciate each other in doing that work. There are nine votes in favor, two votes opposed council member Kelly and council member Allison alter. So the main motion, as amended, is adopted on all three readings. Congratulations members there being no further business to [11:17:16 PM] being no further business to come before the Austin city council at this special called meeting. Without objection, we are adjourned. It is 11:16 P.M. Congratulations and thank you.