City Council Work Session Transcript – 5/14/2024 Title: ATXN-1 (24hr) Channel: 1 - ATXN-1 Recorded On: 5/14/2024 6:00:00 AM Original Air Date: 5/14/2024 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. [9:04:18 AM] 904 on may 14th, I will call to order the work session of the Austin city council for a regular scheduled work session, members, I put up on the message board the order that we go in. But before we start that this morning, I want to call attention to the fact that, some people may not recognize the fellow sitting to my right, but we are joined today at our very first meeting by our new permanent city manager, tc Broadnax. And, we couldn't be happier that you're here and, very excited about the future of the city of Austin with you [9:05:19 AM] the city of Austin with you being here. >> Well, thank you, mayor. And members of the council, I'm just glad to be here and looking forward, to a wonderful day today. And so we'veot a lot of interesting things to discuss today. So I'm excited about it. And thank you for the warm welcome, mayor. >> We appreciate that enthusiasm , let us pray that. Now let us just pray. Yes thank you sir. We appreciate you, members, the way what we're going to do today is, we will take up items related to d1 first, which is a discussion of the proposed amendments to code city code title 25. Related to land development. The order that that I thought we would go in and I put this up on the message board, and it's based upon the number of amendments that I think are floating there and that kind of thing. And just the trying to add some order will be six, which is related to the home, provision three and five, which is related to itod four is compatibility, [9:06:19 AM] to itod four is compatibility, one is for 18, and seven is, electric vehicle. Then what we would do is go to briefing on law enforcement mutual aid and then be one update on the status and implementation of the city's bond development and delivery plan. With that, let me ask first if there's any presentation that staff is planning or intending to make, what we would do is have that presentation, and then I will, open up the work session for not just questions of staff, but we will also go to potential amendments that people may be offering on Thursday when this item comes up, on the agenda. And since I see no movement, I'm going to assume that you want us just to go straight to the well, some. Somebody tell me, mayor. Yes I believe we want to do a presentation on the land development. >> That's good. Good. And so is that all right? Yeah that's [9:07:20 AM] that all right? Yeah that's great. >> No, that's exactly what ias hoping. >> Thank you. And so. Well, first of all, good morning again, mayor, mayor pro tem and council members. Pleased to be here. Today's work session, will focus primarily on your discussion regarding amendments to the land development code and anticipation of Thursday's meeting, but we do have other briefings, as you mentioned before, but today's the first item, is your discussion on the land development code. Staff is going to brief and have a brief presentation that will make clarifying points and review the planning commission recommendations. And then we wiwill stand for discussion and questions. I'm going to ask assistant city manager Veronica Messineo, to introduce this item. Miss Messineo, you can proceed. >> Good morning, mayor and council. Veronica Briceno, assistant city manager. We are here today with your next, consideration of a land development code amendments. We have been working on these for several months, as you are aware, and we're thankful to be here today and for your [9:08:21 AM] here today and for your consideration on Thursday, Lauren Middleton Pratt, our planning director, will walk through the changes that have been made since the last time you considered these as well as Mok the team of planners who are responsible for each of the set of amendments. She will also go into greater detail the amount of outreach and engagement they've done through this process. So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Lauren and I would just like to give a huge thank you to staff for the heavy lift that they've made. So we're happy to be here today. Thank you Lauren. >> Thank you. Good morning mayor and council. I am Lauren Middleton Pratt, director of planning. And today I'm joined by four of my colleagues who will walk you through what we've been doing over the past several months in terms of our spring code amendments as, city manager Broadnax laid out. They will be here to provide updates and answer any clarifying questions you may have at the end of the [9:09:21 AM] you may have at the end of the presentation. I'm joined by Eric Thomas, division manager with the planning department. Laura Keating, associate project manager with the project connect office. Jonathan Lee, senior planner and Warner cook, principal planner, both with the planning department. As you recall, on April 11th, city council and the planning commission held a joint public hearing where staff introduced four code amendments, which have progressed through the engagent and deliberation process. Those amendments are the electric vehicle charging use home phase two citywide wide compatibility changes as well as the equitable transit oriented development. Also known as the tod overlay and the goals of these amendments are to one unlock opportunity for more housing as well as make Austin a more walkable transit, supportive and equitable and environmentally friendly city. [9:10:22 AM] environmentally friendly city. Since April 11th, staff has hosted four public public open houses as the planning commission has also held a separate meeting and public hearing where they developed, recommended amendments to the proposed changes and to after today's work session. It is our anticipation that council will move forward with deliberation and possible action of these proposed code amendments on Thursday, may 16th. In addition to those open houses, staff has engaged the public through an alternative notification process that included the mail out of the purple. Some say lilac, some say lavender mail out which went to utility account holders, property owners within the city limits and a separate property specific notification was sent to property owners, utility account holders as well as occupants within 500ft of where [9:11:23 AM] occupants within 500ft of where the tod overlay is proposed to be applied. Additionally we have published notice within the statesman, ran ads in various social media channels, issued press releases, and we also held a media information session which garnered more outreach and additional coverage in our local news outlets in order to track our progress, we have captured data to illustrate our engagement and as of may 9th, staff has sent out over 700,000 notices by mail received and responded to over 200 phone calls and emails addressed. Approximate 200 comments submitted through our speak up Austin website, and hosted almost 300 attendees during our in-person and virtual open houses. I'd also like to thank city council and the planning commission for your hard work, your dedication, Ann support and collaboration with staff as we [9:12:23 AM] collaboration with staff as we have progressed through this engagement process at this time, I'd like to welcome Eric to the dais to walk you through the proposed ev charging use proposals. Thank you. >> Thank you sir. >> Good morning mayor and council. I'm Eric Thomas with the planning department. And I'm case managing the electric vehicle charging land use code amendment, on the slide in front of you are the three amendments that planning commission offered for the ev charging land use code amendment, with some minor text modifications, we will be, recommending approval of all three of these amendments. Thanks >> Anybody have any questions? Thyou very much. >> Good morning council I'm Laura Keating, case manager of home phase two, we just wanted to give you an update on staff's [9:13:26 AM] to give you an update on staff's response to some of the planning commission recommendations. So staff does not support the planning commission amendment to exclude the flagpole of a flag lot, from the lot area. This would allow sites to exceed 45. We have posted some examples of possible results of this amendment on theouncil q&a. In response to questions, with the 45 impervious 45% impervious cover limit and existing lot size, staff believes that the originally recommended 2000 square foot lot minimum is the most appropriate. The planning commission also made a number of amendments related to setbacks, including reducing setbacks along internal lot lines, meaning that new lot lines created by a small lot subdivision would have, less than a five foot setback. Staff's recommendation includes a reduction in setbacks for internal lot lines. Only in some [9:14:27 AM] internal lot lines. Only in some cases, we want to keep the minimum five foot setback for any instance that could occur between a new house and an existing house. And one reason for this is fire safety issues. As there are also two amendments from planning commission that are not included in the planning commission version of the draft ordinance, and we just wanted to point those out. First is the definition of replat from state law that triggers subdivision requirements generally, not just resubdivisions, and the second is the creation of back lots, which would mean a landlocked parcel. This would conflict with the provision in the current subdivision code that requires all lots to abut a dedicated public street, a change like this would require, changes to the subdivision chapter and additional interdepartmental coordination, including with the utility providers. H have. Yeah. [9:15:30 AM] Yeah. >> Sorry. Can you go back to your first slide? And I apologize if I. Okay. One way here. Thank you. That's all I need. >> We also wanted to address some concerns. We've heard about the wildland urban interface known as the wui code, this requires any new occupied structures constructed in a wui zone to be built with fire resistant material to reduce the risk of ignition from wildfire events and minimize the risk of structure to structure fires. And so that is reviewed at the time of new construction and will continue to be reviewed. Staff will address neighborhood evacuation issues regarding new development in the Ann wui areas through amendments to subdivision regulations or to the 2024 international wui code, [9:16:30 AM] the 2024 international wui code, these amendments will ensure that neighborhoods in the wui areas only have one way in or out, and the neighborhood will be able to will not be able to add units unless a second egress route is added. For some neighborhoods, and so with that, I will turn it over unless there are any questions. >> Any questions? >> Councilmember Ryan alter. >> That's the first time I've heard you say that about the wui and how it relates to the subdivision. Can you elaborate at all on what the plan is there and just how y'all are planning on addressing that? >> Yes, that staff is still working on that internally for home phase two specifically, there is an infill plat amendment that's coming. And so in order to get the subdivision on to small lots, you do have to re subdivide it, and so we're hoping to address it in the, in the coming infill plat. [9:17:30 AM] the coming infill plat. >> And will that look like something someone will go to subdivision. And one of the reviews will be there's only one way in and out of this neighborhood. And so you can't subdivide died. Will it be like a preliminary review how I'm just curious where you are in thinking through that and what that might look like. >> Yeah, I might refer to a colleague, but that is generally the intent of, of looking at, the number of units on a neighborhood level. Yeah. >> Oh I see oh, no, that's all I've got. Great. >> Councilmember Allison alter. >> So I have a number of questions here, and I'd like to invite up the fire department. Good morning, chief baker. >> Good morning. Good morning, city manager. >> Mr. Mayor, madam mayor pro tem, members of council. Good morning. >> Good morning. So I'd like to remind council that this is wildfire awareness month. And when we're talking about the wildland urban interface, this [9:18:30 AM] wildland urban interface, this is the area in our community where the wildlands come together with the urban structures. Austin is the city or part of the country that is at fifth most risk with respect to structures, we're talking billions of dollars of potential, damage. We have a this is not just a problem, as some people think. On the west side there is a ring around the city, that we call the wui. This is the area where the wildlands come together with, the structures, and so there's a circle around the city, all of those areas are at risk. And many of those areas are the places precisely where we have one place in and one place out, some of you were not here when we adopted the wui code. And I think there's some real serious issues between how home interacts with, what we're trying to do in the wildland to protect are in the wui, to protect our community. So first, chief, I want to ask you if there are curreny provisions [9:19:32 AM] there are curreny provisions and there and there are two parts to this and there's some nuance. So please bear with me, so, chief, are there currently provisions in the wui that will allow a level of protection under home under the home two ordinance? >> I'm gonna call up Ben flick, who's our engineering manager, who's been working very closely to try to find a win win solution for everyone with this. >> Thank you. >> And good morning, mayor counciy name is Ben flick with the fire marshal's office. Under current provisions, a new subdivision or site plan, there is a process built withinhe land development codend the wui to review those for the number of proposed properties and make sure there's adequate neighborhood egress provided. >> So if you are creating a new subdivision on, you know, a Greenfield development, then we have rules that make sure that you have the right ingress and egress, and we can work with the developers with our wui code tocreate a space that is reasonably safe, albeit still in [9:20:33 AM] reasonably safe, albeit still in the area. That's correct. Okay are there concerns of we compliance in existing subdivisions or neighborhoods that would look to develop under home? Two under the home two ordinance, which potentially its whole point is to multiply the number of people living on those lots. >> There are concerns with that. If there is a division or a redevelopment, then under the current process, there is a opportunity to capture that. But if it's under home two and we start looking at individual lots that are are subdividing, that's where it gets to be of concern that we don't have that overall picture of the impact that's happening with the existing neighborhood. >> What can you be more specific about the concerns? Because we're being asked here to, you know, to make these changes and they have potentially very big safety implications for O community that lives in already existing subdivisions. So we need you to be more specific. And I've heard the fire [9:21:35 AM] And I've heard the fire department express these concerns and I think you need to be really real about it, because we're about to adopt these regulations that are going to put our community at risk. As you add additional units in those areas, according to what we know about how wildfire spreads and what we know about how we should be planning these areas. So I need you to be more specific. >> So, so the overall major concern is when development is occurring or redevelopment is occurring in an existing neighborhood that only has one street in and out, that only provides one means of neighborhood egress or fire department access. We are now increasing the density of the number of units that are within that development. So the exposure risk goes up. And what the concern is in the event of a wildfire, there is going to be a bottleneck of occupants trying to get out of their neighborhood and fire department trying to ingress, and it's going to create a situation to where people are not going to be able to get out, and fire departments are not going to be able to get [9:22:37 AM] are not going to be able to get in, and they're not going to be able to control or do anything. >> So evacuation is one issue. What about the fact that you now have additional structures closer to your structure, when the whole point of the wui is to minimize the structure to structure conflagrations that we see, the exposure concern is we are adding the new new structures, which will meet the requirement of the wui. >> But the concern is if neighboring properties are not going through redevelopment, they are unprotected. So the concern, the intent of the wui code is to help harden structures, but it doesn't prevent a wildfire. So in the event of a wildfire, those new structures are potentially creating an additional hazard that increases the concern of fire spreading from structure to structure. >> So, to put it plainly, if I own a home and I am not redeveloping my property, but my neighbor decides to access home two, I will be at more risk of [9:23:38 AM] two, I will be at more risk of fire than I was before they did that. >> That's correct. >> However, if and I believe that there's a win win, a workable solution for this area. So before a in the home two area, before they your neighbor build a new home construction, giving the fire department an opportunity to review those plans along with our other partners, we can make that determination how safe or whatnot it should be, built or not should be built. So at the end of the day, I think that's a matter of fact. I know that's a win win solution to make this work, but we need to be on the front end of it and look at those plans, look at those review plans. Make sure that everything within code first. So I don't I don't believe that using your example, councilmember alter that the fire department and I we're going to allow your neighbor to build something so dangerous to your structure. We will be involved and engage to make sure it's workable. Solution. However, if it's not workable, [9:24:39 AM] However, if it's not workable, then we'll just we'll just tell them that there's no way that you can build another structure near your home. >> I appreciate, and that's kind of where I'm trying to get us to land. But there is nothing in what we're would be adopting this week that would allow you to have that review, I don't think that's the case. I think we will have an opportunity to have that review. You can't build something without the fire department being engaged in putting out stamps on it. Along with dsd and other partners. >> Chief. I mean, they just said that we have to change the wui code so that you do this. And so you can't it can't work both ways that we have to change the wui code in order to be able to make it safe. We're not changing the wui code today. We could put something in motion, and I'm not sure because there's so many things flying around you could put something into the home to adoption that says this doesn't apply in the wui. If you're doing an infill development, we could do that this week. We don't have to wait until you [9:25:42 AM] don't have to wait until you edit the wui code six months from now to do that. The wui area is defined in code, and it's less entitlements. So we can go we can do that trash link with the law department, mayor and council, I do not recommend including the wui map within the zoning code. That creates some challenges for staff, for the fire department, for the community. Because the area for the map, while mostly stationary, isn't 100% stationary. It's also not part of our zoning districts. So one of the things that staff has recommended is for home to have a delayed implementation date, that would allow for the changes to the wui code to get closer to fruition, but also other changes we may need to make within the ldc to help address this issue kind of globally, as opposed to just in the wui. Coo. >> Okay, so that's the first. I may have missed that. So can you explain more about this delayed [9:26:43 AM] explain more about this delayed implementation and where that has been and shared with us? >> So it is actually in the staff version for home two, there was a it was brought up at the planning commission. The planning commission did not recommend it. However, it remains in staff's, ordinance. What would have is it would apply to an application submitted on or after a certain date. So it's like what we did in home phase one where we had that delayed implementation that is actually in the staff version and believe it is a 90 day implementation, which would put us into the middle of August, which we would give us, would give us time to make, to bring forward the changes that we need to make to address some of these issues. >> Okay. I'm going to need to, you know, look through that and want to have some further, further conversations, I think we have a when I said it was in code for wui, it was T there's a definition of what the wui is, it's in our wui code where that is and there's, you [9:27:44 AM] where that is and there's, you know, a reference of how you determine what that is, not that you have to put the wui map, within the zoning code, because the wui is going to change as soon as you build a division subdivision, then you have more structures closer to the wildlandnd it changes, so, so I understand what you're saying on that, I'm going to have to digest this. I was not aware that you were thinking about that or that we would be able to have the wui changes back in time, because the fact remains that if we don't have those sign offs, which we don't have right now, we are going to be putting, folks in danger in those areas, and we need to be really clear about that, and if you adopt this and you don't adopt those other pieces, you still will end up in that in that situation. So I think we have to be really careful about this. I may have some further amendments, related to this, I think it's a very, very serious issue of how we implement it. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Councilmember. Councilmember Kelly. >> Yes, thank you, councilmember [9:28:44 AM] >> Yes, thank you, councilmember alter, for bringing up the concerns about the wildland urban interface. I have a question, chief, does the fire department regularly review plans for homes or new homes that are built? >> Yes, that's currently part of the review process. Okay. >> So the fire department would have the opportunity to review if a new build would bring a higher risk to the neighborhood, based on its proximity to a wildland urban interface under what's adopted today. >> Yes. >> Okay. That's all I have. >> Thank you. Great. Thank you. >> Councilmember Kelly. Mayor pro tem, thanks, I just wanted to confirm what I'm hearing. It seems like a process that we're talking about here that currently exists. And subdivision and a wui code fix. It sounds like staff is aware of that and plans to work on this because, we already have processes in place. I think [9:29:47 AM] processes in place. I think chief baker, you were speaking to this, about the fire department being part of the site plan review and you have to sign off on these plans, even today. And that would not change. We're not we're not changing that process, to my knowledge. That's correct. But let me just add that, you know, the fire parliament, we are committed to keeping this city safe and keeping our stakeholders safe. And it's not our goal to put anything in in place to jeopardize the safety of this community. >> And the council is the same. We are committed to keeping our our community safe as well. I think that's the whole point here, if staff is asking for a 90 day delayed implementation for home two, like we did with the first phase of home, in order to work through all of the implications and the specifics, it sounds like we'll have time [9:30:48 AM] it sounds like we'll have time to do this work. Does that sound right to you, chief? >> I'm confident with the 90 day delay, we can work together. Staff and council and other stakeholders to find a winnable solution, and we would want to do that anyway. >> Whether there was a delayed implementation or not. But we can look at including that, particularly if staff had recommended it, and mayor, there may be something along those lines as an amendment being offered later today being laid out today. >> Great. Thank you. Mayor pro tem councilmember Vella. >> Thank you. >> Mayor. In the new construction, chief baker, my understanding is that the new construction woue much more fire resistant. Much more safe than, let's say, a home built in the. You know, 70s or 80s. Is that the case? >> That is the case, but I don't want to walk away. There's I want to make sure we're clear that there's no such thing as fire proof, but it will be some [9:31:48 AM] fire proof, but it will be some fire resistance. Yeah. >> And my, I'm thinking about, you know, some of my own experience, my family experience. I remember at one point we had to replace our roof because it was a, I think it was a cedar shake roof that was, you know, highly flammable. And they said they wouldn't insure us basically, if we continue to have that roof. And then again, my understanding is that a lot of the newer sidings are also much more fire resistant and much more, you know, hardy, against potential dangers, and I just wanted to, to, T clarify that because again, we would be talking about potentially new construction in these areas and that new construction, again, nothing is fire proof. But, you know, some of these, newly built homes may be much more fire resistant than some of the older homes built under previous standards that were not as strict about some of the, the fire protections that we now have in in code. Yes thank you. [9:32:48 AM] have in in code. Yes thank you. >> Councilmember Allison alter so I want to just be really clear. >> You know, with home two, you're changing the setbacks, which means you're putting the houses closer together, which is not in the direction that we wanted them to be in the wui. And when you put your home next to me, closer to my home, I am more at risk. In my house is not fireproof or nothing's fireproof , but is not hardened, so I think we need to be really clear about that, as my understanding, if you don't have a rule in the wui Dede or somewhere that allows you to stop this based on some, you know, ruling, like you need something in the law that is going to allow you to not allow this to move forward, and I don't believe that that is in the wui code at this point. Or you wouldn't have to make a change to the wui code, so maybe somebody can speak to what are the kinds of changes we need to see in the wui code so that [9:33:50 AM] see in the wui code so that we're looking at this with very open eyes and we're making sure that we understand that if you're going to move forward with these changes, that that that we have an open idea of what needs to change. >> So part of what what we look at to determine the change, up front would to analyze the wui area and understand the number of neighborhoods and number of structures that are potentially within there that could be redeveloped from there, we would break down and looking at the different proximity Zones and then look at the proximity Zones versus the number of structures versus what their current means of neighborhood egress are, and then make rules based on that to once we have the data in front of us to say in this pile here is too severe of a hazard, this is not allowed. And look at [9:34:51 AM] is not allowed. And look at maybe some additional hardening requirements in some of the lesser proximity Zones that would mitigate the concern. Ann is up front. Part of the analysis we need to do is just understand the full number of structures that we're looking at . >> Okay, go ahead. >> Good morning. Mayor council Jose Roig, director for dsd, in addition to the Wii code for those areas, the building code has what we call building separation requirements. So you're right. Depending on the distance between setbacks and the houses, there may be requirement by the code itself to actually fire rate those walls and make construction more , you know, fire, you know, rated, it's not if you don't have that distance, you're not required to use those materials. They are available. But you're not required to use them unless you are closer to the buildings and the setbacks. So I just want to clarify that in addition to the code that's on the building [9:35:52 AM] the code that's on the building codes and the residential code, but that doesn't help me if I already have a house next to the house that's renovating. Correct. If you if you're right, there you are. You built in that way. The new house that is built there has to then protect it. That wall that is actually closer to the house or the setback will have to be rated Wright but my house will not change unless I change my house. >> And so I am less safe under these rules. The house that is there anything you can, nothing you can change as long as you allow that, that won't make me less safe under that scenario. That is correct. Unless you make them hard in my house, which is not going to happen. So no matter what you put on this, you're still less safe. If you're next to this home and you're in that area. There's a structure closer to you. That structure might be hardened, but you are less safe and you are in the wui, and there's nothing in your review that can change that except for you not allowing them to have the setback. And, and, [9:36:54 AM] to have the setback. And, and, and so I just think that there's, there's a whole Pandora's box that I don't think we fully opened here. That happens in the wui, I'm not sure you're going to resolve it in 90 days. Having had several conversations with folks, and the level of understanding that there is or there isn't about what we're doing, there are fixes. Yes, but it is not that easy when you do it in the infill area. It is much simpler in the Greenfield area, you know, you you already have these neighborhoods at max capacity for evacuation. And so, you know, you can't if I have a subdivision and I planned it so to be 29 homes so that I could get in there without having another egress, as soon as they start adding more, then you're over it. It'd be much simpler to just say, you can't do it. Than it would to be having all of these review. I think it's a I think it's dangerous and I think it is, problematic on many levels, I would like to see us, you know, by Thursday have some [9:37:56 AM] you know, by Thursday have some greater clarity on what this process is and how the fire department will be in a position to say no because there are times when the fire department thinks something is less safe. But it still happens because people are allowed T it, so I would like us to see if we can get more clarity. Thank you. >> Thank you, mayor pro tem. And then we'll move on to the next item, I was just going to close on that conversation and thank the fire cef for pointing out that these are processes that would be updated and included and acknowledged. And we currently are concerned with the safety of everyone on all sides currently, and that we have work to do. And we will do that work. >> Great. >> Thank you. Mayor pro tem chief. >> Yes, I just want to close, you know, the fire department, we don't have a problem with saying no when we need to say no, but we shouldn't always end on a no. We should try to find a way to turn those no's into. [9:38:58 AM] way to turn those no's into. Yes. Whenever we possibly can turn those into yes for the benefit of the stakeholders. But I don't want to leave here thinking that, I want everyone to stand. We don't have a problem saying no, but we're in the business of turning those into yes whenever we can without jeopardizing safety. >> We appreciate you. Thank you very much. >> I'm Jonathan Lee, case manager for compatibility, I'm going to briefly explain our rationale for the planning commission amendments. We recommended the changes or do not recommend, for the first amendment, remove the 40 foot height limit needed to get an exemption from the compatibility buffer. And lower intensity office and commercial Zones. Staff does not recommend this amendment, including the 40 foot height limit here is necessary to make it clear that density bonus programs that grant additional height in these Zones would not be granted an exemption from the buffer, the second amendment allow a 15 foot wide compatibility buffer [9:40:00 AM] wide compatibility buffer instead of the 25 foot buffer that normally applies on lot 75ft or less in width. Staff recommends this amendment with changes as part of this amendment. Planning commission introduced a new 35 foot building height limit for the area between 15 and 25ft in distance from a triggering property. Staff instead instead recommends maintaining a 40 foot height limit in this area to avoid additional complexity and maintain consistency with other exemptions and buffer reductions. Staff also recommends incorporating planting requirements for sites with a 15 foot wide buffer, and a separate ordinance that will come before council on may 30th. For the fifth amendment, allow a 15 foot wide compatibility buffer for a structure that is 40ft tall or less and contains a resident use staff does not recommend this amendment due to its limited impact and additional complexity. This reduction in buffer width would only be possible in higher intensity Zones, since lower intensity residential Zones are [9:41:01 AM] intensity residential Zones are proposed to be exempt from compatibility because higher intensity Zones have height limits of at least 60ft, buildings will likely be taller than 40ft and will not qualify for this reduced buffer width. If council were to incorporate this amendment, however, staff would recommend alternative language to avoid unintended consequences and then for amendment number seven, recommend noise requirements for mechanical equipment. This is recommended with changes staff recommends additional screening requirements for mechanical equipment to attenuate noise. This includes requiring screening adjacent to the equipment and no longer allowing roof lines to functi as screening. Staff does not recommend the planning commission suggestion to reduce the noise limit to 45db from the current 70db, staff recommends keeping the 70 decibel limit for now, and would support any additional direction from council to study and recommend changes to our noise regulations that would apply to all residential uses, not just those with compatibility protections. >> Do you have any questions? Thank you sir, thank you. Oh I'm [9:42:02 AM] Thank you sir, thank you. Oh I'm sorry, councilmember Allison alter. Does >> Thank you, can you please clarify, whether a single family home on a lot zoned rural residential trigger, whether that triggers compatibility, yes. >> Okay. Thank you, so, page three of talks about additional height provisions for lots less than 75ft wide. Can you say more about the rationale for that provision, so the planning commission recommended for lots less than 75ft in width to have a 30 foot, 35 foot height limit between 15ft and 25ft in distance from a triggering property that's kind of the area of the buffer that is now not part of the buffer. And could be built, we are instead recommending a 40 foot height limit there. So it's just five feet taller, one to avoid kind of this, a bit awkward kind of step back. That's ten feet wide and five feet tall. And also, we're already granting [9:43:02 AM] we're already granting exemptions from compatibility for mf3 and more restrictive of mf3 has a 40 foot tall height limit. So it's also to maintain consistency across our exemptions and buffer reductions . >> Thank you. And can you say more about why the compatibility buffer is not required for certain uses or Zones, such as lr, no or low? What was the rationale for structuring the code that way? >> Sure. That's mainly to provide additional flexibility for small scale commercial and office uses, these are going to be 40ft tall or less. So it's in line with the other exemptions for residential uses in terms of scale and height, and these are often smaller businesses on smaller sites. So we felt that requiring this additional 25 foot setback with screening could be burdensome. >> Thank you, one of the things we had tried to fix in our earlier version of compatibility on the corridors was properties that were triggering it from across a large roadway, so can you explain how roadways are [9:44:03 AM] you explain how roadways are treated with respect to compatibility and whether a structure can or lot can trigger compatibility across the street? If the street is narrow and they're within, say, 45ft of proposed development, or whether there, you know, there's some width of street that's required for compatibility to not be triggered, if that makes sense. I'm just trying to understand that. >> Sure. So the height limits would still apply if it's within 75ft, the other provisions, including additional screening for things like vehicle lights and mechanical equipment would not apply across the street, they would just apply if it's along a shared property line, so it's really the height limits that would, that would apply across right of ways. If it's less than 75ft wide. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you, councilmember. Any further questions? Councilmember Vila, just a quick comment that that I think that the staff has done a great job with compatibility, and, and we're still working through all of the [9:45:04 AM] still working through all of the details, but, I think that some of the recommendations that they made to the PC changes are, are, you know, potentially even better, like some clarifications and that they have worked in, including as, councilmember Allison alter mentioned, that 35 to 40 foot. I think that's a good change, a simplifying change. And I just wanted to again say, say thanks. And for all the good work. >> Thank you councilmember. Thank you sir. >> Hi. Good morning. I'm Warner Cooke, the case manager for the itod equitable transit oriented development overlay code amendment and rezoning. >> And can we get the slides back up? Thank you. So on April 30th, the planning commission real quick, and I apologize. >> No problem. I don't know who Thomas Simpson is. >> He's with, our consulting team. >> Yes, that's a good answer. Thank you. >> So on April 30th, the [9:46:05 AM] >> So on April 30th, the planning commission voted to recommend the itod overlay with 26 amendments that they made to staff's proposal. All seven of those amendments, which I'll go through today, were to the code language itself. And they made 19 other broader recommendations, which you can find more information about in the itod overlay staff response to planning commission matrix that's posted in backup. The text amendments are as follows. The planning commission offered. They recommended making several uses conditional rather than prohibited within the mining district. Staff also recommends making some of those uses conditional, but does not recommend moving the three auto oriented uses from the prohibited list to the conditional list. Planning commission recommended the nonresidential redevelopment requirements from the staff proposal be removed, and instead replace them with a different version. And I'll go into much more detail on that in a moment. But staff does not recommend this amendment, for multiple reasons. Increasing the [9:47:06 AM] reasons. Increasing the affordability requirements for ownership itod density bonus projects was another amendment from the planning commission. They recommended that if a fee in lieu option for an ownership project was used, it would be held to a higher bar and 125% of their standard requirement would be the fee that they would be paying based on, and staff recommended that amendment and included it in our version of the ordinance and then, as Jonathan just mentioned, they recommended similar noise and screening requirements for mechanical equipment and staff is incorporated a modified version of that into the staff ordinance. Planning commission recommended replacing the non residential redevelopment requirements to instead require notice and the option to lease a market rate. Nonresidential space. And again, I'll go into this in a moment, and staff does not recommend this. They also recommended that performance venues or cocktail lounge uses within a mixed use building not be allowed above the second [9:48:08 AM] be allowed above the second floor or above a residential use and staff has recommended that with slight language changes in our ordinance and then finally planning commission recommended that the fee in lieu that is collected within the itod density bonus program would be utilized within the defined half mile boundary of the bonus program, and staff is recommended. That and included it in the ordinance. So to go a little bit more into detail on the various redevelopment requirements, this is a little complex, so bear with me here because several of the commission's amendments, both text and general centered on how redevelopment requirements from four eight, from chapter 418 of the land development code would apply to a density bonus project. I'm going to present the differences between the planning commission, which is the second column, and the staff proposal, which is the final column, starting first with the residential redevelopment requirements, residential redevelopment requirements determine what steps a developer would have to take to redevelop [9:49:09 AM] would have to take to redevelop certain existing multifamily complexes under the bonus program. These requirements help add protections and support for existing tenants and ensure we're not losing units that are market rate affordable today. Through the redevelopment process. The first difference between the two versions is that staff's proposal includes an eligibility or gatekeeper requirements in staff's version, existing multifamily complexes that rent units at affordable rates to households earning 60% median family income, or mfi and below, would not be allowed to redevelop under the bonus program without first demonstrating two things. Those things are that the site would have to show that repairs needed to the building would cost more than 50% of the value, which helps ensure that newer construction or apartments in decent shape are not being demolished unnecessarily. The other gatekeeper requirement would be that the developer would need to show that rents have not been raised by more than 10% within the past two years, which helps ensure that [9:50:10 AM] years, which helps ensure that developers aren't raising rents to try to get around the requirements. Planning commission's version did not include these gatekeeper requirements, which would mean that all existing multifamily would be eligible to redevelop under the bonus program. Staff and planning commission had similar language relating to the units. A developer would have to replace both of the proposals require units affordable to a household at 60% mfi and below, to be replaced on a one for one basis commission. The commission stipulated that the units rented at these rates in the last two years be replaced, while staff had one year staff version explicitly stated that these replaced units would become income restricted for a period of 40 years, in line with our other density bonus programs. While planning commission did not address the length of affordability, both proposals included similar notice provisions to make sure tenants are aware of upcoming redevelopment, the planning commission recommended that tenants who choose to end their leases after receiving this notice of redevelopment would be allowed to do so without [9:51:10 AM] allowed to do so without penalty. Staff is exploring the feasibility of such a provision to be included in a bonus program. There are several differences in how the versions address providing relocation benefits to tenants who would have to move out during the construction period in staff's proposal, tenants would be provided with relocation benefits that are in line with the uniform relocation act, which is a federal act in staff's proposal. Those benefits would be paid by the developer directly to the impacted tenant. The planning commission's version instead recommended the developer would pay a new, separate fee by set by ordinance. That fee would be paid to the city, and then the city would disperse the benefit to impacted tenants. The city is exploring the possibility of something like the commission's recommendation, but we are concerned about the legal risks and staff capacity required to administer relocation benefits in this way. With the city acting as a mediary after development is completed. Previous tenants of the property would be offered the right of [9:52:11 AM] would be offered the right of first refusal to lease a new unit at the new complex. The two versions differ slightly on how they approach this offer. The commission's proposal would ensure tenants could lease a unit of comparable square footage and cost to the one they previously rented. In staff version, we add that the unit would also have to have the same number of bedrooms in order to prevent someone who has rented a 2 or 3 bedroom unit for years before being offered a new unit with fewer bedrooms upon returning that might not fit their family needs. Staff's version also explicitly adds that even high income tenants who don't meet the 60% income requirement would be offered a minimum lease length of one year at the new development and as a reminder, the income restricted units would be required to be affordable for 40 years. Lastly, staff's version explicitly states that any 60% mfi and below unit replaced would count towards the units required under the bonus program. This helps ensure that after the 1 to 1 replacement, the developer [9:53:12 AM] replacement, the developer doesn't have to provide an additional 12 or 15% of total units on top of that 1 to 1 replacement. The planning commission didn't address this, so overall planning commission's proposed amendments to the residential redevelopment requirements would result in less protection for existing multifamily development than the staff proposal, and therefore we don't recommend passing the planning commission amendments on this topic as written. I could pause there because I'm going to go to nonresidential. >> Why don't you take you take a breath. Let me ask, is there anybody that has a question? Yeah. Councilmember Vila, with regard to the gatekeeper requirements, saying that the a multifamily residential property can only develop if repairs exceed 50% of the value, I'm assuming that we're talking about 50% of the value of the structure, the improvements to the property, and not including the actual real estate like the real. [9:54:12 AM] real. >> This is a provision that's in the affordability unlocked program today. So I'd have to ask someone from the housing department to confirm how that calculation is interpreted today . >> Tryst with the law department. Yes, it would be the structural repairs and it's a determination made by the building official, and I'll tell you my concern with that is that there is then the incentive of the landlord who wants to redevelop that property, to essentially let it deteriorate to the point where it has become. You know what I mean? Like the to basically not maintain the property such that it it continues to deteriorate in value and thus is eligible. I'm, I'm concerned about that kind of perverse, counter incentive there, if we were to put that gatekeeper requirement out there, and I know there's [9:55:14 AM] out there, and I know there's more in terms of the residential, the reits and those kinds of things like that. But I'd, I'd much rather kind of put it on the, the other end, like if you are going to replace a multifamily property, then I think there should be a, a robust set of protections and incentives. And, you know, and affordability requirements and that kind of stuff like that. But I would hate to do it to where we might be incentivizing somebody to let their property to deteriorate to the point where it might, then be able to, to, to be torn down, I'm just concerned, honestly, for the folks living in the property as that process is happening and as there's just a lack of maintenance. So I just wanted to highlight that I understand completely understand where staff is, is coming from. You know, we don't want to incentivize our, our affordable our naturally occurring, affordable housing. But I would just I think we can protect it in better ways than putting that gatekeeper requirement, we'll get to this in a moment, but I [9:56:14 AM] get to this in a moment, but I think it's just a perfect time to jump in that type of concern as well as, you know, unintended consequences of having a large complex that is, not able to be redeveloped because of that high number of affordable units. And then just languishing is why we're going to bring an amendment to have a waiver process. Right. It's kind of strikes that balance, where if there is an unintended consequence, we can address it, but, you know, I do think staff put the right direction in place of where we want to steer these things, but there's always that 1 or 2 that just falls outside the norm. >> Thank you. Councilmember. Councilmember qadri. >> Yeah, councilmember Reinhardt already beat me to this, and, in our, in one of our amendments, we've also added a waiver process and we've incorporated into our motion sheets. I appreciate councilmember vela for bringing it up and councilmember alter for also doing work. >> Thank you. All right. Ready to go? Yes. Ready to go. Good >> So there's also nonresident [9:57:15 AM] >> So there's also nonresident residential redevelopment requirements. The planning commission made some recommendations on these nonresidential redevelopment requirements. Determine what a developer has to do before redeveloping certain qualifying existing commercial sites, these requirements add protections and support for existing businesses and ensure that we retain transit supportive priority businesses like child care, grocery stores, creative spaces, and legacy businesses, which is all in line with the equitable tod policy plan goals. So for first in staff's proposal, a developer would be required to replace all qualifying nonresidential spaces with a qualifying nonresidential space of a similar size in the new development. This helps ensure that we're not losing square footage for things like small format retail and childcare centers. The planning commission's recommendation does not have this specific physical space kind of requirement. The two proposals are identical in their notice requirements, so that would be provided to [9:58:17 AM] that would be provided to existing businesses that lease spaces on site. Currently, the staff proposal includes relocation benefits to support the businesses through the construction process. Small small business failure rates increase substantially after relocations and preservation of creative spaces. Childcare care and established small public facing businesses in these successful economic and cultural districts is a priority for the city and maintaining and preserving our unique character, culture and heritage. Benefit levels in staff's proposal would be provided directly to businesses by the developer and consistent with those in the uniform relocation act, except they would be calculated to be equivalent of six months of the commercial rent at their current rate. The economic development department has clarified in staff's proposal that they would compare nearby commercial rents for similar uses within a mile to help determine what those rates would be, and the planning commission's proposal does not offer any relocation assistance to businesses facing displacement through the density bonus program. Lastly, the two [9:59:18 AM] bonus program. Lastly, the two proposals differ on how they offer the right of first refusal for previous tenants when they return to the new development. The commission's version would require that a business be offered a lease for a nonresidential space. Staff's proposal would ensure the business could lease a space of similar size to the one at left, that the new space would be affordable, and that the minimum lease length for that would be ten years. And overall, the version of nonresidential redevelopment requirements offered by the planning commission significantly weakens the protections in from the staff proposal and therefore staff does not recommend those amendments. >> Questions. Councilmember vela . >> A lot commercial leases and I've been in a number of them at this point. >> Are typically multiyear leases, you know, there are some locations that will do a 12 month lease. But, I mean, typically a commercial lease is [10:00:19 AM] typically a commercial lease is going to be a five year, ten year or 20 year type of commercial lease, and I guess my, my, my sense would be on the, on the commercial relocation option, there are certain iconic businesses that have really I think, touched the heartstrings. You know, I can think of the las manitas situation way back when the Marriott was proposed on congress, I remember when Toi had to, to, to move and to relocate, but I mean, that said, there's a lot, a whole other range of businesses that are not as location dependent. I mean, I would put my a law firm, for example. It doesn't really matter where I am. I can work from anywhere. An insurance company, kind of like those back end kind of business service places, accounting, those kinds of professional services. You know, you don't really have to be here or there, and so I, I, I definitely want to protect tenants and especially low income tenants as much as [10:01:19 AM] income tenants as much as possible. I'm not. And I haven't heard this from the community that there is this kind of driving need to make sure that the law firm or the insurance company gets to come back to its location on, you know, this particular where where is this coming from in the sense of like, you know, this is the chamber, you know, small business association. Like, you know what, what are the institutional kind of desires or institutional requests that are out there with regard to this, commercial tenant, relocation in space issue. >> So I have, not heard anything from any specific advocacy organizations around these kind of provisions. What I will say is that the staff proposal never , foresaw an insurance agent or a lawyer being offered this benefit back. It's tailored within the density program to only be applicable for certain types of businesses. So that includes small, like under a certain square footage, retail and restaurant, which is a lot [10:02:20 AM] and restaurant, which is a lot of our local businesses and, and kind of entrepreneurial businesses, child care, grocery stores under a certain food sales, under a certain feet. Right. So does that help answer your question? It's not all businesses. It's not any existing business that's on the site that would have to follow these requirements. >> And that's an important clarification. And the other thing that jumps out at me is when, you know, again, I'll use myself as an example when we're moving from place to place, we see, you spend money getting the place ready, you know, basically. And my sense for a lot of these organizations, again, this is these are redevelopments that are going to be multi-year redevelopments. It's going to take, you know, three years, four years, five years, potentially depending on a lot of factors that we don't control, to redevelop the site and if you are a, for example, a retail business, you know, you have relocated, you've spent money to finish out your new site, I just I guess I question whether they will after [10:03:23 AM] whether they will after relocating after their customers have now gotten used to them being at that new location, you know, will I guess my sense would be, is there any idea how many commercial businesses will actually take advantage of this after a, you know, 3 or 4 year move to a new location? >> Sure. Thing good morning council, my name is don Jackson. I'm with the economic development department, we consulted with planning on these items, these are all really great questions. And I guess going going back to them, in terms of where this is coming from, our department sort of liaisons with the chambers, both are the, the, the city chamber of commerce as well as the, smaller chambers. And this is something we've been hearing from them actually for years. And as recently as a, as a stakeholder session a week ago about the need for affordable space and the need for, preservation requirements for some of our small businesses, that definitely. And when we were crafting this, this definitely does apply more to exactly those kind of iconic [10:04:24 AM] exactly those kind of iconic location based businesses. Not not ones that are office based, which have less of a where that's less of a factor, the overlay especially impacts many, very location oriented retail districts, including two that our department works very heavily with, south congress and south first. Those are some of the most pedestrian oriented, walkable, multimodal, small retail districts in the city. And they're, they're very valuable in that regard, and they're major generators of sales tax revenue and kind of, brand identity for the city. So those are those are the kinds of spaces we're looking at, creative spaces, small iconic retail, small restaurants, the ones where that relocation would be very difficult, that being said, regarding the whether they'd want to come back into the space or not, that's why it's, you know, it's a right of first refusal. They don't have to take it if they have been reestablished. Obviously one of [10:05:25 AM] reestablished. Obviously one of the one of the but as I said, these impacted areas are some of the most, walkable, notable visible districts in the city. Unfortunately we just we don't have a lot of those in Austin. And I think that's something long term that would be great to see, figuring out how we can have some of these, some of these zoning changes help encourage that kind of development. There's just not a lot of options for that space now, right now, the current retail vacancy rates, which I would I from when I pulled it last week, is about 2.8% for the whole city, which is extremely low, 5% good, 2.8% means that we've had some of the highest retail, rental increases in the country year over year. And there's not a lot of indication of major new supply coming. So there's just not a lot of space options, especially for the types of businesses we're talking about that are public facing, are pedestrian oriented, need that location. Ann, my and I and I understand I'm in south congress is a great example of an existing kind of street front [10:06:25 AM] an existing kind of street front and vibe that we want to foster, I'll say there was another a case that we recently had up on north Lamar on the corner of Lamar and, Koenig, there, where the half price books is, you know, and again, I think we get into this and my concern also is we just kind of get into this subjectivity to here where, you know, I think everybody would want to have price books to stay, there's a kfc in the parking lot, and I'm not sure that there's a compelling desire to, you know, preserve, the, the kfc, as you know, so again, my, my, my sense would be kind of, you know, are we picking and choosing or or. I'm not. I'm I'm, not. And again, going with that same property, I'm also a little concerned with the kind of a dictator thing. The raw amount of commercial space kind of up front with regard to the project, just because we're kind [10:07:28 AM] project, just because we're kind of forcing a design of the project where we're not really kind of sure what the long term, you know, viability impacts, you know, so on, I mean, you mentioned the vacancies in retail space. I mean, in commercial, you know, we're talking about, you know, a 25, 30% vacancy rates for, for commercial spaces, office spaces, many of which can be interchangeable. I mean, you know, a retail spot, a restaurant and a commercial space can oftentimes you know, you'll see the same spot change types and styles of, of ownership, you know, multiple times over again. I've been in Austin for, you know, decades now. You know, where you'll see a spot turn into many different things over a 30 year period. That's that's another it's just that the business kind of is a very dynamic world. And I, I'm, I'm hesitant to really kind of put our thumb and say, you have to do this, happy to do it on the residential side, because I think those are people we've got [10:08:28 AM] think those are people we've got to take care of people. But my sense on the business side would be that there is a certain amount of buyer beware. You know, you need to get a longer commercial lease that, you know, the more sophisticated operators that are more able to essentially kind of fend for themselves in, in a, in a business type environment. And I'm sorry, I'm not I'm not meaning to, to kind of extemporaneous speak here. But again, I just wanted to pass along some of my thoughts on on this matter. >> Does the F in kfc stand for filibuster? >> Mayor pro tem, thanks and thank you, don. It's good to see you, I really appreciate the addition of a requirement to replace existing small businesses to the overlay, particularly as it touches upon some of our most valuable cultural hubs like south congress and Guadalupe and north Lamar. I'm thinking of lots of iconic places like the continental club warehouse and north to weeksville co-op, and [10:09:29 AM] north to weeksville co-op, and we all have a list of those places that are really special to us. So there's lots more. My team and I mayor worked really closely with economic development staff. Donald and director sylnovia holt-rabb on really focusing our attention and protection on these types of legacy small businesses and cultural assets. And we also want to prioritize these the replacement of child care and adult care services, as well as some of the personal service businesses like legacy barbershops. For those who still get haircuts and others along the corridors. So you'll see on my motion sheet that we that I passed out earlier this morning, a focus on those uses and an increase in the number of years of operation in in order to capture the legacy businesses and provide some protection. It's really a balancing act, and we need to make sure we don't make the commercial [10:10:30 AM] make the commercial redevelopment requirements so burdensome that redevelop of existing older multifamily is the cheaper option. I know staff is concerned about that as well. So I'm I think we have reached a happy medium with this, with these amendments and the changes and hope that my colleagues will see it that way as well. >> Thank you. Mayor pro tem councilmember Velasquez, did you have your hand up okay. You went down with the haircut comment? >> I was going to disagree with my colleagues here with two colleagues. Now one that if it were a popeyes, we would have an issue. They can take kfc. And also, I don't know about the hate for the follically challenged up here on the dais. >> It took her comments, took an ugly turn at one point. >> I agree, I agree. Other colleagues, I apologize, councilmember Allison alter, so at various times there are mentioned that there will be further phases for the itod can you provide, a glimpse at what staff has in mind? >> Yes. So when council directed [10:11:31 AM] >> Yes. So when council directed and initiated these code amendments originally back in March of last year, while accepting the policy plan and then provided more information on February 1st of this year to staff, there are several items within that that we weren't able to address in this phase. One is the full geography of the project connect vision plan, which includes additional metro rapid and commuter rail stations that are outside of the scope of this phase one light rail and priority extensions geography. So that was one thing that staff already knew that we were going to be putting into phase two, another thing was additional types of benefits. We've already heard through our engagement over the last several years that it's not just affordable housing that folks are interested in seeing in these areas. They want to see open space. They want to see transit supportive first last mile kinds of things. They want to see affordable commercial space so that, lots of types of businesses and services can be there, community space, etc. So that wasn't able to be incorporated in the first [10:12:32 AM] to be incorporated in the first phase, but is something that we're looking at in phase two. And then, another thing that council directed us in February was to consider heights above 120ft where appropriate. And so at this time, staff limited it to 120ft and wanted to do some more engagement and analysis in order to see where heights above 120ft might be appropriate. So those are all some of the things that we were looking at in the next phase. Additionally, calibrating the bonus program requirements, they weren't able to be calibrated in this phase. So that would also give us some recommendations for possibly tweaking what's in phase one. And the timeline for that is to start developing that over the summer and bring it back to council in spring of next year. >> Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you sir. >> Thank you Warner. And that concludes staff's presentation. Just as a reminder, we continue [10:13:33 AM] Just as a reminder, we continue to remain communicative with the public and they can continue to learn more about these proposed changes on our website at speak up Austin. Org forward slash ldc updates. They can also send emails with comments and questions to ldc updates at. Austin, texas.gov. Or they can reach us on our ldc hotline at (512) 974-7220. We ask that the public leave a message and we will respond within a few days. >> Thank you, thank you members. >> What I thought we would do now is walk through, not in great detail, probably because we'll have an opportunity for that, but so that there's some transparency to what we might anticipate on Thursday with regard to proposed amendments, where we could lay out what we're thinking about and that would allow for consideration. Ann. And it will also allow if, [10:14:34 AM] Ann. And it will also allow if, if, more than one member has something that they're working on that is very similar, how we might be able to make those, more efficient going forward. I had originally told you, and I put on the message board because I thought I'd solved the I cracked the puzzle on how to do this, and I thought I was real efficient. But I've decided instead, let's just go one three and just go through them as opposed to what I was attempting to do. I'm sometimes great ideas don't pan out, so remember item number two is going to we I will read into the changes and corrections in the record on Thursday. That item number two has been deleted. And the reason it's been deleted is because it was broken out from a single item into these various items. Again I believe that gives us greater transparency for the public to know what we're working on. And it also gives us a situation where we can have specific, discussion and [10:15:34 AM] specific, discussion and including specific amendments. So what I'm going to do right now is I will start with item number one and see if anyone has , and we've got we've had a lot of items handed to us, as potential amendments. I know that there are two proposed amendments with regard to item number one, one is council member Ryan alters and follow. And then I'll call on council member qadri, to discuss this. So I'm going to recognize council member Ryan alter. I'm sorry. Okay. I didn't have that, I do see that. I apologize. So, it'll be council member Ryan alter, council member qadri, and then council member Fuentes. >> So this is just the conversation we had a moment ago. This creates a waiver process as it relates to the redevelopment exception or redevelopment requirement, just to address those situations where we do have unintended consequences of not not trying not having a building languish [10:16:36 AM] not having a building languish with people in it because of one factor or another. >> Thank you. Any questions? Council member Ryan alter, council member qadri, you're recognized on your proposed amendment. >> So I don't know if I'm going to be able to keep it short. Is my only, flag, but yeah, we have an amendment, on chapter 14 updates, we've been working very closely with councilman Vella, on these changes and have also reached an agreement with stakeholders, tirz and staff. And I really want to thank the planning and housing department, the development community, tenant advocacy community, specifically, Basta. And I really want to thank housing advocates for all their work on this, and as a reminder, this section codifies requirements for existing multifamily developments where itot applies, it could apply to other density bonuses in the future. And we're focused on how it applies to itot. Now, the intent of this is to prevent and mitigate the loss of naturally occurring [10:17:37 AM] of naturally occurring affordable housing along transit corridors, while providing tenant protections and an option for former residents to return to the new development. We're also trying to provide a new pathway to addressing existing multifamily in Austin that helps prevent loss of affordable housing, maintain deeply affordable housing, and allow more units to be to be built closer to transit, these properties are often built in the 1960s or so, and code enforcement is keeping many of these units on life support right now. So I want to quickly walk through the changes, through this, that you'll see on the motion sheet. So change number one, replacement of units, it modifies staff's amendment to identify existing units, that were affordable to a household, earning 70% mfi in the last lease month or latest lease term, whichever is greater. And replace these units at 60. Mfi reason behind that is something we heard from the tenant advocates was that 60% mfi level to identify existing units was not something was not [10:18:40 AM] units was not something was not going to capture what we want. 70% mfi will capture more units to be preserved under this redevelopment exemption. And the higher income level essentially may make it more difficult to increase rents beyond what the market could bear. Just to get out of those provisions. So replacing at 60% mfi, according to staff, is easier to administer since it mirrors our existing programs and better supports project connect and future funding application. Applications. It's aligned with staff's original amendment. The proposal also requires replacement by the same number of bedrooms to fulfill an itot policy goal of encouraging families to be able to live near transit, to make this development exception more predictable, a cap on the percentage of units that can be affordable in the new development was added, this is not expected expected to be an issue, in the first phase of light rail, as most existing multifamily have a smaller number of units, number. The second change, had to do with notice that the proposal [10:19:40 AM] notice that the proposal provides current tenants with notice and relocation benefits equal to four months of rent and fees and a fixed payment, for moving expenses. Consistent with the federal uniform relocation act. Number three, change Wright to return, the proposal grants all existing tenants the option to lease a unit of. Compare comparable size and bedroom count when the development is complete, income eligible tenants will be eligible to lease the income restricted units for Shaw. And this is something that councilmember alter has already talked about. It was a waiver process, we've incorporated that in our motion sheet, five, removal of requirements, remove the requirement, for assessing extensive repairs and accessing a rise in rent and previous months. The reasoning behind this is, the building condition assessment caused fears that it incentivized owners to not maintain their properties. The 70% mfi level to identify the units to be replaced, essentially, sorry to be to be [10:20:42 AM] essentially, sorry to be to be replaced essentially makes it more difficult to increase rents beyond what the market could bear just to get out of these provisions, and again, this is a good compromise between our tenant advocacy community and development community, we want something like this to work, to be able to provide quality housing and ensure low income renters can still return to their community, it's a step in the right direction. And I look forward to the second phase of itod to revisit it with stakeholders and staff, to see how this needs, to be modified for other areas of Austin, or how we can improve upon the proposal. And I can't emphasize enough how further, transparent stakeholder engagement really needs to be done, so I once again, really thank everyone for their help, as we, kind of built this out, and also want to give a big shout out to the planning commission's work on chapter 14. >> Thank you. Councilmember qadri. Councilmember Fuentes. Oh, yeah. I'm sorry. [10:21:42 AM] Oh, yeah. I'm sorry. Councilmember Ryan alter, if you have a question, I have two questions. >> Number one is if we strike affordability on that first page, that's, for 1832, a three, would a tenant who is currently in an affordable unit not be guaranteed the ability to return to an affordable unit if essentially, if we're saying that it has to be comparable number of bedrooms and a comparable size, but not including affordability, will they not not be granted that protection? If I'm asking councilmember qadri, could housing could the housing department speak on that if they don't mind? >> Yeah, yeah, that's Mandy Demayo, interim director of the housing department and I don't have 418 in front of me, but I think they're under the proposal. >> There is a scenario in which somebody up to 70% mfi may not [10:22:44 AM] somebody up to 70% mfi may not be able to return to the exact same rent unit because it will be replaced with a 60% mfi unit, and the replacement is both the unit, but it needs to be occupied by an income eligible household. So there is a universe in which there may be a mismatch. They are eligible to return to a comparable size unit, but it may or may not be affordable to them. >> Okay. And when we look at and this might be a question for you as well, when we look at 80% versus 70% versus 60, do we know zo that unit? I mean, there's in the report, we saw how much it is at the 60% level, but how many more people or units, I should say, are we capturing between 60 and 70? >> We actually, thanks to our amazing planning staff, do know that at 60, I'm going to say it was somewhere just shy of 4000 units within the overlay. And when we go up to, 70% mfi, we [10:23:44 AM] when we go up to, 70% mfi, we are just shy of about 14,000 units. Wow so and Warner is going to correct me. >> So there's just a lot of numbers here. Warner cook planning department, we only analyzed it within the half mile of the tod boundary. And again 418 would potentially apply to other areas through future bonus programs. But at 80% mfi, there's about 14,000 conservative estimate of no units. At 70, there's about 11,000. And at 60% there's a little under 4000. So it grows kind of exponentially as we get closer to market rate, there's more units that are renting at those costs. >> And was there any kind of feasibility analysis done in terms of someone who would be doing the redevelopment now taking a 70% unit and dropping it to a 60% unit in terms of the [10:24:45 AM] it to a 60% unit in terms of the cost of the overall development and how that plays into actually making sure these deals are done . >> Yes. >> So we have not analyzed the financial aspects of feasibility for the redevelopment requirements in itot at any mfi level. One thing that our consultant team did look at was just generally how big of a sensitivity is it to go from 60 to 80% mfi and that didn't affect a developer's bottom line much. So it didn't make it much easier for them to pencil. So I would guess that it's the same from from that, that that's not the driver of costs for the development, is the mfi level okay. >> Very good. Well, you know, this and others always want us to be careful that things sound really good on paper, but then when they go to be applied, if it ends up making development not occur, that we want to see you know, 10% of a large number is a lot more than 20% of a much smaller number. This is a little [10:25:45 AM] smaller number. This is a little different, but that same principle applies. And so I just want to make sure that we are not so hamstringing, and not thinking through. But I appreciate this and thank you very much. >> Thank you. Councilor, councilor qadri. >> No, I just wanted to kind of clarify the, and I had said it in earlier in my comments on everyone we work with, the stakeholders, the development community was was comfortable with our changes because of the cap. So I just wanted to kind of emphasize that. >> Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Fuentes, followed by councilmember, do you have questions? Councilmember alter okay. Councilmember Allison alter on this amendment? >> Yes, I do. I just wanted to clarify. So your amendment is replacing part two of city code, section four 1832 as applies to existing multifamily structure. The your amendment, though deletes, the part about establish that looking at the original ordinance, there's a section that is not in your amendment. And I wanted to just understand deleting it, in the original proposal from staff, it [10:26:47 AM] original proposal from staff, it has a section under a, one that says establish that a the existing multifamily structure requires extensive repairs, for which the cost will exceed 50% of the market value, as determined by the building official, and B the average rents for all units that were affordable to a household, earning 60% mfi or below were not raised by more than 10% within the previous 24 months. And that is not on your sheet, but is in there. And then you're making changes for two and below in the original. And I just want to understand if you intended for that first section to be deleted and if so, to replace part two. Right. But if he replaces part two, like there's a whole subsection Ann called part two, and there's a I don't know if it's part two of part two that you want to change. There's just a section there that's missing. And I want to understand if that was intentional tussling with the [10:27:48 AM] intentional tussling with the law department, I can provide a little clarification. >> Council member Cordray's motion will. So it's in the backup right now in part two of the ordinance for 18, instead of just amending just a few pieces, councilmember Cordray's motion sheet will actually do a repeal and replace because they are removing the established piece about the rents and the repairs, and then it continues from there. So that's why it's a it's a repeal and replace. >> I understand that I was just trying to understand if that top part was intentional, that they wanted to do that. >> So it is drafted that way based on my understanding of the council office. >> Okay. So then I want to understand and I'm sorry if this is dealt with in other parts of the conversation, but this is a confusing, approach to, to all these amendments. I want to understand why you decided, to get rid of that section of the staff's recommendation. So if you look at the existing staff [10:28:50 AM] you look at the existing staff recommendation for item one, lines 29 to 36 is what I'm trying to understand. Yeah, you deleted them in yours because you're doing a replace. I understand that I wanted to understand why you deleted those. So I understand why I removed why remove the had the removal of requirements. >> Is that. Am I getting you correct? >> See, you removed that. You know, if it if the repairs exceed that. You remove the part that says the existing multifamily structure requires extensive repairs, for which costs will exceed 50% of the market value, as determined by the building official and the part that said, the average rents for all units that were affordable to a household earning 60% mfi or below or not, and then you guys have waiver provisions, but I think that's what you're waiving. And so, yeah, the reasoning for removing it, and I think I mentioned in my talking points was, we did it because there were concerns about incentivizing owners to not keep up with their property. >> Okay. [10:29:54 AM] >> Okay. >> So you're intentionally removing that. >> Yes. Yes. Okay. >> I just trying to understand there's a lot of different motions here. No >> Fair enough. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Councilmember Fuentes, followed by councilmember Vila, this is on item number one. >> That's right. This colleagues, this item, item number one is about the density bonus programs. >> And I'm offering direction to staff, that looks into the legal feasibility and applying the city's preference policy beyond the community land trust program. This recommendation around our preference policy comes straight from our community. It was in the people's plan as a recommended strategy to help austinites stay in place. So for me, our city has been successful in implementing the preference policy when it comes to our community land trust, but I'd love to see that effort expanded to other types of housing, in particular with our density bonus program. So with this amendment, it sets that course [10:30:54 AM] amendment, it sets that course into action and is really focused on the right to return. If we're encouraging additional housing along our transit lines, you really want to prioritize that right to return. Also, looking at developing a template for affirmative marketing policy and explore strategies and compliance with that policy. >> Thank you. Council member questions. Thank you, councilmember Vila, your proposed amendment on item number one, thank you, mayor, proposed amendment is a buydown, of the mfi level for the affordable rental units, when we were looking at the, the, the crestview, the Lamar Justin regulating plan, there is a provision in there that, to my knowledge, has not been used where the city would have the option to, essentially buy any additional affordable units in a development. And the this amendment actually wouldn't allow us to, the goal is not to get more affordable units, but it's to potentially buy down the affordability levels of the current units from, let's say, a [10:31:56 AM] current units from, let's say, a 60% mfi, down to a 40% mfi, so that we could get to deeper levels of affordability. Essentially, the developer would be responsible for the up to 60% mfi level, but then the city, again, potentially through, different housing funds that we have available to us and that, you know, itot and other developments could potentially generate would then buy that down to make it a deep, more deeply affordable. That's the one I've got for item one. >> Councilmember Fuentes. >> So just to right now, the requirements for the developer to provide the affordability level at 60. And what what you're suggesting with this amendment is that the city that we would then require the developer to be at 40% and the city would make up the difference. >> That's exactly right, that, you know, let's say, for example , they would do 12% at 60% mfi and that the city would have again, the option this is not [10:32:59 AM] again, the option this is not mandating, but that we would have the option to go in and to basically fill that gap between the 60% and 40. So that we could get potentially, again, deeper levels of affordability, along the, along the yeah, corridor, certainly supportive of deeper levels of affordability. >> But I also think it's important that the developers are helping pay for this affordability, especially being near transit. And so I am concerned about the city going in to help subsidize for deeper levels, certainly support the city subsidizing and helping ensure that we have affordable units and want that all over our city, particularly, and, in other parts of our city. But with this, I just am not, is there can you just share more? Why why we want to encourage the city to help with this on this end, I don't think and I think this is part of a larger conversation that, that we need to have about what levels of affordability we want to require , I'm not a fan of the 80% [10:34:00 AM] , I'm not a fan of the 80% affordable levels. I don't think that really, especially in my district, 80% mfi is market rate , you know, so an 80% mfi, units, really in the vast majority of district four get you really nothing. 60. We do start to get some sub market rate, affordability, at that level, 40% is when you really start to get, levels of rent that your, low income folks retired folks, folks on social security disability that that levels can afford. I would again , I think this is a discussion, part of a broader discussion that we need to have. I would support more like more deeply. I'd rather have honestly, if we have a fixed level of affordability that we can demand from the developers, again, whatever that is from a big picture, I'd rather have more [10:35:02 AM] picture, I'd rather have more units. I'm sorry. I'd rather have a lower number of units at a deeper affordability than, you know, a larger number of units at a milder affordability. Like I said, 10, 80. I don't know how much that gets us a 6% at 40. I think that provides more usefulness for the community than, let's say, a 10. At 80. With that said, all this being contingent on the calibration of the affordability and what is realistic to demand and what is not realistic to demand, which I think those questions are still up in the air, but just as a general matter, I would rather get deeper affordability levels for less units than, you know, lower than than than, you know, 80% at 10. You know, I'll take that, that you know, 6% at 40. Again, just throwing out some examples, like, I'd rather get those deeply affordable units because I think that's really [10:36:03 AM] because I think that's really what we're lacking in the community. >> Yeah. And I think you're right there. I just the part that I struggle with is if this is one of the few tools through a density bonus program where we can have developers on the line, on the hook for providing deeper affordability, you know, at what point in that calibration does the city step in and provide that deeper level versus us requiring it of the developers, given they're getting the exchange and height entitlement? >> And again, this would be an option. This is not mandating this is saying that the city could, if it chooses, step in to provide a deeper level of affordability on the units that that developer has already set aside as affordable, and it would just be an option that the city could take down the road again if and when funds are available. I just wanted to make sure to put that in there for down the road. You know, at some point we may want to go in and say, especially along the corridor, you know, especially along the light rail where we may say, you know what? That's [10:37:05 AM] may say, you know what? That's really where we want the units because of also the transportation affordability that's going to be built in once our light rail is up and complete. So thank you. >> Thank you, council members, members, those are all the proposed amendments on item number one that I have in front of me. Let me clarify. Is there any other one that I don't know about? All right. Let's go to item number three. I have two and they're both from me, so, if there's others, let me know about them, one is that if, if a, only a portion of a site is identified in the itod overlay, what happens to that piece of property currently if we have an applicable piece of property that's that's not fully encompassed? In other words, the line runs through it in some way of the eti, the itod overlay. The property is included within the overlay, even though there's a portion that's outside of it, [10:38:05 AM] a portion that's outside of it, and outside the half mile radius. And what this amendment would state is that if only a portion of a site is identified within the tod overlay, it would not be zoned now and would be eligible to be rezoned at a future date, which would also require some, map cleanup on on that at the second, proposed motion, proposed amendment is one that deals with the creation of sub district buffer Zones, our community has had growing concerns throughout this process regarding the density, especially at 120ft, going a half mile into the neighborhoods. And I believe that we have a we want and have a balance of density along the transit corridors, while we're also working to ensure that we don't have what some might [10:39:06 AM] don't have what some might consider to be an extreme height. That's in the neighborhoods, or it encroaches into the neighborhoods. This would ensure that people utilize. It would also ensure that people utilizing up to 90ft in height would utilize the density. Bonus versus the db 90. Since we're also incorporating redevelopment requirements within the area areas, what this amendment would do is ask staff to come back for the July 18th meeting again, because you can't zone without maps as. And that's on the advice of law with subdistricts allowing 120ft in height a quarter mile away from the transit corridor and up to 90ft in height a half a mile away from the transit corridor. Yes. Councilmember alter, and just so I understand, you're saying we can't add the two subdistricts now. >> We have to. >> Yeah. Right now we can't we can't zone without the map, is what I'm being told by. So what we would do is we would bring [10:40:07 AM] we would do is we would bring that back in that way. >> And that has no issue with the application. >> No. In fact, because of the way it was all noticed, it's up to. And so we would be covered. Okay. Anybody else on item three? Yes. Councilmember Allison alter, I just wanted to let my colleagues know that I will have to recuse myself on item three. >> My properties in the area, okay. >> Thank you. Councilmember. That will take us to item number four, here's the order. I think I have on item number four. Councilmember Ryan alter, council member vela. Councilmember Ryan has one, and councilmember vela has two proposed amendments on item number four. Thank you very much. >> So this is just a small change to address. Called a loophole and oversight, [10:41:08 AM] loophole and oversight, whatever. But if you're if the rear of your property is an alleyway, there can be easements there. And so this makes sure that the compatibility rule applies as it would relate to how you think about your property ending at the alleyway instead of on the other side. And we've worked with staff and they were very helpful in making this fix. So should be simple. >> Thank you. >> Councilmember Ryan alter thank you sir, councilmember vela, you have two proposed amendments, mayor, I believe, for item five are the ones that I passed out. >> That comes after four, right? Okay. Yes I'm I'm with you members. I also had one on item four, but I couldn't find it, and that's why I didn't say anything about it. But I've got it here in front of me now, and what what it would do is it would direct staff to study the impacts of compatible Katy and report back to council. [10:42:08 AM] report back to council. Identifying certain and necessary data points. This is consistent with what you'll remember we did on an amendment I had before, when we took up home one and, it passed unanimously. I'm thinking as we continue to do this, we're going to want that additional data members. Is there anything else on item number four that will now take us to item number five? And since I'd already recognized council member vela, I'll go back to him, thank you, mayor. I have, two, amendments on item five, the first one relates to a project connect, infra structure, and this is again, something that we've been working with, the atp and the project connect office on, whereby we would, would, swap out in again. I would imagine this would be very limited [10:43:08 AM] this would be very limited circumstances, but we would essentially swap out the, the housing, requirements for transporting an infrastructure placement. Let's say the, the light rail needs, a corner of this property, for example, there's a couple of spots downtown where we may need to, to make a less than a 90 degree turn or there are different spots along the light rail route where you have to put these, let me use a very technical term. These boxes, big, electrical boxes that that we may have to ask those property owners to, to install, basically to reserve something either in a parking garage or in a portion of their building or something like that. And the idea being that, there would be some, kind of, swapping of benefits in certain locations to facilitate the construction of the, of the light rail line. [10:44:11 AM] of the, of the light rail line. And the other amendment is, again, relatively straightforward. It's, there's a the requirement for, the, the property, the property must contain one or more commercial uses, I would also add or civic uses to that, just to make sure and allow, again, museum, community center, something like that. You know, we want to just make sure that that that it's a, it's a broad definition, this is not the item, but at some point, I think we do have to talk about affordable commercial spaces and places for community groups and those kinds of things as part of the package of community benefits. I know we're not ready to do that, you know, today, but this is kind of pushing toward that where, you know, again, can put that into the mix of, of community benefits that that we would be asking for in exchange [10:45:11 AM] would be asking for in exchange for these, development, rights. >> Thank you. Questions? Council member. Thank you. Council member, that will take us to council member Fuentes. >> Thank you. Colleagues, I'm sure you all have heard from several of your constituents, as have I, regarding short term rentals and the proliferation of short term rentals. And given our housing crisis, to me, it's really important that we're doing all that we can to ensure that as much of our housing stock is available for austinites and for people who who need homes. And with this amendment, seeks to do is to ask staff to prepare a recommendation related to prohibiting str use within the itot overlay. And the second piece of this, which actually is a nod. Before I was elected, I served on the tourism commission and one of the recommendations that the tourism commission passed in 2019 was asking city council to, asking the city to negotiate and to settle with the str vendors so that we're able [10:46:14 AM] str vendors so that we're able to reach an agreement so that we can capture more of the local hotel tax dollars every single day. We are losing out on thousands of hot dollars that could benefit our cultural arts, our tourism, our historic preservation projects, and much more. So this work builds on, work that councilmember Ryan alter is doing, and I know that he will be coming forward with a policy recommendation that is much more substantive around short term rentals. This is just direction to staff. And I thought it was important that as we have the conversation regarding Singh, these new land use changes and reforms that we acknowledge the role that short term rentals and the short term rentals market plays in our housing crisis. So this is what the amendment seeks to do. >> Councilmember Kelly, do you have a question? >> I do, and I definitely appreciate you bringing this forward. Councilmember Fuentes, I'm just curious to know if it's germane with the posting language of what we're doing or if it needs to be its own standalone item. And I think that's a legal question. [10:47:14 AM] that's a legal question. >> I my office worked with legal as we do with any amendment and direction that we bring forward. >> So the way that this language is structured complies with our posting language, which is also why I referenced councilmember Ryan alters item that will be coming forward in the coming months. >> Thank you for clarifying that . >> Thank you. Any other questions on that? All right. I'll recognize the mayor pro tem. >> Thanks, mayor. I have three, amendments and, make sure on the third one that you have in front of you, the one that at the top right says empty pool motion sheet number three up in the top right hand corner. The first one that was passed out didn't have the number three on it. So my motion, number one proposes a tiered approach on the residential affordability requirements. And it aligns the tiers with current density bonus programs like vmu and db 90, while keeping the levels for the highest height. I want to acknowledge staff and the consultant's findings that the affordability levels that are proposed are not feasible at [10:48:14 AM] proposed are not feasible at this point in time. You can see the results of that work on the staff attachment B, which is pages seven and eight. I think we should keep the 12% and 15% for the maximum height of 120ft. But since it may be that projects at that height may not be forthcoming for the next year or more, I think we also need to encourage more housing at levels that will make this itod db itod more effective in the current market. As I understand it, staff is comfortable with this tiered approach, particularly since we're going to revisit this next year as we move into future phases. So a tiered approach would actually result in more housing along the itod core. Shaw. And I appreciate the consultants work and the findings that they brought to us that questions on that item. >> Thank you, mayor pro tem. >> That's the first one. The second one I've already really I've already spoken to motion sheet number two, I spoke to this one when the nonresidential [10:49:16 AM] this one when the nonresidential redevelopment requirements topic came up on the chapter 418 changes. My motion here would amend the itod requirements. As I described. And then my third one. It's a small amendment that aims to match entitlements found in the itod regulations, which with those that are in the ev charging land use regs, by allowing an existing gas or service station to transition to electric vehicle charging stations as a permitted use. This ensures that as our town moves toward the city, the city's carbon free goals will have enough chargers in the right spots all around the town. Thanks, mayor. >> Councilmember Ryan alter I think the answer is yes. I'm just curious. This you said it's the same as the ev, so there's no need to. It's just kind of we're trying. There'd be no conflict there. >> That's correct. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you, thank you. Councilmember Vila. [10:50:16 AM] thank you. Councilmember Vila. >> And I just wanted to thank, the mayor pro tem pool on her, her, amendment. We're essentially mirroring existing affordability programs on vmu and db 90, and I think that's the best approach to take, in, especially when folks are going to be able to choose between doing vmu and doing itod. We don't want to disincentivize them from doing the itod. And I think this is a really a really good amendment. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Councilmember. Councilmember Allison alter, I have a just a general question, I don't know if staff has seen these before, or just sort of generally for we have a lot of amendments that are being here and, and would really benefit from staff's $0.02 on them. I don't know if there's a process, for you to, to share that council members, we have been having [10:51:17 AM] we have been having conversations with your offices. >> Some of the amendments we've seen in advance, some we're seeing today, we are quickly collating them and we will regroup and revisit all the amendments and give you all any feedback that we might have, but we have been providing feedback along the way. >> Sure. But if we're not in that quorum and they don't take your feedback, we won't know that you have a concern unless you raise it. And so I want to make sure we have a process for hearing that. >> Why wouldn't the process be where we could institute a process? Because we want to make sure that's why we're laying laying them out today is so that, people have an opportunity, more opportunity than just seeing them on the dais on the day we vote. So why don't we? We can use the question and answer where if you have a question that you want to ask of staff about how they react to something, because I know our office has been, I'm confident offices have been working directly with staff on any of their items, but it's true that somebody may not know what staff's thinking was and why something got done the way [10:52:17 AM] why something got done the way it did. So so, asking questions, but that puts the onus on me to ask a question every single one when I want to have their feedback on all of them, because I don't know which ones they have. I mean, I have no idea which ones they may have a concern about unless they're given an opportunity to tell us. >> So the team might kill me, but I would propose is what we would do is provide a memo to council on our feedback on each of the amendments. Thank you. >> That's good. Thank you. Anything else, on the mayor pro tem, we have two others on item five, and I wouldn't sit in the front row. I'm not sure how, well, if you're fine with most of them, then most of them. >> That'll be fine. But other ones. Then we will hear what you have to say. But it's hard to guess which ones you. It was a joke. >> It was a joke, item number five. We have two other ones. One is. Both of them are from me . One is similar to what I've stated earlier, hearing from the [10:53:18 AM] stated earlier, hearing from the community regarding impact of allowing certain high closer to homes. This amendment proposes a no build area from 0 to 25ft and 60ft in height, from 25 to 50. Staff originally proposed going up to 90, in that area. The second one is similar to what I've already talked about on item three, and that is to get an annual impact report and just make sure that those are consistent. All right. Anything else? >> Do you have more copies of yours of you I don't think I do, but okay. >> Handed out I don't think I got there's an extra one also. >> That's the one I just mentioned. That's the first one I mentioned because I have three. >> Yeah. >> And then and one was already I have one question for you, councilmember Ryan alter. >> The postponement is only it's only for the db tod or it's only for one of them, not both. [10:54:21 AM] for one of them, not both. That's right. Okay >> And I want to make sure as I, I jumped on that awfully quick. It's only that one. Okay. Now we will go to item number six. And I will start with council member Kelly. Go to council member Fuentes, and then I have one and I just council member qadri. >> Sorry. I'm so sorry, I pressed the button. Maybe. Maybe. >> Oh, yeah. I'm sorry. Sometimes my black. >> My apologies, I had two, motions for item number five. >> Oh, well, I apologize, I don't have those in front of me, so, please go ahead and let's make sure everybody gets a copy, okay? >> Yeah, we'll we'll make we'll make we'll make sure that. And I'll make it really quick, I won't I apologize I didn't. No, no, my apologies, so the first one was, a facade preservation motion, we've been exploring a [10:55:24 AM] motion, we've been exploring a facade preservation requirement similar to what folks see on sixth street, where the exterior of the building is preserved. A certain number of feedback, normally 10 or 15, while still allowing for additional height for housing and other uses, and then the second, motion is a streets motion, I'm just carrying forward planning commission's recommendation on enhanced street design standards for itod, and we'll be able to we'll make sure to get you guys the two motions. >> Okay. Thank you. Council member. Now we'll go to item number six. Council member Kelly, you'll be recognized first. >> Thank you very much. Mayor and colleagues, members, I'd like to bring forward an amendment that I have passed out for your consideration. We will be posting this to the message board later today. Essentially out of our last work session, I asked a question about reporting and metrics related to home phase two, and I didn't want to be duplicative in what the mayor brought forward with home phase one. However in working with the legal department, I would move [10:56:26 AM] legal department, I would move to add a new part with my amendment to direct the city manager to include the following information, and it says the city manager is directed to include the number of subdivision applications that are submitted to create lots that are at least 2000ft S in less than 5750ft S. As part of the report required by part 19 of the ordinance of home, phase one, I believe that the best work we do is work that is rooted in data, and that data is important for us to continue to make informed decisions in what we do here on council. Thank you . >> Thank you. Council member. Mayor. Yes sorry. Member. >> Ellis, tried to get my hand up quickly. I just wanted to double check, this is between 2000 and 5750. If we end up changing to 1800 or sticking with 1500, would you want that to be mirrored? >> Absolutely. So when I drafted this amendment, I did not include that because I didn't have mayor Watson's motion sheet. But I would like very much for them to be in line with [10:57:27 AM] much for them to be in line with one another. And I'm going to take a leap of faith here and say we will most likely adopt your amendment. And so I'm happy to change what I would suggest we do. >> That's I'm really glad you brought that up. >> I was thinking that that'll make it easier, but I'll suggest you do is I'll make sure that as we take up amendments at the actual meeting where we're voting, we take them up in an order that would allow you to. >> And the council to know which one you're going to utilize and what I would suggest you do is have prepared, one, one that is would amend my amendment, or not? Not amend my amendment, but be an amendment that's consistent with my amendment. And that way we'll just be prepared to go and I'll pay attention to it. And if I miss it, somebody call it to my attention. We'll make sure we do it the right way. >> Council member Ellis, thank you for bringing that up. And yeah, mayor, I was a girl scout, so I'll be prepared. >> I believe that council member Fuentes, I will recognize you on what I believe are three [10:58:28 AM] what I believe are three proposed amendments. >> Yes. Thank you, I love how we're moving through these so quickly. The first one is mayor. This builds off of the item that you brought forward during home phase one that asks for an annual impact report. This just seeks to update that report to include a metric for any potential impacts on displacement of our communities of color. As part of that, reporting. Got it, the other item that I have here, that I think is really important, is acknowledging all of the work and all of the programs and all of the tools that the city of Austin has available when it comes to having and to addressing affordable housing. You know what gets lost in this conversation, with reducing minimum lot sizes, is the fact that there are these other programs that the city has. And so this amendment, which I will be updating to add more quantities and metrics associated with it, just specifies what we're doing to preserve existing affordable housing and all of the resources and services we have available [10:59:29 AM] and services we have available to expand affordable housing. And I don't want to read it verbatim. It's posted on the message board, but that's the intention for that direction, the third one is really just acknowledging, for the record, the work that this council has done in the past when it comes to ensuring that as we make these land use changes that we're ensuring that families today are able to participate and have access to the financial resources that they have available, council member Jose Velasquez brought forward a resolution just five months ago that directed, that directed the city to provide gap financing for low to moderate income earners. And so I wanted to acknowledge the work that council has set already in motion. I know that our city staff are currently working on on implementing that resolution, and that we're anticipating a memo, update any at any point now. But I first want to acknowledge that work. And then also wanted to highlight that councilmember Velasquez will be bringing for another item in a few weeks that really expands on what those financial resources will look like, how our city [11:00:29 AM] will look like, how our city will be doubling down on our efforts to ensure that our families are able to age in place. And one thing that I also want to share is, the minimum lot size reduction came out of a recommendation from our anti-displacement task force. So it is a recommended strategy to help austinites age in place. So as part of that, we want to ensure that our families have the financial resources. This motion, we will be withdrawing. As I mentioned, councilmember Velasquez will be bringing forward an item two weeks from now. But given the importance of this conversation, given that I've had several meetings with constituents and at the open houses regarding this key piece, to me it was important that we acknowledge it as part of our deliberations. >> Great. Thank you. Council member questions. Council member. Thank you. I'll recognize council member Ryan alter on his proposed amendment to item six. >> Thank you very much. And this amendment, it was about the those fire prone areas, ingress egress concerns. I think what [11:01:30 AM] egress concerns. I think what staff is preparing to do covers this. So I don't think we will have to offer this. I'll confer with staff just to double check and provide an update on the message board. But I think this is no longer necessary. >> Okay. Thank you, councilmember Allison alter. >> So I have some questions for staff because I there's a difference between the PC and the staff version for home that makes a difference, I'm not sure that I buy into this waiting on this to get the wui stuff, but if you make certain if you adopt the PC version, it's problematic from fire from the get go. And I want to hear a little bit more from staff on, I understand from fire staff that there's some issues with the setbacks between the PC and the staff version and the staff version is preferred. Can someone explain the differences here and what the concern is? >> Please, please come forward. >> Good morning. Council mayor. [11:02:34 AM] >> Good morning. Council mayor. Mayor pro tem, Andre Dela Rosa, assistant chief with fire. The current recommendations by staff , maintains the setbacks. At five feet for, side yards, for the lot size. So that will address the exposure concerns that will allow us to maintain a safe community, the planning commission does put in verbiage that allows it to go down to zero. That could contribute to an increase in wildfire risk. So the staff recommendations of maintaining it at five feet, which two lots next to each other would, would result in the ten feet that is established right now and is nationally recognized, would maintain mitigation of that wildfire exposure concern. >> And that's also an issue whether you're in the wildfire area or not. Yes, ma'am, so I'm not exactly sure because we haven't made any statements on whether we're using the PC or the staff versions. I'm not exactly sure how to go about when what we prefer is the staff [11:03:35 AM] when what we prefer is the staff version to the PC version for any of these and one might guess that for different items, sometimes it's the staff version, sometimes it's the PC version. And so I'm not exactly sure what to tell you. My amendment is because I don't know what the base motion is. So maybe we can also talk about that. Sure. Conclude laying these out on fire. >> Yeah. >> Although I think I miss council Velasquez I had a I have an amendment but okay. Sorry then councilmember Ryan alter there and I'm clear on what the various recommendations are both in the staff and the PC is there a distinction between the five foot setback and the zero as it relates to a side yard versus an interior lot line? >> I'm thinking like row homes versus not. >> So in the staff recommended version, there is a possibility for zero, but it's specifically to the flag. Lots in the side yard. So that would be side yard [11:04:35 AM] yard. So that would be side yard between two new structures. So it wouldn't be a producing that risk towards an existing structure. Both those new structures, if they're in an area of concern, would be hardened. So it does, staff is comfortable with that. Where we're concerned is side yards that aren't with the new construction, which may be addressing existing structures and so if you had somebody let's say, who had a lot and subdivided it into three lots and wanted to do three combined structures, but where the exterior setbacks to the existing homes was still five feet, would they be able to have that zero foot interior essentially create a three unit structure so zero foot setbacks are allowed for attached structures, so if they're being developed at the same time and they're attached, then they can, you know, be meeting the fire code at the same time as well. >> And once we go above two, then they have to be sprinkled anyways. And so it does provide [11:05:36 AM] anyways. And so it does provide an additional fire safety component. I would assume that safe assumption okay. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Yes. >> I just wanted to flag, in the conversation around PC or staff recommendation. I may have something to say at that point. >> We'll get to that in just a second. I'm trying to keep us on, any anything else with regard to council member Ryan alter's proposed amendment, that's what's on the floor. Okay. With that? I just want yes, council. >> I just want to mention for councilmember Ryan's. I'm not sure that it, I mean, it depends on whether we're only adopting the wui code or we're adopting other things. So if we're only changing the wui, there could be other places that have one entrance and egress that would not be covered. Right, so I don't know that it is necessarily covered or not. >> And that's why I think we're gonna follow up with staff to figure it out. And we're happy to include you in that meeting. Just so we can all be on the [11:06:36 AM] Just so we can all be on the same page and not play telephone. Thanks okay. >> Councilmember Velasquez, yes, sir. Mr. Mayor, my amendment will be and we haven't posted it yet, but it'll be posted to the message board this afternoon, it'll be asking staff to study the feasibility of an equity anti-displacement overlay and the impacts that an overlay can have on affordability and displacement. Should we modify the proposed proposed standards by geographic area and lowest income census tracks? The focus is to mitigate displacement in areas most affected by gentrification. And also thank you to councilmember Fuentes for helping us daylight the item that we'll be bringing on the 30th, the resolution will aim to help low and moderate income homeowners, those most at risk of displacement by the rising cost of living in Austin. It will direct staff to look at ways at to help people build their ads and access capital to do it, including partnerships with financial institutions and finding ways to reduce upfront [11:07:37 AM] finding ways to reduce upfront costs. It will create an inter-departmental department, a task force of subject matter, subject matter experts to evaluate and review city processes holistically while identifying opportunities to reduce the cost for income. Qualified homeowners and reduce barriers to participation. And it will expand education and outreach initiatives to make sure that those who could benefit most have access to it. It will also help enhance our anti-displacement navigator program. >> Thank you. Council member. Any questions? Councilmember Fuentes, just a comment. >> Just want to thank councilmember Velasquez for bringing forward the equity, the overlay, sorry, the equity. Anti-displacement overlay, that to me, is really important that we study that work. And I know that has been top of mind for many in our community. So I appreciate your leadership on it. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Fuentes. All right. We have one other item proposed. I'm sorry, what do you have? Mayor pro tem, I am also [11:08:39 AM] have? Mayor pro tem, I am also preparing an amendment, and I'll wait in line. >> Yeah. >> Thank you, one other that we have on the dais, related item number six, and that is a proposed amendment by me that would amend the minimum lot size of to 1800 square feet, so that's out there. Now, with that being said, I think I have covered all of the items that we, we've, we've seen amendments on, I'm going to ask now two questions. One is, is that right? And is there somebody that has an amendment that maybe didn't get sat in front of me for some reason that we want to bring up and propose? And the second question is, is there any amendment that somebody is anticipating they're going to bring? Then what we will do is we will talk about whether it comes from whether we're going to be working off of the planning commission recommendation or the staff recommendation. So mayor pro tem [11:09:40 AM] recommendation. So mayor pro tem , I am preparing an amendment that, just from our conversation today. >> So I don't have it yet, but it will be the 90 day delayed implementation on on the itod, and should the PC version be the base motion? It's based on the language that's in that version. >> Any other proposed amendments that either didn't make it in front of me or that, you know, you're going to bring and you want to lay out so that we'll all kind of have an idea. Yes. Councilmember Allison alter, I still may be bringing something related to strs and home, still trying to figure out how to do that. >> And, I may have some other ones related to fire. I have to understand what our base motions are, and I did have one other question on home. If I could ask staff. >> Okay. >> While staff's coming up. So councilmember alter can ask a question about home, I'll start the bidding on what my recommendation is that we work [11:10:42 AM] recommendation is that we work off of the planning commission recommendation, because that way we have good access to staff and what staff may be thinking about with regard to that. They've done that today. They've told us what they're what they're for, what they're against and what they are kind of for and against. And it would also, and I've noticed as I've listened to these proposed amendments, a number of the amendments that have been proposed seem to be proposed off of the planning commission recommendation, as opposed to off the staff recommendation, but we have the opportunity and we ought to use the message board, but that's the bidding. I would start is that we go from the planning commission recommendation and council member Ellis, I said I'd call on you before I talked and I didn't do it. So there you go. >> That's all right. Thanks for the recognition, mayor. We've been having some conversation that I know have been in the staff recommendation and planning commission recommendation regarding setbacks and porches and whether five feet of the porch would be taken out of some of those numbers, for instance, ten feet [11:11:43 AM] numbers, for instance, ten feet setback, 15ft setback. Where would the actual front porch line need to be? So I just wanted to flag. I also assumed we were working off planning commission, just because that's typically how a lot of these proposals come to us, so in that case, I won't need to bring an amendment, but should we decide to follow another pathway, I would be prepared to bring that. >> Thank you, councilmember Ryan alter, then mayor pro tem, then councilmember Taylor, I excuse me, I had assumed we were going on the staff, and so I will certainly be looking at the planning commission recommendation surrounding the flagpole and increases over the 45% impervious cover. >> Give me a lot of concern. And so that is something that, I will be looking at and, and probably put up on the message board. >> Wright. Thank you very much, mayor pro tem, followed by councilmember Vella. >> And I misspoke on the 90 day delayed implementation. That's on item number six, which is home. And I think I said itod. And it may be that we choose the [11:12:43 AM] And it may be that we choose the PC version for some of these items and staff for others. So it could be a mixed bag. >> Well, I think that there's a potential for that, but but for purposes of trying to figure out where we are, as has been requested by a council member, let's let's what I'm suggesting we do. And unless I hear just broad objection, we start with the concept of the planning commission. I could see where, I mean, we do have we do have differences. For example, I'm looking here for, itod and compatibility may very well be that we go we start with staff. And I know that's sounds a little contradictory, but we're going to those of us that are paying real close attention, we're going to know which ones are the ones that will require the less amendment. >> So Wright that was and yes. And the fewer amendments was the approach that I was looking at. Yeah. >> The good news is we only have a few, yeah, so, yeah, that's [11:13:46 AM] a few, yeah, so, yeah, that's that's the approach that I and that's what I thought I was doing when I did that beautiful job of saying, let's go with in the order of six, three, five. Yeah. So I, I blue that, how's everybody feel about that? Anybody got a comment? Councilmember Allison alter I just think that if there's certain ones that we think we should start with, the staff, then we should start. >> Well, then let's start with then then let's let's let's let's make everybody let's try to make everybody happy, on compatibility, we'll go with staff and on itod we'll go with staff and the others will do the planning commission, because I think that's the last, councilmember I, I've been working off planning commission on all of them, on all of them. >> And I think that's the default approach. And as a legal matter and as a charter matter, and again, I appreciate staff has their, you know, they'll say we agree with this change. We don't agree with that change. But as a legal matter, again, thinking to legislation, you know, you start with the bill as [11:14:46 AM] know, you start with the bill as it comes out of committee and then you can swap out whatever you want. >> I just thought that we had I thought there had been work off the staff on compatibility and itod Ann and, and I don't know, because was it brought about less, that's that's what as I'm looking at what people are laying out as their amendments, I thought that's what was also happening. I may be wrong about that. Here's what I. Mayor pro tem. >> Well, and there's two different things. >> The base motion. Right. And then we, we have, all of the broken out pieces. So it maybe we're all saying the same thing. The base motion is the PC version. And then when we start amending on the individual motions, those, those come in at either the PC or the staff version. >> Well, it doesn't it didn't it doesn't sound like we're going to be able to agree on that. So what I would, recommend is we start with the planning commission recommendation and everybody pay attention to that. [11:15:46 AM] everybody pay attention to that. We're going to start with the planning commission recommendation okay. All right. Councilmember Allison alter, thank you, I wanted to ask for home, what other phases were in the works for home, if any? >> Yes. Thank you for that question, there currently are no other phases in the works. >> Okay, do my colleagues have other phases that they're planning to bring for home? >> I'm not sure. Well like for itod, we're bringing additional phases, and, various points. >> There have been suggestions that there might be additional parts for home, and I'm just clarifying, what might be coming. >> I thank you, Andrea bates, assistant director for the planning department. We haven't scoped the remainder of the home resolution into subsequent phases, so we know the resolution included additional direction to staff that have not [11:16:47 AM] direction to staff that have not yet been accomplished in phase one or proposed in phase two. For example, enabling additional missing middle scale multifamily development, fourplexes, cottage courts, that sort of thing, and also contemplating reduced minimum lot sizes for two or more units which are not part of home. Phase two. So after this spring, we will be returning to the resolution and developing a work plan for the additional components that have been initiated to date. Thank you. Thank you. >> Could I just add very quickly and I appreciate that from appreciate that from assistant director bates. I know site plan lite is a process that is close to coming back to us, but we know there's still some community engagement happening. And so, just know that we as the carriers of the fourplex and three plex being wrapped into residential review and then kicking off the site plan lite, which is for that missing middle and courtyard apartment style of development. Those conversations are transpiring currently. And so we're working through those. But those may seem like they are home amendments to folks that, you know, don't watch every [11:17:49 AM] you know, don't watch every single meeting that we do, but they are part of a separate effort. And then I will also point out the housing and planning committee has a robust Gantt chart that has all the sequencing and phasing of all the different topics that are happening. So if you're curious about that, I would say reference the last meeting that we had or look forward to the next, housing and planning committee meetings for further details. >> Great. Thank you, councilmember councilmember Ryan alter. >> And that comes from a conversation we had at housing and planning, I think we need to and staff is planning on looking at the preservation bonus to make sure it is working as intended. Originally and so that certainly touches on home. It's its own issue, but will be related to that. >> All right, folks, with that, I'm going to consider that to be a close on that part of the work session on item D one, very good discussion and a lot of detail. So thank you all. And, get ready for Thursday. This will, utilize that message board, to let folks [11:18:50 AM] that message board, to let folks know what's up as we go forward to Thursday. And thank you all for the level of detail. As I indicated, we will now go to item b2, which is a briefing on law enforcement mutual aid. That will be followed by an update on the status and implementation of the city's bond development and delivery plan. And, the chair will recognize our new city manager on item b2. >> Thank you. Mayor, I'll have interim assistant city manager Bruce mills, come up and introduce the law enforcement mutual aid briefing, as well as APD team, Mr. Mills. >> Thank you. Manager. Good morning. Mayor, council Bruce mills, the rented assistant city manager, I've had talked to several of you last several weeks about the, the police response to the protest, particularly with the on the UT campus and April 24th and April 29th, because of that, there's some confusion. Maybe thought we'd do a presentation on to hopefully bring clarity to the [11:19:52 AM] hopefully bring clarity to the way that the police department operates under mutual aid and, and, and how we respond to protests. So, chief Henderson is in Washington this week for police memorial week. I've asked chief Fitzgerald and chief Lee Rogers, chief Fitzgerald, and both and Lee Rogers, both, were involved in this and made decisions in terms of approving, the method. So I've asked both of them to present a short presentation for you and then answer any type of questions we may have following that. Chief Fitzgerald. >> Good morning. Mayor, mayor pro tem, council members, I'd like to start off by thanking you for your time today. APD always enjoys the opportunity. To communicate and be transparent about our operations , the how and why we do the things, the way we do them, [11:20:53 AM] things, the way we do them, next, I'd like to introduce assistant chief Lee Rogers. Chief Rogers was the duty chief during the time, over the events that we're going to talk about today, he was on the ground, he's going to be able to offer valuable insight, he has a wide breadth of experience with crowd management. So he will be available at the end of this presentation. Should you have any questions as. So we're here today to talk about mutual aid. More specifically, the assistance that APD provided to UTPD, during the protests in late April. I'm going to cover both of the days where arrests were made. But before I do that, I want to walk you through mutual aid and how it works. All departments have a finite amount of resources when faced with an incident that goes beyond the capacity of what an individual department can effectively control, we rely on the assistance of neighboring agencies to help keep our communities safe. What gives us [11:21:56 AM] communities safe. What gives us the legal ability to provide and request assistance? Obviously, it is the duty of every peace officer to preserve the peace in our jurisdictions. We do have a memorandum of understanding, an mou between APD and UTPD. Additionally we there's a unique provision in the education code, specifically 67.03, which gives the Austin police department concurrent jurisdiction on on the campus of the university of Texas at Austin. What is mutual assistance look like? It can be anything from a basic call for service. It could be another law enforcement agency on a traffic stop in which an officer stops to provide quick assistance to make sure that they're okay for officer safety reasons. Could be a pursuit that starts in another city, crosses over into our jurisdiction and ends up into a field. Search a perimeter. Any [11:22:56 AM] field. Search a perimeter. Any of those things. UT special events. There are many concerts, football games, sporting events that UT asks APD for, resources that comes in the fashion of personnel, equipment. Our tactical units, all of those things, our swat on call coverage. If ever our swat teams face a call out that goes beyond a normal time period in which they need relief, we have verbal agreements with several other swat teams in the central Texas area that they'll come in and relieve our officers. Additionally, should we face two swat call outs at the exact same time, we have those agreements so that we're able to handle those calls and make sure they're covered. UT investigative assistance this specifically refers to the murder of haruka wiser. This occurred on campus at UT, but based on the limited resources that they had, APD came in to help with forensics collection of evidence, and ultimately we became the primary investigative agency in that case, the Austin [11:23:59 AM] agency in that case, the Austin bombing incident, which is still fresh in our mind from 2018. Once we knew that there was a threat to the public, the number of calls for suspicious packages increased significantly. Texas dps came in to assist our agency and cover those calls. So that every suspicious package call could be covered. The aid shooting on December 5th, 2023. This started out at northeast early college high school with the shooting of sergeant Val Barnes. The response the multi-jurisdictional and multi-agency response was impressive. I happened to be there that day and saw over 150 officers ready to form rescue task forces and go into that school to ensure that those children were safe. Additionally, the arboretum shooting occurred at the tapioca restaurant that again multi-jurisdictional officers from the sheriff's department constables, our federal partners, FBI, ATF, Dea, all responded to make sure that [11:25:00 AM] responded to make sure that scene was safe. This is so routine and so frequent that agencies assist one another. It's in. It's outlined in our policy. It's the order of the department to provide assistance whenever possible, consistent with the applicable laws of arrest and detention orders of this department. When another law enforcement agency requests assistance with an arrest or detention of any person. This is important because no matter how our officers are acting or where their actions are, whether it's with assistance or in their normal police operations, they're always going to fall under APD policies. Their actions will fall under the scrutiny of APD review. Whether it's use of force, any of those things are all going to fall under our purview. This department may also request outside agency to provide assistance. Again, this is a two way street. There are, there are and will be circumstances in which we'll need help. Requests and notification, this slide is just in kind of a relay that [11:26:02 AM] just in kind of a relay that there is a notification, a communication process when requests or assistance is requested. Really I want to highlight on this slide the extended time period. And the impact to APD resources. Obviously a traffic stop or something that isn't going to take an extended period of time that will stay at the sergeant or dispatch level. If it's something larger, like the protest, that notification system is going to go all the way up to the assistant chief as well as the chief. If 911 call responses are going to be impacted, that information will be relayed to city leadership. Command and coordination of APD personnel APD personnel shall not be placed under the command of any outside agency. This is important and really emphasizes the fact that as our officers go to render this assistance, they're not going to be placed under UTPD leadership. Our supervisors are going to go and again, all of our policies, procedures, all of the reviews that we conduct are going to apply in those situations. This [11:27:05 AM] apply in those situations. This is a list of local agencies that APD works with on a daily basis. They're either within our jurisdiction or they're, they border our jurisdiction. We work with, we interact that, we request assistance. They assist us routinely and on a daily basis. So I'm going to unpack the events that transpired on each of these days. But before I do, I want to provide some clarity on the arrest process. UTPD placed every person under arrest both days and filled out all subsequent paperwork related to those arrests. APD was only asked to assist in placing people into custody. APD was asked at various times to assist with taking people into custody, but again, those individuals were already placed under arrest by UTPD. It is our understanding and acting on the information that we had that all persons involved were given multiple [11:28:06 AM] involved were given multiple opportunities to leave before being arrested, and that multiple warnings were given and that they would be arrested for criminal trespass if they did not leave. So we'll start with April 24th. We were asked the day before to provide logistical support to UTPD due to the size of their department, approximately 70 officers and the likelihood that the crowd size would be large. We were originally asked to transport their arrests using our transport vans to transport arrestees to the Travis county central booking facility. We agreed to this as the crowd size grew and conditions became more complicated, they asked us to come out to the lawn to provide seed and security and essentially what I mean by seeing security is have more officer presence on the lawn and allow UTPD and dps to affect the arrests that they have made in a safe environment. Some videos showed APD officers going hands on with subjects as incidents unfolded right in front of them, [11:29:06 AM] unfolded right in front of them, but again, those were UT arrests . Moving to the 29th, we were asked in advance to provide logistical support to UTPD due to the size of their department and the likelihood that the crowd size would be large again. We were originally asked to transport their arrests, which we agreed to again. The crowd size grew, conditions became more complicated, and arrests took a longer amount of time to effect dps and UTPD needed officers to come out and give them relief. Due to the heat, we assisted by continuing to take people that were in the circle encampment into custody who were already warned and given the opportunity to leave. So at this time, I'll go ahead and open it up for questions. >> All right. Let's see, council member vela, let's start with you and then council member qadri. >> Thank you very much for the information. I appreciate the, overview. The I think the [11:30:09 AM] overview. The I think the fundamental question Ann that arises with regard to especially the first amendment, first amendment related arrests would be thinking about the 24th, there is a, you know, a state law now that passed in 2019 that guarantees essentially both the general public and students, the right to protest at the kind of common outdoor areas at state universities, and my understanding of what was going on on the 24th, was that there were, a group of students that had gathered together to protest and then, began to walk toward the south mall, which was ultimate kind of site of the of [11:31:09 AM] ultimate kind of site of the of the protest. And I believe that UT pd, again and or dps I'm not sure I wasn't present in basically kind of met them, at the speedway, intersection of essentially like kind of the, the eastern mall and, speedway, and that's where essentially kind of the, the, the conflict, started. I'm not sure exactly when the arrest started taking place, but I guess my, my core question would be that let's assume for a moment that it is illegal to camp at, you know, the south mall and that, you know, what is your, you know, you set up your tent on the south mall. UTPD says, hey, you cannot do that. You've been warned. You need to leave. That person then refuses to leave. Let's that person can be arrested for criminal trespass. [11:32:10 AM] arrested for criminal trespass. Wright my understanding is that some of these arrests were taking place before anyone had really kind of camped, you know? I mean, they said that they wanted to camp, but again, just saying that, you know, you wanted to do something to me does not trigger. And so to me, that's kind of the situation is where, where if there is one of our mutual aid law enforcement agencies, is, making arrests in a situation where there may be questions about the constitutionality of those arrests, the propriety, propriety, and appropriateness of those arrests. How does APD grapple with that? >> So I can't really speak to the timeline on the coordination between the university of Texas administration and their police department. All we provided was [11:33:10 AM] department. All we provided was support for the university of Texas police department. Once the decision was made by their administration and by their department to go ahead and place individuals under arrest for a violation of state law. Once that happened, we were asked to assist by providing a safe place for the officers to interact with the group and affect those actual arrests. We were also asked to transport to Travis county jail because they just did not have the staff and the availability, so we wanted to provide a quick way to de-escalate the situation by moving protesters and individuals that were arrested off of campus and transport them to jail in as efficient a way as possible. And that was the basis for our assistance on that first day. >> In other words, though, APD was not making any kind of individual judgments of whether, you know, this arrest, you know, should or should not have happened or or there was kind of you were, again, under the direction of the wrong word, [11:34:12 AM] direction of the wrong word, taking orders the wrong word again, because based on your orders, you all always maintain your independent judgment in these kinds of situations. But you know, essentially, if UTPD or dps says that a someone is, is a trespassing that person, we're going to arrest that person as a default matter. You would then, arrest them. >> No, we did not. We did not arrest them. If the university of Texas or the Texas department of public safety made that arrest, we provided assistance in terms of transport in in assisting in the processing to expedite the situation, to try to remove, people in, in as quick a manner as possible from the campus. >> Got it. So if UTPD, for example, decides to make an arrest, you would assist with essentially the detention and transportation of that person as that that was the, the, the support capacity that APD was, was providing. >> Yes, sir. >> That's correct. Okay, and with regard to, and this may be [11:35:12 AM] with regard to, and this may be more of a question for law, honestly, but, another concern that arises is potential civil liability, I'm, you know, the if there are lawsuits related to the mutual aid kind of situations. Again thankfully, I'm not aware of any injuries or any major injuries or anything like that that took, part, I mean, that stemmed from the, the protests. But I believe that even the interference with the first amendment right to protest could potentially, carry civil liability as well. What is our civil liability, potential civil liability in these kind of situations where we're asked to provide mutual aid in in a protest situation? >> I think the city attorney has something to say. >> Thank you. Mayor pro tem, the question we are liable for our own actions. You know, our [11:36:12 AM] own actions. You know, our officers are part of the city of Austin, so that would be there as a as they've mentioned already, these were transport issues for that day. And we're not anything further than that and understood. >> But and I think of this more honestly on the 29th, I believe the 29th was the second day of major arrests, and on the 24th. But my sense was that APD officers were much more directly involved on the 29th. Again my understanding is due to the dps. Basically, it was a hot day and I think officers were were, needed to rest and I believe APD stepped in. Does that change anything in terms of the liability? Again, where, I mean, UTPD is making the arrest is making the decision to make the arrest. But APD is, for all intents and purposes, you know, effecting the arrest. >> Well, our officers again, we're we're the city of Austin is liable for our officers in their actions, the mou says that we have we're responsible for [11:37:13 AM] we have we're responsible for worker's comp for liability, those kinds of things. So, that's that's always an issue, of course. >> And are we aware of any potential other cases? >> I'm not personally aware of them. But civil liability in terms of, interference with first amendment rights is that a concern or have there been any kind of I know typically that would be more of an injunction than a monetary judgment, but have there been any kind of monetary judgments for, you know, interference with the first amendment? Right >> I'm not sure that the answer to your question, but as far as I know, we have not had any claims as a result of the protest in April. So I hope that will remain the remain that way. >> Agreed? >> Agreed, all right. Thank you, mayor pro tem. >> Thank you. Council member. Council member. Qadri thank you, I just had a few questions, well , I had a list of questions, and then certain things were said, so I do want to follow up on it, you had mentioned, about [11:38:15 AM] you had mentioned, about conditions getting complicated and violation of state law, from what I understand, camping never occurred at UT. Wright everyone kind of UTPD dps kind of came out in full force before any camping took place. So what was the violation of state law, everyone was arrested for criminal trespass. As far as I. It's my understanding. >> Okay. >> And that includes students. It was everyone, regardless of what classification they kind of fit in. >> Yes, by the university of Texas police. >> Okay. And they were, arrested for criminal trespassing. On what? I guess what grounds? If there were students, I guess I never fully understood that. >> I think maybe their their, would say that you should be asking that question to the university police. Okay. Fair enough, okay, just going back to my other questions. Who signed off on APD assisting with UT protest? >> I was the duty chief that [11:39:17 AM] >> I was the duty chief that day, but ultimately the request was made, from the university of Texas chief of police to chief Henderson. >> Okay, so chief Henderson would have been the one signing off, correct? Okay. Got it. And then how many officers went on the 24th and then separately, how many officers went on the 29th? You guys have a rough number. >> I would say that we probably provided, 40 to 50 officers in to assist on, on each day, 40, 50. Not everybody made it onto the campus. Some officers that we kept in in reserve, if there was to be some activity that actually came off campus as well, and then also to maintain officers and reserve to rotate in due to the to the heat and the weather. >> Got it. And then it looks like on the 29th is when there was support for arrests, was there no support for arrest on the on the 24th? >> Support for arrest? I I'm I'm sorry, I don't understand [11:40:19 AM] sorry, I don't understand support for arrest. That's what we provided okay. Both days we supported the university of Texas police with the arrest that they made both days, both with transport. Okay >> Yeah. No, I was on the 29th. It says asked to support arrests on the 24th. It doesn't say that. So I was just confirming the 24th. There was no asked to support arrest. Well what what you would have probably seen on on social media and maybe in some other places is where, when after the groups that were barricaded and chained together were initially, contacted by university police and dps, those individuals were escorted out one at a time, and at times APD officers assisted the university of Texas and dps by going in physically making contact with people, giving them another opportunity in which to leave, letting them know that if they didn't, they were going to be arrested by the university. >> Go ahead and helping those people up, placing them in cuffs at times and then taking them to where the all of the arrested [11:41:20 AM] where the all of the arrested persons were being processed. >> Got it. >> And then was this classified within APD as a formal, formal emergency assistance? >> It was definitely a request for assistance. I don't know what would. I mean, we had we had some planning and lead time. So in terms of emergency, I don't know that it would have been classified as as emergency assistance in terms of something that was just sprung on us at the last moment. >> Okay, and then a few more questions, I was looking online and the Fort Worth police department, they include in their general orders for police assistance to outside agencies the following. It says officers shall assist only in cases where the involvement would not constitute a violation of the law or department. General orders, you know, I take violation of law. Anything that might infringe on on freedom of speech, is there a reason we don't have similar language in APD's general orders for [11:42:23 AM] APD's general orders for assistance? >> Not that I'm aware of. Okay that's that's it on my end. >> Thanks, council member Kelly. >> Thank you. And thank you for the presentation. I would just add one thing that I think was a little, not there, and that is that multiple different types of public safety departments utilize mutual aid. I'm familiar with that. Because of the fire service. And so this is a common thing that that is utilized amongst departments all across the country, and so that's important. And I also want to add that I saw some of the video from your officers who were on scene during the protests. I just want to thank your department for the work that you did in the high stress situation . The perspective that I saw was different from that which was shown on the news, because I was sitting directly next to one of the emergency management police officers in a class I was taking. So I appreciate their professionalism in that situation and the work that you all do on a regular basis. Thank [11:43:25 AM] all do on a regular basis. Thank you. >> Thank you. Council member Ryan alter I was curious how y'all make a decision on not only the number of individual or officers that will respond and but what kind of equipment or gear that they are equipped with. >> You know, if we saw certainly that first day dps come in with with very heavy riot gear and I think part of the reaction from the crowd was to what they were seeing right then. And and so I'm curious how y'all make that determination in, you know, protecting the police officer versus, just kind of being over geared, as it were. How do you think about that? >> It really depends on how much lead time we have in terms of planning. If we're given notification the day before, we don't have the capability to spin up our special response team, our crowd management team, [11:44:25 AM] team, our crowd management team, which may have different equipment. So each of our officers is trained and equipped with different protective equipment, depending on the situation. But the uniform of the day is still going to be the uniform of the day. So we all of our officers aren't equipped with the same things that you may have seen, some of those dps troopers are wearing because they were coming specifically for that assignment. We were asked, kind of at the last minute to assist on that first day. And so it would have been the uniform that the officers would have typically worn. >> Okay. >> And just to add to that, I think we make those decisions on a case by case basis. Obviously, what's happening, what's unfolding in front of us, but you're right. Sometimes the wrong type of gear and equipment can make the situation worse. So we take all of those things into consideration when we make those decisions. >> Thank you, council member Fuentes. >> Yes. Thank you. Can you touch on our staffing levels and how we're able to provide this level of assistance? You know, one [11:45:28 AM] of assistance? You know, one thing that we hear about quite frequently from the department is, you know, the severity of our staffing crisis that we have. And so when we send police officers to help with this type of event, you know, who is paying for overtime? Is there is there overtime pay associated with it? And how is the department allocating resources, knowing that we're already short staffed? >> It's a juggling act for sure. I assure you. We do the best that we can in staffing that we take a few officers from each area to combine these teams to be able to deploy onto campus to assist, we also do the same thing when it comes to other protests and other events that that might pop up that we don't have as much as much lead time, we monitor the calls that are that are holding the through the, the watch commander's office and the real time crime center. And we try to make every , every opportunity we have to make sure that we are still addressing the high priority [11:46:28 AM] addressing the high priority calls that are, that are happening in the city, and, and so we did not send as many officers maybe as, as we would have it at other times. Should we have been more heavily staffed. So it's definitely a balancing act, but we're still cognizant of the calls for service that we need to take within the city. >> And as for pay, is that something that the university will be reimbursing, I'm not sure if there's any reimbursement that comes through that, that would be, more for finance than for me. Thank you. >> Council member qadri. Kind of going off of councilmember Ryan Walters questioning, >> I think we've seen a lot of protests in the city. Right. That's something great about Austin, right? Whether it be during the summer of blm, you know, you know, whether it be the current situation and things you know, way before I was even born, protests aren't a new thing. Large crowds aren't a new thing. One thing that councilor Ryan holt-rabb mentioned was, you know, folks coming out and [11:47:28 AM] you know, folks coming out and all all the gear that, you know, we saw the pictures on social media that they came came out in what what warranted such a strong show of force in terms of bodies that were on the ground, both by UTPD, by dps. Obviously, there's about 50 APD officers. And then just the I guess the tactical gear that they had. Right. Because I've been to protests at the capitol. Right. And I see sometimes APD is there and it's more crowd control. Right. I don't see you guys all you know, dolled up and you know, all that gear. What warranted such a strong use of or at least the esthetics of such a strong use of force in terms of what you get, what was worn and how many bodies were out there. Because because I'm sorry, just to clarify, and if I'm wrong, please, please do correct. There had been no public camping right on campus, and there hadn't been any violence by the protesters towards towards anyone. >> Correct. And I can't speak to [11:48:28 AM] >> Correct. And I can't speak to how and why and to what level. Dps equips their troopers and what their response is. Our our response, was different. I believe that the officers at the university of Texas were were dressed the same as as our officers were. So I can't speak to the deployment strategy of dps. Got it. >> All right. >> Thank you. >> Thank you all for the presentation. Ann. I think we got all the questions, really appreciate you being here today and briefing us. It was good information, good questions as well. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Appreciate your time. Thank you. We have one more briefing. This is the update on the status and implementation of the city's bond development and delivery plan. I think we should end with numbers here. You >> Thank you. Mayor pro tem. And our final item today is a briefing from James snow, the [11:49:28 AM] briefing from James snow, the director of the capital delivery services department, as well as kymberley Bartz, deputy chief financial officer. As I understand it, Mr. Snow has spent the last year standing up the department focusing on improving our capital delivery and is here today to share with you plans to integrate the bond development process with our project delivery system to more efficiently complete projects to achieve a six year bond cycle. And so at this point, I'll have Mr. Snow walk you through the recommendations and thoughts on that matter. >> Thank you, city manager. Welcome, Mr. >> While I say good morning, I still think it is. So say good morning mayor pro tem council members, city manager as as mentioned I'm James snow, the director of capital delivery services. And I'm joined today by Kim Valadez, the deputy cfo. This morning, what we'll do is provide a high level overview of the stack recommendation for the framework of a integrated bond program development and delivery plan. There's four key components we'll talk about today. The existing bond program [11:50:31 AM] today. The existing bond program delivery an overview of a proposed integrated bond development and delivery plan, a public infrastructure improvement bond status update and overview. And finally, we'll do a little bit of a deep dive into the integrated bond. Development plan schedule itself . Projects shouldn't take or bond program shouldn't take more than six years. However our recent bond programs have taken longer main reasons are. First of all, bond development processes have not always produced complete, consistent and coordinated projects resulting in project delays and cost escalations. Also we've had several off cycle single proposition elections, which has stressed our delivery capacity. The main reason for project delays and cost isolation is that previous bond development timelines did not provide enough time to sufficiently scope projects, which has led to first project concepts presented to council without extensive detailed scopes or coordination. [11:51:31 AM] detailed scopes or coordination. Also, after a voter approval, instead of working to deliver projects, delivery teams spent time to develop detailed project scopes, schedules and budgets, resulting in delays, subsequent changes and scope creep, and unrealistic expectations. In response, capital delivery services was created to implement a one city, one team approach to capital delivery. The department has been and continues to focus on challenging all existing processes to find a way to execute in half the time, and also developing and implementing a consistent approach to capital delivery across the city of Austin. Cds is excited for this opportunity and have the following picture access in mind. Develop and implement an integrated bond program and delivery plan that incorporates the time necessary to develop projects with delivery in mind and to be completed within a six year bond cycle. How will we do this? We'll create a deliberate, [11:52:32 AM] this? We'll create a deliberate, transparent and fiscally responsible plan, have a coordinated with council and community to identify projects aligned with community needs, asset management needs and council's policy objectives and finally deliver a dig once and shared opportunities. Funding opportunities with our city owned utilities and other regional partners. The plan will have two phases program development and project delivery, with a focus on meshing, development and delivery into a unified program approach that facilitates efficient program delivery. Cds will serve as the program lead for development and delivery phases, and accountable for the overall program success. We plan to integrate lessons learned from past bond programs here in the city of Austin, from other municipalities that we've reached out to and finally, most important, as I mentioned before, we'll mesh development and delivery to make an efficient delivery program. Project identification and development will take in consideration six key factors. [11:53:32 AM] consideration six key factors. Department asset management plans. Department strategic and long range plans. Similar to the example of asmp and water forward, the current bond projects that we have under the current bonds. Imagine Austin leverage opportunities between Austin water zo counties and txdot. And finally, most importantly, council priority objectives. Cds is uniquely positioned and excited to lead the asset owner and delivery partner departments in creating an enterprise wide, coordinated, integrated approach. The key tenets of this approach will be. First of all, each project will have a detailed project plan with well-defined scope, risk matrix, schedule and budget. Projects will be scored and prioritized, and project and public engagement will build and incorporate, build upon, and incorporate objectives and data from the department's long range plan development that's happened over the last couple of years. One key in new tenant will be [11:54:35 AM] One key in new tenant will be project prioritization. To achieve this, a decision tree will be created to prioritize and rank project candidates. Staff will create the decision tree and present it to council project candidates will be scored and ranked using the decision tree. Each bond proposal or prop will have a prioritized list of recommended projects. Each of these lists will be specific to that proposal to that bond prop, because the asset criteria would be different, but also include incorporate bond goals. Below is a list of example criteria I'd like to highlight. The criteria would include city goals and priorities. Asset specific metrics and goals that were defined in long range plans, impacts to operational and maintenance, and spending funds, and the spending and funding status of recent bond projects. And now to the numbers that you so want to talk about. I'll be followed by a Kim Velasquez, [11:55:35 AM] followed by a Kim Velasquez, deputy cfo. >> Thank you. Welcome, miss Olivares. Good to see you. >> Good morning everyone, happy to bring the ever anticipated numbers to the dais here, so, so some of these slides will look familiar to you, as we've. But they're very much updated. Their slides that we've used previously for audit and finance committee, but demonstrate where we are in terms of our current bond programs. So as you can see here, since 2006, there have been quite a few different bond elections, in that time period, we've held two comprehensive bond program elections, but also five off cycle programs, the majority of those are those those funds related to transportation oriented needs. When we look at our bond programs, we typically will develop a, an anticipated spending time frame. Six years. Generally speaking, in certain occasions we've had an eight year plan, but because of those [11:56:36 AM] year plan, but because of those challenges that James was speaking to with regard to delivery, you can see here, starting with the 2016 program, we started out with an eight year plan, and it has grown to an 11 year implementation timeline, so it's 2027 for finish out. Similarly with the 2018 program, which is a comprehensive program, initially it was planned to be a six year program, but it is now scheduled to be a ten year program with with completion in 2028, in addition, 2020 was supposed to be a six year program, but is now looking like an eight year program with completion of 2028. And then our most recent program is 2022, we're intending for that to be a six year program, but we're very early in spending of those funds, but so why is it important for us to be thinking about these time frames, how it's grown from 6 or 8 years to eight, ten, 11 years, when we when we're looking at developing [11:57:38 AM] when we're looking at developing a bond program, we also need to be considering the various financial policies that are included in the adoption of the budget process each year, two of the main ones that I want to bring your attention to is the timing of those elections. So as we look at when we hold an election, we need to be considering according to the policy, we need to consider our current authorized but unissued bonds abuse basically what has been authorized by the voters. But we have not yet issued yet. And by issue, I mean we've actually sold those bonds, so according to that policy, we should only have an estimated two years of abuse before we hold our next election, also, the total amount dollar amount of bond election propositions, the policy states that the total amount should not exceed what we can expend within a normal six year period. So based on our existing bond programs as well as these financial policies and what we have remaining in abuse, we continue and we've stated this previously, the earliest [11:58:41 AM] this previously, the earliest time, but a new bond election would occur is in November of 2026. We have and to kind of to add to the timing of the elections, we have approximately 1.6 $1.7 billion in abuse at this point. So it's also important for us to consider our credit ratings, so right now S&P has us at a triple- a, which is the highest you can be. Moody's is a aa one and Fitch is a a. These are all excellent ratings. But his previously the city was triple-a across the board. The current like I noted, the current abuse were about 1.7 billion, from our existing bond programs, we have we have an excellent staff in financial services that is regularly looking at the timing of those issuances, the sizing of those, to try and get us to that point of the triple-a credit standards for debt issuance portions. But in our most recent credit ratings for our geo sales, we [11:59:42 AM] ratings for our geo sales, we have specifically been dinged for, for, leveraging, related to our debt as well as pensions. So we've had conversations previously with audit finance about all of the activity taken to ensure the health of our pension plans so that is actively being, dealt with, but then also with our debt, they have spoken to us about our higher levels of debt, relative to our credit rating. So based on the existing bond programs, those financial policies and the debt rating criteria, we have two main recommendations. First, we need to reestablish a consistent and predictable cycle for bond elections. The financial policy speaks to six year cycle. We need to avoid the off cycle, single proposition elections, of which we've had five since 2006, when you have these more regular cycles, that is what allows for the better planning, prioritization, the [12:00:42 PM] planning, prioritization, the community participation that James just spoke to, for this process, then on so with that in mind, we would begin preliminary planning now for a November 26th bond election, because that one allows us to continue our work on spending down the existing bond programs, that 1.7 billion in abuse also allows James and his team to do all of the vetting and cost analysis and also allows for all the engagement that I know council expects and the community, so based on that, I'll now pass it back to James. >> As you can see, numbers can be very fascinating. But what I'd like to do next is, talk about the integrated, bond program timeline as mentioned earlier, there will be two phases. There'll be a program development and a program delivery with a focus on meshing, development and delivery into a unified approach that facilitates efficient [12:01:43 PM] that facilitates efficient program delivery. So I'd like to spend the rest of the presentation going over the first phase. And that brie project program development as staff recommends the program development phase should be 18 months in length, and this would allow us time to ensure that we're deliberate, transparent and fiscally responsible. Coordinate with community and the council to identify projects that align with our interests, asset management needs and council policies, and also leverage those dig once approach. As I mentioned earlier , before I go into this slide, I'd like to give you a little framework of orientation to it. In the first column it says where it says phase under this column there's three distinct phases to this program. Project development, project selection and delivery. Presentation. Preparation under each of these describes the deliverables for the area and decisions that need to be made as you move to the next column, which is the program schedule. There are tasks represented by arrows and triangles that represent either phase deliverables or decisions. Read or council action items, brown or staff actions and blue [12:02:44 PM] brown or staff actions and blue represents the city advisory task force actions. And let me go through this slide real quick. Project development is the first phase, they'll last about 12 months. The purpose of this phase is to create an integrated and comprehensive project plans. The deliverables staff will provide a recommended list decisions will be the bond size, delivery capacity, the decision tree, and also the goals and metrics. If you work across, you'll see there's the following tasks. The tasks in purple are are staff driven. As far as project development, we start out front with two parallel tasks the project identification. The program goals and metrics will be developed at the end of that second task, we'll come back to council and present the goals and metrics and have them finalized the next task, as you see, will be the prioritization matrix, which I said is a new tenet that we're having now. We'll develop that and then come to council to show the prioritization tree that will be used to rank the projects. If [12:03:45 PM] used to rank the projects. If you look farther down that, you'll see that we'll also at that time frame will determine delivery capacity evaluation and present our recommendations for the delivery capacity that we have determined projects will be scored and ranked, and staff will make a recommendation. And then bond capacity evaluation will also be given for all decision criterias. I'll end the first phase after 12 months. We'll move into the second phase, which is project selection. That will be community input and project list determination. The deliverables for this phase will be a staff recommendation and a task force recommendation. Decisions will be the bond size project list and call for elections. If you look across as you can see, a city advisory task force is usually or is recommended to be established about 1010 months in and that will be through the 15th month. At the end of that, they'll have a task force resume recommendation. Coinciding with that, staff will present the recommendations to the task force and then work with them, and then at the end, provide a staff recommendation. Usually [12:04:46 PM] staff recommendation. Usually those two are similar, but there can also be there can all be some differences, but we'll give both those to council. Then you all will have the opportunity to approve the list and then propose, the set, the council, the call for election. The last phase is the delivery preparation and I think speaks for itself. It's pretty much is what we want to do is we said we're meshing program development and delivery. So instead of waiting until a positive vote, there are certain things we can do. Staff will prepare for implementation such as working with procurement to set up contracts and things ready to go. Solicitation Ann. So after a positive vote, we can go directly to that. And also we'll start establishing performance baseline and that will be presented to council, one of the first items out so that you can see that as we go forward, one of the other things in here that's not listed is that we're going to lean forward. As we said before, one of the problems that we had with bonds before is that we spent the first year or two trying to get everything set up. This case will be ready to go and be able to be in design within the first six months. They'll be contracts coming to you shortly after the positive bond approvals to set the framework for us to be [12:05:47 PM] the framework for us to be successful so we can deliver on time and on budget. That's enough numbers and charts. Now I open it up to any questions that you have. >> Thanks, Mr. Snow, council member Ryan alter, I was curious about when we look at the comprehensive bond program, and this was in a, a presentation that auto finance received, it broke that down into each category. >> You know, some of the departments have really spent through their bonds and others are way behind. So I was wondering if you could, if you have that information available, just kind of speak through. I don't need the exact numbers, but remind us which departments have pretty much used up their bonds from the 2018 program and which ones are behind. >> Well, our initial analysis of the outstanding debt that Kim referred to, majority of the most outstanding debt is with mobility projects. The other projects as far as parks, libraries, cultural centers, all look like that. They'll be, be out of funds or have expended the funds by 2026, which be [12:06:48 PM] the funds by 2026, which be perfect time for the for the proposition. That's one of the things we looked at. But but we've analysis each one of them and working through them. But, you know, I hope that answers your question. >> Well, it does, except when we receive the briefing in audit and finance as it relates to specifically, they told us they only had a couple million dollars left and could barely get through 2024. So I'm just curious how your description matches their description. >> Council member, we can pull that information. I can't recall right off the top of my head, the park spending, but also note that with the financial policies , it's not department specific where we're having to look at our overall obligations, but we can certainly pull the information on a prop by prop basis. >> And when you in this presentation, you provide that red line of where we're going in most of them, the red line stops around 90 ish percent. Does that are we saying it's closed out at 90% or like I'm looking at the [12:07:50 PM] 90% or like I'm looking at the 2018 and in 2028 it's at like 91. Or is there still spending beyond that. >> Or we typically consider that substantially complete, because there may be when you're completing a project out, there may be some warranty phase things where there might be some, funds encumbered, relative to just minor close out things. So but we, we look at the substantially complete kind of component and remind me the affordable housing bond prior to 2022 was in 2016. >> There were funds in the. >> One moment. Sure it is. >> The failed. There was a failed election in 20 1412 1212. And then then we came back the next year up in 13. >> Yes, I remember the justification in 2022 is that we were out early, and so I couldn't remember the 360 million before Shaw, I think it was 319, 350. I get all my three hundreds mixed up, in these bond [12:08:51 PM] hundreds mixed up, in these bond packages. But, the well, I'll let you answer that question then. I have a follow up on that. >> Yeah. >> So there was, there were funds included in 2006 was the first time we ever had affordable housing bonds. There was a proposition for 78.3 million included in the 2012 proposition, program, but that was voted down in 2013, we went back to the voters for a $65 million affordable housing prop, which passed, and then since then, there were funds in 2018 and then additional funds in 2022. >> Okay, and so when we think about various bond programs, it seems like our or our transportation related bonds are the one or bond programs are the ones that are taking the longest. But some of the others, affordable housing, for instance, you know, the justification in 22 was that we were out earlier than we thought it might be, you know, we had that same presentation as relates to parks. Is there a feature for what bond programs [12:09:52 PM] feature for what bond programs move much quicker, you know why transportation is so different than some of these other programs? >> As Kim alluded, we had realistically three bond programs, cycles worth of money given to mobility projects in 16, 18 and 20, which became a delivery capacity issue. Also in 16, the call for election. We did not give enough time for project bond development, so a lot of them had to spend the first two years actually scoping them and putting that together, and then in deciding how the capacity would be used. So again, like I said, that that was one of the things we're trying not to do anymore. Have the single propositions come back to a comprehensive approach so that all of them can be moved forward at the same time, also, some of the, parks projects compared to the mobility projects were smaller scale, so they can get early out very quickly where the some of the mobility projects were larger in scale. So that takes a lot more as far as design and [12:10:52 PM] as far as design and coordination of delivering that design. >> And for those types of projects, I my understanding is to some degree, because some of it's just land acquisition that that that element of a bond package really moves much quicker because you're not building something, right. You're just buying a piece of property that it varies. >> It just varies from project to project. And what you're building. I mean, certain things are done in the right of way with mobility. So we don't need to purchase land. Sometimes it depends on if we're doing reconfigurations. It's truly a project by project basis. As far as we're being built and where the outcomes we're trying to achieve. >> Sure. So when we talk about our financial policies and we had this discussion, I can't even remember when. And we said, next time we talked about it, we were going to talk about all our financial policies as it relates to this. You know, I, I appreciate what you have put in here, I think it's there is a broader picture, a little bit that is not being included, and that is that we do have some financial policies within the [12:11:54 PM] financial policies within the bond space, particularly our, financial policy. Number one, as it relates to, the ratio of our bond indebtedness, to, it's that that state 10% number, our 2% number. And being slightly below 1. So it's not all doom and gloom. I'm not saying that that the analysis is, you know, there are there are others that might be in in conflict is essentially what I'm trying to get at. Right. We have some bond policies that say it's okay right now. We have other bond policies that say, no, no, no, right. >> So the financial policy you're speaking to is the ratio of net debt to total assessed valuation. And you are correct, I so it shall not exceed 2. And we are in compliance. But it's an actual it's not a factor that the ring agencies really look at. So we're actually in the process of doing a more comprehensive look at our when it comes to our, our bond [12:12:54 PM] it comes to our, our bond program related financial policies, looking at those related to the most current criteria for our rating agencies to make sure that we're kind of in alignment. So that could be one that changes in the future. But that's a to be determined at this point. >> Sure. And I'm glad you went there, because when I went to look at the rating agencies and, you know, the pieces that y'all pulled out, you know, certainly the more debt you have, the worse your rating is going to be. But in, you know, Fitch, for instance, they say that as it relates to our our debt that it is moderate and expected to increase, but still well within their range, of doing so and similar, you know, S&P says that we have this at that time, $1.8 billion in debt, and they say that, you know, even if Austin issues additional debt annually, because of our growth as a city, that will help offset that debt. [12:13:55 PM] that will help offset that debt. And so I don't want to discount the fact that, of course, more debt equals that. But but there is there is a range that the rating agencies have seemed to indicated that we are comfortably within. And so as we think about whatever debt we take on as a city now in, in the future, you know, I don't want to feel like the sky is necessarily falling. And I know that's your job is to keep us at a very strong financial position . But I feel like we have to kind of consider the whole I'm not suggesting the sky is falling by any means, but it's a it's a delicate balance, when we do our rating calls with the credit, the rating agencies each year, we definitely get, questions about the abuse, and a variety of the calls are extensive. The questions. So they look at a number of, of different criteria and, pfm, our financial advisor, we work with them closely to look at and try [12:14:55 PM] them closely to look at and try to do projections on where we might fall in the various criteria, as we're planning out our sales schedules and the sorts. So it's, it's there's art and science to it all for sure. >> Well, and I the reason I, you know, colleagues have asked me so many questions here is at our next work session, we are going to get an update about what staff is recommending bringing forward as it relates to the environmental investment plan and what capacity we have. And there, you know, I really appreciate y'all's work with, Zach and staff about, you know, looking at projects that aren't going to go at the back of the line, but that could plug in into gaps. Right. And so that we are able to spend concurrently and not just have more debt that goes unspent out, and so I really appreciate y'all's working with them to, to help us figure that out. So that is all. I'll, I'll, thank you. >> Thank you. Council member, council member. Ellis. >> Thank you. I had a question [12:15:56 PM] >> Thank you. I had a question about how some of the financials are presented in the charts. There's a black line that says inception to date spending. Then there's a red line that says projected inception to date spending. Can you tell me what that looks like for precisely this year? Is that a spending year to date versus what is budgeted? Is the red line, the forecast and the budgeting? Can you explain that to me? >> Right. So each year, the departments are expected to do an updated spending plan for all of their capital improvement program funds so that red line is taking into account, what has actually been spent. And then what is what is planned, going forward, so, and that inception to date is from the minute it was appropriated to now. >> Okay. So by the end of fiscal year 2024, will we be at the red line, which which year are you looking at? I'm sorry. >> Let's look at the 2016 [12:16:57 PM] >> Let's look at the 2016 mobility bond just as an example. Okay I don't know if we need to pull that slide up. >> Can can you ask your question again I'm sorry. >> Yeah. >> So you can see in year 2024. Now let's go to 2016. Back one more. There we go. So right where it says 2024. There's a black line that goes up to 383.9 million. But there's a red line that is obviously a forecasted number that you know, is what is being expected to be spent in future years. Can you tell me why there is an overlap of the black and the red lines this year? >> Because they were developed, the spending plan was developed as part of the fy 24 budget development process, which is occurring in 23 or occurred in 23, so it was just basically the starting point. They were working from the starting point of the 23 actual spending to what's remaining. So that's why there's just there's a little [12:17:59 PM] there's just there's a little bit of overlap, just because simply the timing of when they're creating the projection, versus the actual spending. Okay. >> And so we are expected only to spend that lower amount, the 383.9 million, that that was the amount that once when we ran the last ran the numbers, that's how much they had spent. >> Okay. So there's the possibility of them spending much more. The summertime is when a lot of spending does occur, especially with mobility, type of projects. So if whether they will reach the 491 mark or not is to be determined. >> Okay. >> And I'm assuming it picks up in the summer because there's fewer cars on the road and you don't have the same rush hour traffic and things like, yes, okay, I wanted to make sure I was understanding that correctly. And then I also have a line about, where, you know, as we talk about these budgets and scoping and as they move throughout the years, are you finding there's specific hang ups that are causing delays in some of the project delivery? Is it a matter of, you know, [12:19:00 PM] it a matter of, you know, stormwater infrastructure and utility relocation? Is it availability of the tax dollars coming in? Is it workforce, crew ? You know, can you talk me through some of the difficulties with sticking on schedule? I think you hit them all. >> No. At the beginning, like we said, one of the biggest challenges was we didn't have well scoped plans and budgets and so we spent the first two years trying to get there. So that was one of the we also, as I mentioned, there's a risk register. We didn't have those to look at what potential risks are out there and how do we mitigate those so they don't have the impact. Obviously, over the last couple years we know we've had covid and we had, in 2023, had the great, inflation hit that happened. So certain things that came that were unplanned, we have been working since capital has been, you know, formed working with dsd. One of the things was permitting we, working with a dsd, we created, they created a capital permitting program just for the city. We've seen great leaps on that. Some some projects we're seeing 18 months to get a permit [12:20:01 PM] seeing 18 months to get a permit just because of reviews and other things like that to where now we're getting down to six months. What we did was we actually transitioned it to where it used to be, that they would not see the permit until the end. At 100. What we're doing now is bringing them in at the 30, 60, 90. So they're familiar with it so that when they get it at the 100, we've we've cut a lot of that out. And we continually work with them. We're looking at all different ways of how to shorten that, some of the large projects for like the convention center, the airport were actually, embedding individuals in there from dsd to help with permitting and such like that purchasing. We've created an integrated team approach on the large programs to do that. And then we're trying to do the same process here. The other thing, too, is with, as you see in this plan, is that we didn't really have a governance framework as established as we're trying to do. We do have, now action meetings, project reviews every month going through what happens sometimes is things, you know, project managers don't like to bring bad news. And then we look at and things that were, you know, molehills turned into mountains. So what we're doing now is on a monthly basis, [12:21:01 PM] now is on a monthly basis, meeting with the asset owners, the capital delivery team, permitting real estate procurement and say, what are those challenges that we can attack now instead of just waiting until it gets later, change the culture to say that, you know, bad news doesn't get better with age. Come in here, let's do it. And let's find solutions. And by taking that approach over the last year, we've seen significant changes in things. One of the things as far as spending, we just looked at the quarter two spending and we've increased spending by 11% in the public improvement bonds and 14% overall because we manage capital reserves, manages about $10 billion of the work. That's both Austin water, the airport convention center and mobile. And these public improvement bonds. But we're seeing it. It's a it's progression. It's not perfection as we go through it. But those those meetings have helped out a great deal. And out of those meetings we also separated or have monthly escalation meetings where if they get stuck, we escalate it to a meeting that's, now chaired by my deputy director to go in and say, okay, other assistant directors say, let's get to outcomes instead of just saying, this is how we [12:22:02 PM] just saying, this is how we always did it. And get some of the personalities out of it and saying, what can we do? Because sometimes it's just, having to look and say, does that make sense, one example is one of the mobility projects we looked at and said, well, we're not really losing. You know, we're it's a net gain of zero for impervious cover. But we had to walk through that and show them, because the first thing they said, well, you're changing it so obviously and go through the different things. And those meetings have been very helpful to because then staff really gets to talk and find out. And then we again, it's about outcomes and sometimes outputs and trying to make sure that we make the best decision possible and not hang ourselves up or put self-imposed obstacles. >> I really appreciate that strategic thinking, because I know there's been some moments where staff has come to us over the past few years to say we need assistance with permitting for the 2016 mobility bonds that we had tackled, project connect, making sure that those infrastructure projects can move through quickly. I think there was some, conflict in language around impervious cover and trying to, you know, add one lane of road and reading the code as if it were a house or a building of some sort. And so I, [12:23:04 PM] building of some sort. And so I, I think a lot of us on this dais are more than happy when those ideas come up to try to work through them and say, okay, how can we think really, creatively and strategically about this, but I do know that there have been conversations that I'm aware of, that talk about the difficulties in getting through some of the stormwater infrastructure and utility relocation, and I'm glad that this dais has taken some very active steps to, to try to work through some of those issues. So I did notice some of the, the less intense mobility projects may be easier to get out the door. Things like your your bike lanes, your urban trails, safe routes to school, those types of projects. And then we end up with the big massive corridor projects that take a lot more planning, a lot more person power to really get them done, and I also want to say, I know that we've had in increases in our minimum wage and how we do contracting and pricing in some of these capacities. And so I know there's a lot of work going on on staff's end to make sure that our contractors are paying [12:24:05 PM] that our contractors are paying good wages and making sure that they've got staff available to be able to submit these projects. I know there's a few in the pipeline right now in my district that are just they're just paused because the contractors are having a hard time finding the availability of workers to come and build the projects. And so anything we can do to think more creatively about unsticking those projects and making sure those get deployed on time, we're more than willing to have that conversation. >> Yeah, I'm glad you brought that up. Council member Ellis, about the staffing, and looking at the big projects that are soon to break ground, some of them about the same time making sure that we have the workforce trained and ready to go is a real concern of all of us here and elsewhere. I'm sure the county and private sector is looking at that as well. So so, that's definitely a work in progress. Yes >> And I will add, I realize I'm referencing projects that are under transportation and public works, but I know you know that [12:25:05 PM] works, but I know you know that the same styles of contracts and the same styles of some of the quicker deployed projects are seeing some of the same issues. But I realize you're now capital delivery, and that is an entirely different, different way of formatting these projects . >> Well, thank you both, I think, yes. Okay. It looks like council member Bella to close the when you mentioned that the comprehensive approach, what does that mean exactly? >> Are we talking about, for example, putting all of the bond projects together into one package? Or is it like per department, you know, how would we structure that? >> Usually it's structured by infrastructure. Okay. So a typical comprehensive bond has, mobility, drainage parks, public safety. And it's categorized like that. And, and libraries, it just all depends. That's usually a standard comprehensive package. So it's as I mentioned before, we've had a lot of single issue property additions like just mobility. So in this case what we're doing is more [12:26:05 PM] case what we're doing is more comprehensive approach to the city's infrastructure, making sure that we look at that also in this case too, with being able to do that, we can also look at, as I mentioned, dig once opportunities where we've been lucky that we actually, you know, own our, our utilities as far as water. And so we've already started working with them to say, are there opportunities to, to either put lines underground, do other work while we're there in the neighborhood? And because I know all the neighborhood sees is the city seal, they don't see which department's underneath it. So we're trying to do is not just have a continuous work in a in a area of the city and but but what that mean then again, from, let's say the voters perspective, one big package that is voted on or just it'll be it'll be individual propositions. Okay. So let's say they say it's a half $1 billion bond. They might say prop one is 100 million. Prop two is 50 million. It'll each prop will have a value to it. And the overall program and then the overall program total. But as Kim alluded to in the past, you [12:27:05 PM] Kim alluded to in the past, you know, each prop stands on its own. So one might be voted in, one might vote, may not voted for. >> Okay. >> And but I guess then then again, just trying to think of the comprehensive approach and what it means, what it they're interacting with each other and kind of planning with each other on a comprehensively. That's where, and with regard to the, the six year cycle, I guess the idea would be that each department or infrastructure area would have kind of a six year spending plan for their infrastructure projects. >> Yes, as Kim alluded to, every year we do a spending plan. It's a five year capital program. You show show that so you would see that as far as the spending over a five years. But, but with that six year cycle, you'll see projects start and finish, maybe some earlier. The idea is by the end of the six year cycle, everything is complete and we're ready to start it again, essentially. Right. As I mentioned, one of the tenets is current bond program. So there [12:28:05 PM] current bond program. So there might be projects that are ready to go into construction but just don't have the money. So we put that in so we can complete it. So just it's a varied approach. >> And then with regard to the debt, the total debt levels, I know we're going to have a gap now. Well, again, unsure what's going to happen in 24, but assuming that we don't have a bond in 24, how much would we have reduced our total debt between 22 and a 26? Or you know what I mean. In other words, like taking a break like that, how does that affect, our, our overall kind of debt levels? >> Well, if you look at the, the spending plan charts, we that's where we're really basing that recommendation of 26, because all of the existing bond programs show spending that either is ending in 27 or 28. So by putting us at a 26 election, that puts us in that two year time frame of so it doesn't like I can't speak right off the top of my head to what that turns into from an authorized but unissued drawdown, I would need to get back with my with Belinda, my treasurer, who, on that sales schedule. But it [12:29:06 PM] that sales schedule. But it would get us in compliance with our financial policies by waiting until the 2026 time frame, but also does allow for that spent continued spending and also waste in capacity is not only just from a dollar perspective, it's also from the staffing perspective. And as well. >> So and then last question, with regard to the 2016 mobility bond, then I mean, again, I'm just trying to summarize here, but what I'm what I'm hearing is that and there were some good presentations with regard to some of the corridors and the problems that we're having. North Lamar jumps out as, as one that that we have not really been able to move on. Yet, I guess we, we set that program without understood funding. How difficult and complex those projects were going to be, or for that matter, how much they were necessary going to, to cost. I mean, is that a fair characterization? Asian? Yes. Yeah. Any other just thoughts on again, just thinking about because I really liked the 2016 I the approach of saying that [12:30:07 PM] I the approach of saying that these are the corridors, we're identifying them where we want to fix them, we want to improve them. Unfortunately, you know, conceptually it was good. We just have not been able to get it done. >> You know, councilmember, you you alluded to the point I started with is that we're bringing concepts, not projects. So specifically in the corridor took the first two years just to figure out what that was. We said, here are corridors. There was not really any scoping of and consider these things in it, but those corridors were long complex. And going through that, that the first two years was just trying to figure out what's in the corridor and what we can do and putting together work packages. And, you know, with that two year span, then we've used two of the six years of that case, it was eight years already trying to get that going and then trying to move things forward. And then there's always competing interests during that time. >> But I understand it. >> Very helpful presentation really appreciate it. >> Thanks. >> Councilmember vela, I hope that when we move forward in, from here up to 2026, that staff will be doing the necessary [12:31:09 PM] will be doing the necessary spade work, if you will, to get projects far enough defined and so that when they're offered to the citizen advisory bond committee, which I think is really important to have, that we need that community buy in at the front end, and for us here who are making the decisions on how much and which departments, which projects that we know enough to know that if it's not exactly shovel ready, it's close enough so that we don't find ourselves in the situation where we picked a number out of the sky, it felt like at the time, and I was here for that. It felt like a number was picked and then it was backfilled. Well, okay, we're going to do all these things, but nobody did. The assessment and the analysis, this with the rationale behind it to say, well, yes, that amount is correct. And yes, we can do that amount of work in this period of time. And then we came back two years later and did it again and two years later and did it yet, you know, so we [12:32:09 PM] and did it yet, you know, so we got this kordian got squeezed way down without giving our professional staff and our financial staff and our public works staff, the capital delivery staff, the opportunity to, to tell us what we could actually accomplish in a reasonable period of time. And that's really what the public is looking for. If they're going to vote for something, then in their head it's going to happen. And they want to know that it's going to happen. Then they want to see it. And we haven't been able to deliver. And I am just really, really hoping that we can get back to the rational approach, so that we can deliver what we, what we say we're going to deliver. I think that's it for this topic. And I think that is it. City manager for this meeting. All right. Then I will call us adjourned at 12:32 P.M. Thank you everybody.