City Council Work Session Transcript – 2/11/2025 Title: ATXN-1 (24hr) Channel: 1 - ATXN-1 Recorded On: 2/11/2025 6:00:00AM Original Air Date: 2/11/2025 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. [9:01:08 AM] Well good morning everybody. I'll call to order the work session of the Austin city council at 9:00 a M. It's Tuesday, February 11th, 2025. We are meeting in the city council chambers, which are located at city hall, 301 west second street in Austin, Texas. And we have a quorum of the Austin city council present. Members. The order that I thought we would go in today is we will first go to item b1, which is the briefing, and then we will take up the pre-selected agenda item, the one that's been pulled. With that being said, I'll turn to the manager and we'll look for a briefing on the. Development regulations. >> Thank you mayor. Let's have the team as well as the assistant city manager, Veronica Pio will start us out. >> Good morning. Mayor and council, Veronica Briseno, assistant city manager. We are here today to brief you on residential site plan development updates, also known as site plan lite and infill plat site plan light began its [9:02:09 AM] plat site plan light began its journey as a resolution in December 2022, directing staff to review regulations that apply to missing middle housing projects. The infill plat resolution was approved in may of 2023 to review subdivision related changes and promote a streamlined subdivision process for infill lots. Since then, staff has engaged extensively in community with the community. To arrive at our proposal. We are excited to take this to the finish line and present to you here today. Presenting on behalf of staff will be Keith Mars, our assistant director, development services, and Jorge Moralez, our director at watershed protections. I will turn it over to Keith. Thank you. >> Morning. Mayor and council, [9:03:15 AM] >> Morning. Mayor and council, Keith Meyer, assistant director, development services department, joined by my colleague Jorge morales, the director of watershed protection. We'll run through the staff presentation for this work session on the infill ordinance. You've heard it by different names over time. Site plan, light, residential infill. It's all the same. We're trying to. >> We've all called it something. >> Thank you sir. >> Under some of them. I appreciate your leaving out. >> Brevity is hopefully one of my strong suits here. So we're going to run through going back in time. What was the purpose of these resolutions and subsequent ordinances in front of you or ordinance in front of you? The timeline and the engagement that we've had with with stakeholders and our community at large, the council direction specifics, the staff recommendation, and then, of course, questions and answers. So again, this is the staff briefing on our recommendation for streamlined land development code [9:04:16 AM] land development code regulations that are for projects within existing neighborhoods that are scaled for existing lots. A better way of saying that is that this is residential infill. This is existing communities, existing neighborhoods. And how do we have context sensitive redevelopment in these areas? This has been in the hopper for some time. We've had seven community and stakeholder engagement since 2023. Countless informal meetings with with community and stakeholder engagements during that time. The planning commission first heard this in August of 2024, deliberated this item, and then made a recommendation in December of 2024. This item is up for your adoption this Thursday, February 13th. So the these infill. This infill ordinance originates from two council resolutions, 1 in 2022 and 1 in 2023. And we're really focused on two types of [9:05:17 AM] focused on two types of residential development. One is for site plan. So site plan today gets triggered from if you're building five unit or you're building 500 units. It is all a site plan. Getting back to the idea of appropriate scale of regulations. This proposal is for missing middle housing for 5 to 16 units. You have previously seen the site plan lite part one, which was for 3 or 4 units, and those are now going straight to residential review. This is from 5 to 16 units. To differentiate that infill development from a larger scale development, primarily from the regulations and also the administrative rules that are right sized or scaled to that type of project in conjunction with that is also the subdivision process. You're laying out your lots, you're putting in your easements, you are setting out entitlements for [9:06:17 AM] are setting out entitlements for the future. That is the subdivision process. Again, currently, that approach is largely considering or contemplating Greenfield development. What I mean by that is raw land, undeveloped unplatted. This is the approach or the recommendation to right size and scale those regulations to re subdividing land within existing residential neighborhoods. Simply put, how do you take existing lots and subdivide them into multiple lots? Again, this has been in in contemplation in the works since 2023. During that time, the staff recommendations based on community feedback, stakeholder feedback have arrived where we are today, which we believe we have a staff proposal that accomplishes a number of things. First and foremost is that being sensitive to residential infill redevelopment, along with making [9:07:19 AM] redevelopment, along with making sure that we have the appropriate safeguards in place for protecting the environment and public safety, that a code proposal that amends the city's drainage regulations that are scaled right sized to these type of projects, that may actually reduce the cost of construction by up to 40% for these, again, small scale residential projects, we'll go into the specifics of what those amendments are. But in addition to that, we also recognize that both our community and those that are navigating the development process, they experience not just one part of the city's land development code, but the full code, along with the administrative rules of how those codes are implemented. So in that spirit, city staff have also committed to making changes to the administrative rules of rightsizing the connection for storm drain connections from these small scale projects, participation in the city's regional stormwater management program, right sizing [9:08:19 AM] management program, right sizing and right process for right of way dedication, along with greater flexibility on drainage calculations. Right timing, the drainage improvements, and exploring really creative ideas of modular detention and greater reliance on the on a private engineer that is stamping and sealing plans again in regards to drainage. I won't necessarily go through this one by one, but the part of the purpose of this slide is if you view this as a point in time of left to right, this is how this has changed from what has been in current code for a long time to the initial staff proposal. A year and a half of again, community feedback, stakeholder feedback, those that are directly going through the development process and those that are community that are affected by the development process to arrive at the staff final recommendation, [9:09:21 AM] the staff final recommendation, I'll break this down into the subdivision process and then we'll go into the site plan process again. Site plan meaning in this instance 5 to 16 units. So the current and the current proposal that's before you from staff is really divides the subdivision process into smaller scale subdivisions. Those that are less than that are 11,500ft S or less. And the proposal is that drainage requirements still apply. There is no review for it. The purpose of that is that that those plans are being stamped and signed by professional engineer, where that that have obligations for both lot to lot drainage and then also drainage out into the right of way. Once we start getting to larger infill subdivisions is when we're trying to also rightsize those regulations that if we're able to look at the drainage of that site, and if that site is able to drain out to the city right [9:10:22 AM] to drain out to the city right of way for the city to take on that from a more holistic perspective, that is one of the proposals that we're making that is in that is different than today. Today is on site detention for that stormwater and or participation in the city's regional program. There's also a commitment to 90 day turnaround. Current code does require 90 day turnaround by subdivision. Subdivision is largely controlled by by state law, what we call the shot clock bill. But this also helps us streamline the process such that we're making that commitment to get to those timelines. Moving on to the site plan process again, 5 to 16 units is the boundaries that we're working on here. That again, that is right sizing those regulations similar to the residential subdivision process. We're looking at the same type of recommendation. This is really about a drainage plan, a grading plan of can you [9:11:23 AM] plan, a grading plan of can you drain those properties out to public infrastructure in existing detention facility, existing right of way with curb and inlet that the we're able to take these smaller lots, and then the city systems are able to capture that drainage. We are also taking these projects through the what's called a small project development process. We're going into a little bit of the site plan process that is faster turnaround on review timelines. It is a more limited review. There's not notice for these small projects. Again, making that distinction between ten units and 500 units, both in terms of the intensity of development, but then also right sizing it to a neighborhood scale context. A five unit project is much more akin to the three and four unit than it is to 500 unit, and we're trying to find that balance and move it more back towards right sizing regulations and process. That's [9:12:26 AM] regulations and process. That's more commiserate with the actual scale of development. A really exciting part of this is the opportunity for impact of these of this ordinance, 80% of home eligible lots. So we're talking about sf one, two and three are less than that 11,500ft S. I'll say it again, that means that 80% of those of lots are eligible to participate in that more streamlined subdivision process. And for 5 to 16 unit the site plan, part of this 90% of lots that have zoning that allow that type of development. So we're really talking about sf five six and then mf one, two and three rephrase this single family just to make sure I'm not using acronyms here. Single family five. Single family six mf stands for multifamily. That type of missing middle development 90% of the lots in [9:13:28 AM] development 90% of the lots in the cities with that type of zoning are less than one acre, so they would be eligible to participate in this more streamlined code and administrative rule process. You couple that with making these eligible for small project as a process. Then we're looking at both process and regulations that are more scaled to that type of development. Should this ordinance be adopted. Here are some of the outcomes that we're expecting to see is that we do believe again, this has been in the works for going on two years, that through this iterative process, we're delivering the staff proposal that is scaled to residential infill, that the code and the administrative rules are scaled to existing residential neighborhoods. Context sensitive redevelopment. We've not done this in isolation. We have looked at our peer Texas cities, what has worked well, what has [9:14:29 AM] what has worked well, what has not worked well, and that this proposal aligns with cities both from a policy perspective, but also what are their own considerations with with flooding, with context sensitive redevelopment. And this proposal aligns with those peer cities. This also greatly expands the opportunity for both the development community but also existing property owners. How do we make the process, both the process and the regulations, more accessible to our everyday citizens? In this community? We also recognize that time and certainty around time is a key component of the development process. For both of these, we are committing to a 90 day time to permit with a streamlined process. And just as important is continuing the good work that we have done now for two years of making the process accessible to all austinites. It is avoiding the jargon. It is avoid [9:15:31 AM] avoiding the jargon. It is avoid the acronyms. It is forms and process that is understandable to our community so that there are that we reduce the barriers to participating in this, that it could be your next door neighbor that has interest in in subdividing land and keeping the property in the family all the way to someone that is simply interested, or is a developer that is putting homes on the ground. We need to make this process accessible to everyone, and that means commitment to timelines and commitment to the good work that's been done. On streamlining the process. And with that said, my colleague and I are here for any questions that you may have and thank you for the opportunity to present. >> Thank you. Good presentation. For the record, members, there's no one signed up to speak on this item, but I'll go ahead and ask the city clerk to verify that. >> That's correct, mayor. >> And for that matter, there's no one signed up to speak on any item on the agenda today, correct? All right. With that, [9:16:32 AM] correct? All right. With that, members, are there questions or comments? Yes. Councilmember harper- madison. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you for the presentation, I appreciate it. I hate that I missed a portion of it. You mentioned earlier an expression that I hadn't heard yet when it comes to it was specifically about drainage and on site retention. You said something about right timing. I understand right sizing. Can you go into right timing as a concept and give me an example on where it's applied? >> Yes. Council member, and happy to defer to my. Okay, so on the process matter at the time of subdividing subdividing land, oftentimes we're we don't know where buildings are going. We don't we don't know where the roof lines are, where drainage is being directed. Sometimes that is more can be more appropriate to look at at a later stage of when, say, at the time of building permit, where that's where buildings are being proposed. Grading is a good [9:17:34 AM] proposed. Grading is a good example of that. So one of our proposals is looking at a grading plan and making sure that drainage is being directed to the street. So when it actually comes time to construct those homes that we that both from a city perspective, ensuring public safety, but then also from a clear expectations in the development world that drainage is actually going out to the right of way. >> Gotcha. Thank you, I appreciate that. Then the other question I had was also regarding drainage. It says, oh, so you said we would defer to the expertise of the engineers, in which case there would be no review process for some component. And so we defer to the professional engineers, which I appreciate from a procedural process consideration. What I'm thinking, though, is where else could we apply that practice so that we can sort of overcome [9:18:35 AM] that we can sort of overcome some barriers by way of timing? >> Are you council member? Are you referring to other, other permitting processes? >> I am. >> Okay, want to speak to that? >> Sure. So there are instances where we do have both third party work, but then we also have deference to the professional engineer that is stamping plants the same way with with stamped surveys. It is something that we are taking a greater look at, especially on these lot to lot issues. Where there is there is professional obligations, there are professional liabilities that are associated with putting that stamping plans of this is a this is a big shift conceptually for the city. We are looking at other areas of where to expand this. One of the initiatives from transforming site plan was looking at where are there greater opportunities for that, that essentially [9:19:35 AM] that essentially self-certification, where there's the actual obligations and. Where that responsibility lies with that individual stamping plans? >> I really appreciate that you guys are thinking along those lines, because I think it's one of those opportunities for us to get out of our own way, if you know what I mean. You know, I'm no stranger to saying, just generally speaking, we're really blessed and fortunate to have such expertise in-house, but then also have the opportunity to go through a neutral third party. And I just would love for us to take every possible opportunity to circumvent barriers and extensions and time on projects. Watching progress in my neighborhood, even, you know, with projects that just languish, waiting throughout that permitting process and having direct access to these small infill developers because they're my neighbors and watching their projects take so long. Anecdotally, I have an example of how long process has taken, if we can, you know, offer some mitigation there. I'm [9:20:36 AM] offer some mitigation there. I'm into it. So I think that's a further conversation that I hope we can bring to the housing and planning committee and vet out some opportunities to reduce the need for council to intervene throughout process. I don't think process should necessarily be deferred to council so frequently. And then the last question I had was you made reference to another term. I'm not familiar with modular retention. >> So this this policy, as we're shifting it, we're trying to minimize the number of small ponds that we have in the community. The builders don't. It adds cost to it. It adds requirements for the city to regulate and maintain those as well. And so it gives more flexibility to the home builders that are building these missing middles to have more flexibility in how they design it. Once again, shifting, as Keith just talked about, from having some of the regulatory on drainage up front, when we're just drawing [9:21:37 AM] front, when we're just drawing lines and dividing lots to when you know what you're going to build, it creates more flexibility and agility for those that are going to develop these sites. >> I appreciate that, and for what it's worth, you know, you keep making you guys have both made reference to public safety as a consideration with drainage. I assume it's about flooding mitigation, but it just occurred to me when you said the thing about ponds, I'm certain if the city is obligated for maintenance there, there's some additional like drowning liability that just occurred to me right now, oddly. And then my last question was relevant to I appreciated your last statement about community involvement in these discussions. It's been kind of a highlight along the way, and I still haven't figured out how to get beyond, you know, having relatively obscure subject matter be what untrained community members need to weigh in on and efficacy and, you know, actually making progress [9:22:39 AM] know, actually making progress in these conversations. So like towards the end, you said something about streamlining process. Streamlining process sends up people's spidey senses, and then they go, well, you're just trying to push this through, is what they heard when you say streamlining process. But it's like we need to reverse engineer the discussion when we include community members, because we have to start at why the process is so complex and complicated and get them to piece apart the juggernaut on this end with recognizing the need for streamlining and what it actually indicates. You know, it's that whole concept of without enough information, people make up monsters in the dark, and then community engagement, outreach, inclusion becomes a barrier to timely progress. To your point about timelines. And so I just think, generally speaking, as a municipality, we have to have a better way to include and involve community members. That includes sort of people learning about the subject matter along the way, but also recognizing we [9:23:39 AM] the way, but also recognizing we do get the opportunity to trust in and defer to the process and the professionals. I don't personally plan to take the next 14 years to become a land use expert, but there are people in the room that were so who already did it and are doing it, and are doing continuing education and, you know, monitoring trends and best practices with peer cities. And so I think more inclusion on the front end that feels genuine. And where people are recognizing like, this is my Laine this is enough for me to understand how to contribute with advocacy for my neighborhood, you know, in a way that's informed. But I also recognize when I'm over my skis, you know, and I need to defer to the professionals, people I think are more inclined to do that when they trust us and the trust we have to build. And so I really appreciate that you guys are thinking along those lines, because more and more it's going to become so increasingly important that community members are really a part of that stakeholder group, because we can't do it without their [9:24:39 AM] can't do it without their inclusion and participation in developing complete communities. If we're working in alignment with our imagined Austin and other goals. So thank you. Thanks, mayor. >> Thank you. Council member mayor pro tem Fuentes, followed by council member Ellis and council member alter. >> Thank you. Good morning. I really appreciate the thorough community stakeholder process that you all underwent. So I appreciate that involvement and the delay in providing us an updated, amended staff proposal. One of the questions I have, and one of the concerns I hear most frequently from southeast residents, is concerns around lot to lot flooding and that localized flooding and the impact that any changes in, in our regulations might have on it. Can you speak a little bit to how this amended staff proposal will maintain those protections against lot by lot flooding, as well as any additional strains on our drainage infrastructure? >> Thank you, mayor pro tem. And that's a great question. And to the other council members point earlier, the concerns we've [9:25:40 AM] earlier, the concerns we've heard from the community the most is the flooding. And it's not necessarily the creek flooding, but the localized flooding that occurs in some of the communities that may be the systems are inadequate, can't handle the runoff. And so what we did was this was a process improvement, right? Simplifying the process to expedite and streamline it. But nothing's been changed as you all adopted home one and home two, the impervious cover, which really dictates the runoff and the impacts to the drainage system, was not modified. Right. And so the impacts of adding more units on single family lots or subdividing these lots to smaller units is being addressed already in the engineering as far as so it's not going to make it worse than we may already have some communities that have some flooding situations, so that is incumbent on the watershed protection department. That is our mission to protect properties and lives from flooding. And so we do have capital improvement program that we evaluate our systems, and we have done a great job over the many years of collecting data to make sure we understand our assets, our storm systems, making sure that we're continuing to make improvements where needed. So these changes [9:26:40 AM] where needed. So these changes are really streamlining the process, helping to achieve the affordability that we're looking for, and adding more units, but not necessarily exacerbating what's already there. And so the lot to lot is a situation that occurs. And unfortunately, sometimes it's because somebody makes an improvement on their individual property. It's a private matter between the two. And so that's why as part of this process, we were very careful to make sure that we put some checks and balances there. And having an engineer on these larger units be able to provide a certification that it's not going to cause. That is reassurance that I think it's going to be incorporated into the process, the localized flooding, once again, those we are aware of and we're actually doing many modeling, as many of you are aware, through the changes in climate, we've added more intensity into our rainfalls in the modeling. So we're updating all our floodplain maps. We're also updating the maps for localized flooding so we can be more aware. And that project is already ongoing. And as more information comes out, we'll be continuing to share that with the community. But we hear that [9:27:40 AM] the community. But we hear that concern loud and clear, and we're going to make sure that we have checks and balances in the process, even as whatever policy gets moved forward, we're going to have evaluation to make sure that we're keeping an eye on that. >> Very good. Thank you. Director morales. As you know, that is a top of mind for us. Austin is known as flash flood alley. So mitigating flood risk and reducing that exposure is important. So I really appreciate your comments. The last question I have is can you talk us through what type of impact this would have on the smp fund, the regional stormwater management program? >> That's a great question. So the regional stormwater management program has been around for over 30 years. It's a way that we do to help provide relief where we can put the larger ponds. And a lot of these areas that we're focusing on. There is not the property for some of these, and these are smaller lots. And so cost and affordability is a big concern as well. And so what we've done in this process is simplify the rsvp process. So the RCMP process already required the engineers. So we incorporated that into this process. But we're simplifying it by not also [9:28:42 AM] we're simplifying it by not also having all those fees incorporated. Because the fees associated with rsvp can also add cost to the development of a single unit or smaller units. And so the department will continue to assess the needs and address it through the drainage utility fund or through the bond work that we do for our capital improvement program. >> So just want to underscore that part, because, you know, the collection of fees into this fund does have an impact on how we're able to acquire land and, you know, improve our drainage infrastructure. So one way that we really need to ensure that we're thinking about robustly and comprehensively is in the next bond package to ensure that we go out for a bond that is significant and substantial for drainage improvement. Would that be fair to say? >> That's correct, because the fees that we collect for the regional stormwater management program is based on watershed. And so, relatively speaking, it's not significant enough. So some of these are large scale bond projects that we need to do. And so we will be representing some of those through the process. >> Good deal. Thank you. >> Thanks. Mayor pro tem council [9:29:42 AM] >> Thanks. Mayor pro tem council member Ellis, followed by council member alter and then council member duchen. >> Thank you for the recognition, mayor. Very exciting to be here today. I know a ton of work has gone into this proposal. When we first brought this a number of years ago, you know, the idea was how do we better activate the missing middle housing that is allowed within the community? Back then, the full site plan was required at three units. If I'm correct, I see. I see Keith Maher's nodding his head. Yes, and we were surprised that these triplex units were basically being asked to go to a full site plan, just like a large apartment complex. And so we got creative and said, how do we make sure that we are, you know, bringing these smaller developed units more in line with residential, which is why the three and four units is now treated that way. And then creating this site plan light to tackle the 5 to 16 unit conversation. And so the information that's been presented is great. I know there's been a lot of work to get us this far. And so I wanted [9:30:43 AM] get us this far. And so I wanted to just flag a couple of the ideas that I was still thinking about. I know there's been a lot of conversation about the exact appropriate threshold for some of these triggers, if you will, to make sure that we're setting those in the right place to achieve the goal and still maintain the appropriate public safety. As you mentioned, I've also been thinking about this regional approach to drainage. I know this was an idea that had been brought to my attention number of years ago by a city staffer that is no longer with the city, but had great expertise that they were able to provide to me. And it was the idea that not every person who's developing a small lot necessarily has the money and the knowledge to be able to, to go through this process and to tackle it lot by lot. And so I still may have some questions as we move through this about how we can better team up and how neighborhoods that are more impacted can have different ways to participate in this. That is, [9:31:43 AM] to participate in this. That is, you know, a better resource to pool money and get a bigger bang for our buck to be able to support these, these parts of town. So that's something that's definitely on my mind. And I think that can help with the localized flooding conversation that the mayor pro tem has been talking about, because I know a number of our districts have these, and I also wanted to flag the concept of deferring to an engineer to be able to stamp these drainage plans, I think, is a really creative move. The state of Texas does license a lot of these professional skill sets. Interior designers, land surveyors, engineers. And that is, I think, a good way to leverage the safety guidelines that the state already uses as far as filing complaints or potentially revoking licenses. If someone is not upholding the professional standards that those licensing entities require, geoscientists have to be licensed as well. Like there's just a lot of work in this, in this field that already has very high standards for [9:32:43 AM] has very high standards for professional, you know, education and making sure that they're doing things that are responsible for the community. And so I just wanted to flag those couple of conversations. I know that we were just given a lot of this information on Friday comprehensively. A lot of us have been following the bits and pieces over the years, but wanted to make sure that people have enough time to answer questions from their constituents, or for us to have a couple of these more detailed conversations. And so I'm going to do my best to have these things ready by Thursday. But just wanted to flag that if I feel like we're not quite there and it needs just a little bit of breathing room, I'm the last person that wants another postponement on this, but I want to make sure that we really get it right because you all have been so collaborative and the stakeholders have put so much work into that. So I don't know that I have any questions, but just wanted to highlight kind of where I'm at with the process and say, my thanks for everyone working so hard on on this issue. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Councilmember, councilmember alter then council member duchen. >> Thank you very much. Mayor. I wanted to pick up on a couple of [9:33:43 AM] wanted to pick up on a couple of the questions that the mayorpro tem asked about. Starting with the smp. So can you give us a general magnitude right now of how much we are collecting through the smp then to be exact? I'm just curious if you have any. >> That's a great question, council member. And I don't know if I have that information, but I'll ask my staff to get, so I'll get you that number shortly. >> I'm just curious to kind of really understand, you know, if we're anticipating a significant change through this program or if we think it's going to be more minor, you know, looking at how it's calculated. >> I could answer that part of the question. We did do an analysis to see what kind of impact it would be to reduce or eliminate the fees for this missing middle, and it was insignificant impact to the overall program. >> Insignificant, yes. Okay. Well, that's. >> But I can get back to you on the actual numbers for the entire program. >> Sure. And so that is that is very helpful. And I'm thinking [9:34:45 AM] very helpful. And I'm thinking about that in terms of then this threshold question of who gets to participate and who doesn't. And so right now under the proposal, if you're 11,500ft S, if you then let's say utilize this process and subdivided perfectly in half, you would have two lots that are 5750. Right. And so under home, under each of those lots, you'd be able to build up to three units on the lot. If, however, you are a lot that is 11,499, you don't have the opportunity to utilize or I mean, you still have the opportunity to utilize this process, but if you perfectly subdivide now you're sub 5750. And now on each of those lots, instead of being able to build [9:35:45 AM] instead of being able to build three units, you can only build one, right? So one square foot difference on the lot has gone from six units to two units. Because of this three threshold. And then looking at the opposite side, if you're 11,501, you don't get to utilize this process. So you're still at three. And so I'm wondering if maybe we shouldn't put some kind of buffer in there where we allow for, you know, maybe 12,000 or 12,500 just to give someone who doesn't have that goldilocks, 11,500 square foot lot the ability to participate and still take advantage of the benefits of participating, but might be on that wiggle room, is that I was I'm curious if that has come up or how y'all are thinking about that. >> That's a great question. So just to clarify what you're asking, you're asking to add [9:36:46 AM] asking, you're asking to add like a plus or minus percentage. If you're within this range, you're still within it versus drawing the line at exactly 11,500 square foot. >> Right? I mean, I guess in this case it will only be plus because if you're minus, you could still do it, but you just don't reap the benefits. And that's that's a different policy question that we have to tackle. But yeah, if you're 12,000 or 12,500, you know you're still within this ballpark. But we are making it. We're, you know, we're we're significantly changing the result through that perfect multiplier of two, if that makes sense. And to that end, I don't know, you know, you said you have 80, 80% would be able to go at 11,500. I don't know if y'all have any kind of stratification of lot sizes by, you know, thousands or five hundreds, but define what might be a natural break point if it is at 12,000 or 12,500, that just provides a little bit of that wiggle room within the lots that do exist within the city. >> As you stated. Council [9:37:46 AM] >> As you stated. Council member, you can subdivide that 5750 into three lots under home two. Right. And so I think we got to this number by being getting to that and drawing the line there and not going too far. So we just drew the line. But that's for the simplified process we still allow up to through the analysis and the engineer review, up to an acre and a half, we've incorporated that into the recommendations. But the simplified process that doesn't require submitting certain of the drainage information, we kept that at that number just from a comfort. But yes, you're right, the number can move up more than likely. Okay. But that's where we drew the line. >> And I'm curious too, as we look at where we are drawing lines, if there is some middle ground where you have whatever that number is, whether it's 11,500 or, you know, some fudge factor within there up to a certain number where you still getting the benefit of a very simplified process, but recognizing that you are going [9:38:50 AM] recognizing that you are going to have at that point some drainage impact. And so we still require you to pay into the smp, but you can still utilize the 90 day simple process. You know, I think there is kind of a I saw with, you know, planning commission did saying go all the way to an acre and a half. That's that's a lot. But going but keeping you know, whether you're either 11,500 or you're these big developments recognizing that there might be some kind of middle path. I'm wondering if there is a contribution to smp. You're still taking care of your drainage needs, but you get in the door for an easier process. And so hopefully we can follow up over the next couple of days about both those issues. >> I we will definitely follow up on that. To give you more specifics. We do feel we created an incremental threshold to be able to create that, you know, once again, 90 days is the key [9:39:50 AM] once again, 90 days is the key to success because we're going to simplify it. Right? Right. But once you go past 11,500, we actually have other processes that will allow that as well. Less complicated than the current process. Back to your question. Earlier staff did answer the overall funding for the sappi 630,000, and that's divided amongst all the watersheds. As I. >> Mentioned. >> That's a lot less than I had anticipated. >> No. >> No wonder why we need other. >> Yeah. Yes. >> Funding sources on the grading question, if I want to look at present. Present day not factoring this in. If I am a developer building let's say I'll go all the way. Three units on a lot. Do I have to grade to the street or can I grade to my neighbors? >> So the simple answer is getting it to the street or to the drainage easement is what [9:40:51 AM] the drainage easement is what we're requesting to keep it simple, right? Anything that goes into the lot requires more analysis, and in some cases, the larger subdivisions could require even some mitigation flood mitigation to make sure you're not flooding your neighbors. >> But if I'm not trying to subdivide, I'm just trying to. I own a lot. I want to take advantage of home. I want to build three units on my lot. So I'm not even going through a subdivision or any kind of I'm going straight to building permit. Am I allowed to grade to my neighbors, or do I have to grade to the street or drainage easement? >> Right. So. So currently if you just go straight to building permits, there is not a drainage review. That doesn't mean drainage regulations don't apply. So you still have that, you know, that can't flood the neighbor that that's going back to the professional engineering element that is that is still not allowed. There's just simply not a review for it. >> Got it. So an architect or an engineer would have to stamp saying, I'm not flooding my neighbor. Okay. And then in this regard, if you are foregoing, [9:41:51 AM] regard, if you are foregoing, you're taking advantage of this simplified process. It's essentially the same level of review. We're not it's basically as if we're going to a building permit. We're just trusting that professional to do it right. >> That's correct. >> Okay. And then when somebody does do their grading, is that a checked inspection. Is that part of any building inspection. >> Right now this is a novel idea, meaning that we currently don't have that type of process in place. So that the deference to professional engineer, along with focusing on water is here. Water needs to go there. It will be through a grading plan that's very different than a drainage analysis. It's about getting the water from point a to point B, so we will need to create process that. That is led by the policy decision okay. >> Switching gears a little bit, [9:42:54 AM] >> Switching gears a little bit, I wanted to ask about utilities, which we haven't talked about here today. Right now I know water wastewater lines cannot cross a lot line when we are talking about subdividing. That can create a really difficult scenario because those have to be a certain distance apart. And now if you're trying to, they can't cross each other, you know, there's a whole thing. Where are we on how we're thinking about utilities being able to cross lot lines. >> So during the subdivision process is really where this comes in. If you're looking at the small scale site plan, it's still going to be one lot. You're just doing multiple units on that one lot. For the re subdivision process, we have worked hand in hand with our utilities for thinking differently about this context sensitive infill redevelopment. A lot of it is setting up, setting everyone up for success at the time of subdivision. That means being realistic about easement easement locations. That means looking at where is it legal to cross lot lines, [9:43:54 AM] it legal to cross lot lines, what does that look like? And those that is still in works, but it is at the at the highest level of the utility elements of the one city of Austin of how do we address this kind of comprehensively and think differently about urban infill? >> Okay. >> I'm going to hate for us to do all this hard work that you all have done. And when it gets, you know, rubber meets the road. A developer says, well, it'd be great if I could subdivide this, but I still have this piping problem. And so I'm not going to take advantage because the city hasn't fixed that piece of it yet. >> Along with this, our our partners, for example, in the water utility, are looking at the service extension request process of how do we address that, maybe further upstream so that it provides greater level of certainty that you're not all the way into a project and then get maybe get a different answer than what's expected or a number that is that doesn't pencil out anymore. Being able to have that level of at least comfort and dialog ahead of the process is [9:44:56 AM] dialog ahead of the process is something that, that, that our, our partners are working on. >> Okay. >> Well very good. Thank you so much. >> Thank you. Councilmember. Councilmember duchen, followed by councilmember vela. >> Thank you for the presentation. I fear I'm coming into this a little late after all of the work that you all poured in, as well as a lot of partners and my colleagues up here. So if need be, just let me know if the answers to my questions require, you know, getting some data between now and Thursday or taking the conversation offline. But really, I'm just trying to figure out a couple of things. One is, to the extent that you're calculating some of the derived values that you listed in the backup, where do you get 34? You know, the cost savings of up to 30 to 40%. Is there specific data that you've got that you all looked at that you can share with me on that? >> Yes, sir. There is there is specific information. >> We can. >> Just be curious to, to understand exactly what the, you know, the quantifiable benefit would look like for different projects and people in the development community related to that point. And building on what [9:45:56 AM] that point. And building on what councilmember alter said. I'm also curious how you came up with the values for the sizes that are listed in the report. The acres, half acre, one and a half acre, I'm assuming. Again, that's based on an analysis you all ran. But if you can share that data with me, that'd be valuable too. >> Yes. >> Councilmember, that was based on the some of the policies that were approved already, but we'll provide that in the q&a response. >> And is there any way to also share, when you looked at the comparative data with the other cities, if what sizes there might be using as well. >> For that? Yes. >> We actually can share that information as well. >> Okay, that'd be great. And then the last thing is you list the 90 day approval process for site plans, which is based, you said, I think on a shot clock, a state law. Is that right. >> For the for the subdivision process? Yes. For site plan? No. >> Just out of curiosity. So what happens if a plan is denied in that process? Does that 90 day period reset? What happens there? Can you walk me through that? >> Yes. So the intention with this is setting, setting a [9:46:58 AM] this is setting, setting a target date. That development review development process is a two party process. So that's going to require the city staff to have streamlined process focus on deliverables and outcomes. But it also means that when there are areas of noncompliance that those plans are turned around quickly. That also means that we have for housing, for example, as part of again, transforming the site plan process, we have dedicated case management for we have an advocate for the process that is able to connect the different departments to help bend the curve on if there's a conflict between the utility matter and an easement location, that that issue is identified, that cures are addressed and is resolved with speed, but it's going to require us culturally to think of this as a partnership to deliver good outcomes for the city. So that's how that if all things if two parties are working well together and we're working with speed, 90 days is possible. >> And again, what happens if for some reason it's despite that collaboration it doesn't [9:48:00 AM] that collaboration it doesn't work. >> The plan is not approved? >> Okay. >> And then can they just resubmit a new plan in the 90 days resets? Is that how it works? >> At least initially, that that plan wouldn't expire. It is just trying to identify an intention to that. If an individual that that is not familiar with the development process here, that if someone comes in and says, I have a missing middle site plan and I want to know what's the timeline that we're all aiming for? Is it nine days, 90 days, nine years? We're able to say our goal is getting permit in hand in 90 days. That's that's we're setting that clear intention is what we're what we're aiming for. >> And as part of the way you're able to hopefully enhance how these are expedited through that process, connected to the 30 to 40% as much value. So when hopefully I can get that data, I'll be able to understand it better. Okay. Yes. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Councilmember. Councilmember vela. [9:49:01 AM] Councilmember vela. >> Thank you very much. Mayor. First, I wanted to thank council member Ellis for bringing the item. This is a really important item. If we really want to create that missing middle, a small scale housing developments, which people really want, they're very popular. You know, central city developments cost a little less than honestly, sometimes substantially less than, you know, your equivalent kind of single family home on a large single family lot. So again, just really appreciate her and her office's work on this and also appreciate I know how much you all have worked on it, but the, you know, possibility of a of a postponement, I know we're trying to kind of get our heads around it. I've got my head around the smaller kind of resubdivision stuff better than the mf1 mf2 sf5 sf6. I'm still learning on on that side of the process, but to start, I was for, for kind of comparison's sake and for the public sake, [9:50:03 AM] sake and for the public sake, what's the current rule with subdivision? And again, we're trying to kind of solve the what's the current rule if I'm going to let's say I have the magic 11,500 square foot lot, and I wanted to subdivide it under the current rules. What would that involve? >> So currently it means full drainage review and analysis. That is in addition to the private the stamping engineer obligation to not flood your your neighbor. So that means both a rigorous review. But then also it may mean building infrastructure on those small parcels to contain that drainage. That is the current process for subdivision. >> And again, just I know each lot is different and the reviews may be different, but how what's [9:51:03 AM] may be different, but how what's the timeline kind of cost involved? What is the department kind of think about that or what are the estimates on that. >> So I think the costs are related to the regional stormwater management program. It's based on a fee structure. So it can be up to 30,000 or higher on that fee. But if you have to actually build the infrastructure, it could even be more expensive. And then it's long term maintenance associated with those ponds that are being built. >> And as long as we're on that topic, what I've heard from a lot of folks, both in the development community and honestly more in kind of the environmental side of things, is that the small lot detention is, is not the best way to tackle this. I mean, what do you all think about that? Again? Like, you know, a small kind of a detention or retention pond? I'm not sure what the what's the difference, but how do you feel? What's the effectiveness of that small lot detention kind of flood management system. >> So the larger ponds are more effective cost wise when we build the larger regional ponds. [9:52:03 AM] build the larger regional ponds. But these smaller systems require maintenance and long term viability is in question because, you know, as different owners move in and move out, you know, the impacts to maintaining it is affected. And so I like I said before, developers don't like building them. We don't like having to go out there and regulate them either. So it's more effective to find ways to eliminate the smaller systems. >> And on that same again, however, you subdivide that 11,500 square foot lot, you're capped at 45% impervious cover, right? Whether you turn that into, what, five lots I think you can do or, you know, two 5750 or whatever the case, you're limited to 45% impervious cover, a single family home on that same 11,500 square foot lot. Again, under current rules, what drainage review do they have to go through? >> Our current rules as single family lot is through the building permit. So you're already entitled to that up to the 45% and going back to the [9:53:05 AM] the 45% and going back to the impervious cover. It varies by zoning, but generally speaking it is the 45 for single family. >> And so and from a flooding perspective, whether there's five small lots with small homes or one large lot with, you know, a huge slab, it does that make a difference in terms of its effect on, on flooding? >> So on the on the systems, once again, we assume fully developed for the modeling that we do to identify the floodplains for the creeks. Right. And so the localized systems also it's based on the localized drainage. So the impervious cover does dictate the runoff that is used to calculate the impacts. And so if we're assuming 45%, I think we're at the same level. But yes, multiple units versus one big unit. It doesn't make a difference. Impervious covers assumed based on what cannot infiltrate into the ground. >> The water doesn't care if it's one big lot or a bunch of, you know, smaller one big home or a bunch of smaller homes. The impervious cover is the same. And that goes to, I think, what [9:54:06 AM] And that goes to, I think, what what the changes that we're trying to make. Right? I mean, we're, we're allowing by right is there. And let me ask this question, what would be the upper limit like, could you build a, you know, just massive, let's say, a, you know, a single family, let's say you have a huge lot. Is there any limit on the impervious cover that you could put on a single family lot, as long as it's a, you know, zoned single family and still be immune to any kind of water quality review. >> You can maximize it at the 45%. >> So whether it's a 50,000 square foot lot or a, you know, 6000 square foot lot, you get 45% impervious cover without any drainage review whatsoever. If you're a single family lot. >> That is my understanding. I'm going to look back to myself just to confirm with a thumbs up. Thumbs up. >> And again, I think that speaks to the problem. The with regard to the prohibition on on [9:55:11 AM] regard to the prohibition on on flooding your neighbor. There is a state law. Is there a state law that specifically addresses that area? >> Yes, sir. That's under a state statute. >> So in other words, there's I guess, a cause of action for a landowner whose property is flooded by the neighbor. You can you can sue basically to, to remediate. That is. >> That's my understanding. I do have a law department here. If you want more specifics on that. >> Sure. Actually, because this is kind of an important question. >> To link with the law department council member to actually pull up the statute and we can do a written response to put in questions and answers. >> That would be really helpful. >> And when you do, can you just include codes role in there if this is also enforceable by code or not. >> Sure. So what would be codes. Responsibility is going to be city code. And then there is the state law provision about [9:56:13 AM] state law provision about flooding. I just don't remember all of it off the top of my head. So I do want to pull it up first. >> Thank you. Thank you very much. And again I know we're again we want to prevent that. Obviously we want to prevent any kind of localized flooding. But it is important to note that there is a state remedy at law and that ultimately, I mean, I think what we're doing is duplicative. Not that that's a bad thing. I mean, it's okay to have a kind of a belt and suspenders approach depending on the on the context and the situation. But it is important to note that. The. The how did we pick that 11,500 square foot limit? >> On that one council member? Just to give you the more specifics, I think I'm going to ask Matt Holland to come up and [9:57:15 AM] ask Matt Holland to come up and explain that part of it. >> Got it. Thank you. >> And Matt Hollingsworth, the watershed protection department. >> Yes. Good morning, Matt Holland, watershed protection. So we initially we did some benchmarking with other other communities around the state, other peer cities, and one of which was San Antonio. And so we actually the initial proposal was for a quarter acre, just kind of a round number, smallish project looking similar to a lot of other single family lots. >> How much how many square feet is a quarter? >> I think it's something wacky, like 10,800 something or I can't remember it off the top of my head, but it was just south of 11,000. And then in a stakeholder interaction, one of our stakeholders offered to basically double the 5750 number to come up with that threshold. It was a little higher than we were first recommending, but it was pretty close. It was very similar to San Antonio's threshold of 10,000, and we felt [9:58:15 AM] threshold of 10,000, and we felt comfortable with it and thought that was about the right number. >> Great. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. I my concern was that I share a council member alter's concern in the sense that, you know, there's a it would be my sense of, you know, the what people are going to be doing on this is they're going to be taking a 12,000 square foot lot, a 14,000 square foot lot, dividing it into two and then building three home units on each lot. And so I would like to bake in a little flexibility so that people can actually do that, because that's a process that they can use today. Whereas the taking a 10,000 square foot lot and let's say dividing it up, subdividing it up into five 2000 square foot lots would they're still utilities. They're still you know, there's a lot of other we want to get there where someone can do that. But over the, you know, short term, medium term we're still working on that. And [9:59:16 AM] we're still working on that. And so I do want to pick a number that actually enables folks to use that right now to and again, I mean, especially thinking about the 45% impervious cover limits for single family lots, I'm not seeing a major concern. I mean, if we're not even reviewing anything whatsoever with the single family lot, regardless of what the square footage of that is, that makes me a lot more comfortable saying that we why are we going through this intense process of review for essentially the same impervious cover? So that that really kind of makes me comfortable on that? The last question I had, and I saw this in the backup, and this is where I'm still kind of getting my head around this, but is that you would be eligible for and this is on the site plan lightmoor side of things, which again, that's the part that I'm still kind of wrapping my, my head around, but that the lot has to drain to the street and that, you know, that you cannot take advantage of site plan [10:00:17 AM] take advantage of site plan light unless a lot drains to the street. How many lots drain to the street? What percentage of, let's say, you know, the single family lots would drain to the street? >> Council member that's a great question. I don't know that I have the number right off the bat, so we will gather that information and respond to you on that. >> And I mean, my sense of it would be since, I mean, most lots are square or rectangular, that it's going to drain. You know, there's only four ways it can drain. And my sense would be only 25% of lots drain to the street. So that's another really important limitation that I'm concerned about because if we approve site plan light, and that only applies to lots that drain to the street, then we're talking about, you know, just a fraction of the lots in the city that would be able to take advantage of it. So anyway, that's, that's another one of the again, thinking about the, the things that we have to work through. That's, that's one of the issues that popped up that I'd like to, to, to tangle with [10:01:18 AM] I'd like to, to, to tangle with a bit. >> Thank you. Thank you for that, councilmember. I'm just going to add a little bit to that analysis. Quick, quick analysis. We do allow to drain to a drainage system as well as some older subdivisions may have systems in the backyards. And so if it's draining to the street or to a drainage system, but the analysis also allows for the redevelopment to regraded to those spots if it's not already doing. Our concern is that by not measuring managing that, that creates more opportunity for the lot to lot flooding. >> Yeah. Would an alley be considered a street? >> That's the right of way. Yes. >> So yes. As long as you're that's for example, like a Hyde park a you know, different places, a north loop that that has the alleys, they would have much more flexibility in where they manage that, that that water flow. >> Yes, sir. That's correct. >> Great. And on the. Smp that it's a watershed by watershed determination. Is that correct? >> Yes, sir. Basically the watershed is what drains to the [10:02:18 AM] watershed is what drains to the creek. Right. And it's unique to that situation. So depending on where the development is, is the criteria that we evaluate within the watershed if it's eligible or not, but ultimately there's fees in lieu paid into that. It's spent in that watershed. >> So and my understanding also is that there's some I think there's a difference between an urban and a suburban watershed in terms of the smp and your ability to do the fee in lieu and whatnot. >> Is that. Yes, sir. I believe the program has distinction between the two. >> All right. >> And that's another one. Again, as we think about this, I mean, it's not a lot of money that's in the smp and not a lot that's generated. I'm open to you know, again, some kind of I know that a lot of the problem with what we've been determining or with the subdivision process was that it was very expensive to even calculate the number. And then you get to the number that you calculate and then you pay a huge amount. I mean, I would be open to something much [10:03:20 AM] would be open to something much simpler like a fee in lieu. Again, a very, you know, but something to fund to help fill the smp. Again, as we talk about the, you know, site plan light or something like that, a fee in lieu seems to me to be entirely appropriate so that we can get an alternate funding source for, for flood control and drainage projects. >> Understood. Councilmember. Just to clarify, I believe the proposal that we have the staff proposals for this missing middle, we would eliminate that fee. >> Okay. >> Right. Yeah. >> At the below 11,500 is eliminated or below, even with a site plan light. >> Let me clarify on that way. >> All the way to all the way to one acre. >> All the way to one acre. >> Got it. All right. >> Thank you. Thank you, councilmember vela. I think you would have support there to maintain a funding source for the smp colleagues. Any other questions? I know councilmember Laine has a question, but any other questions? Councilmember Laine, you'll close this out. >> Actually, I just want to make a couple of comments. I feel so fortunate to be joining this council at this time. I am so [10:04:21 AM] council at this time. I am so grateful to these council members, not just for their work before I arrived, but also for all of the important discussion that has occurred here. I am so new to this council, but this has been needed for decades. This type of work and the devil is in the details. I cannot express to you how grateful I am for this work session, for having it being pulled. Also, for the amazing welcome that I have gotten from some of the staff who have already been out with me in d6. I see some of you here right now speaking, and we'll be doing more to talk about how those issues relate to this discussion. I do want to elevate that. District six is also an area in which there is older development, in which there are areas that have had long standing flooding issues, that I honestly don't see a path to resolving without regional controls of some sort. And so I'm so grateful for this discussion, and to be able to join on the shoulders of everything that has come before me so we can get somewhere that's more efficient and cost effective. And I can't wait for [10:05:21 AM] effective. And I can't wait for that right along. Thank you so much. >> Thank you, councilmember Laine. We are happy to have you on the dais. All right, colleagues, that concludes this briefing. We appreciate staff for the update and the thorough conversation. And next up, we're going to move to a council item that has been pulled by council member Paige Ellis. This item is relates to amending city code chapters 12 three, which is related to meter and pay station parking, providing the briefing and responding to questions will be Jim Dale with transportation and public works. Councilmember Ellis, I will recognize you to open. >> Thank you. As Jim Dale makes his way down here at the last council meeting, we had to postpone this at the last minute. There were some questions and concerns that my colleague, council member vela, had brought up, and we wanted to have time to do our due diligence and to make sure that we were understanding all the angles and details as this proposal moves forward. And so thank you to city staff for sitting down with us. We were also able to have a subsequent [10:06:21 AM] also able to have a subsequent meeting with Mary Jane Grubb, our our dac court clerk, and so some great conversations have happened. There's been a memo also from acm Rogers that has been circulated. And council members will find that in their email as well. But I will go ahead and turn it over to Louis and Jim for a presentation. >> All right. Thank you, councilmember, and good morning, mayor pro tem and the rest of the council. We're glad to be here today. My name is Jim Dale. I serve as the deputy director for transportation and public works. And just some orientation, this will be number item 26 on the agenda this Thursday, back on January 30th, when we first brought this to council was item number 72. Some discussion ensued there on the dais, which led to some meetings for that we've had with a couple of council offices and some tweaking to the changes that we're proposing and the implementation of that, that we want to go over with you today. To my left, I'll let Louis [10:07:22 AM] To my left, I'll let Louis introduce himself. But very blessed to be here with this gentleman to help us step us through those changes. >> Thank you. Jim. Good morning. Mayor pro tem council, city manager, city attorney. Louis left. I'm an assistant director with transportation public works. We did send out the memo yesterday through the acm office, which laid out some of the key talking points that we've discussed with the sub quorum in the past couple of weeks. First one is about the mailing of citations. This was a urban transportation commission recommendation, and as we looked into it, considered the different aspects related to that. We did decide to include it as we were looking holistically to update this parking code for the first time in 15 years. It really is a modernization of the code to reflect the operations today and what we anticipate moving forward. So we took that opportunity to include it. We know that we will be continuing to have in-person enforcement and delivery of citations as the primary source of delivery of citations for the foreseeable future. We know that there's additional steps, as we mentioned, to coordinate with municipal court and law [10:08:22 AM] municipal court and law department and others on what that business process would be in the background to be able to accomplish this, looking at other cities and how they're doing it today, and then being able to commit to coming back to this council mobility and mobility committee in July to discuss just the current status of where we are anticipated, next steps and timelines. From that point. We also did, just to note separately update the ordinance itself. There's one update to the ordinance which relates to the timeline for the assumption of delivery and receipt of that mailed citation. It would be ten days, and then clarifying that it would be an additional 20 days for that appearance date. So in line with what the discussions were with that sub quorum and in line with what other cities are doing today, the second piece to the memo was about the new violations in the ordinance. We understand that there's a time frame that makes sense to have warnings and education for the community around the new violations that are included. So there are three that are defined in there blocking the signed or marked bike Laine, the electric vehicle charging, actually having an electric vehicle that does charge, being in that spot and then having the right of way [10:09:22 AM] and then having the right of way closure area for special events in particular. That was a parkland task force recommendation from years ago. So we're committed to a three month time frame of warnings and education around that. Those three new violations that are included. And the last piece is just clarifying again, the rest of the ordinance will follow the typical ten day period for ordinances to be effective. And or if it takes a little bit more time to update some systems or something else related to the code changes, it would be shortly thereafter that ten day period. So glad to answer any other questions related to that or otherwise. >> Thank you. Councilmember, do you have any questions before I kick it over to councilmember vela. >> Just a point of clarification. Mary Jane Grubbs, our municipal court clerk. I wanted to make sure I got that clear because they they have different functions and purposes, but appreciate getting to sit down with staff. I appreciate this memo. I know this this resolution came from folks that came to city council and spoke to us on numerous occasions that people parking in bike lanes was very, very dangerous to cyclists. And so I appreciate staff's attention to this in a way that will help [10:10:23 AM] this in a way that will help protect cyclists and everybody on the road. A lot of people have seen incidences where people are parked in bike lanes, and they've seen people on scooters or bicycles have to veer into the Laine of traffic to be able to get where they need to be. And so I know this is a robust and interesting conversation. I look forward to the educational period being part of this, because I think there's a lot of folks that legitimately just don't realize the danger that they're putting other people in. So I appreciate community members coming and asking for us to look at this comprehensively. And as we've sat down with council member vela and his office, he's had a number of really great, detailed questions as well to help make sure that we're in the right spot. >> Thank you. Councilmember vela. >> Just wanted to say thank you more than anything else. The memo was excellent. I think the suggestions are excellent, and I appreciate that. We're going to be thoughtful about any camera based enforcement. I am a fierce defender of civil liberties and very skeptical and concerned with kind of video enforcement [10:11:26 AM] with kind of video enforcement of anything, you know, criminal or civil. And I appreciate that. We're we're kind of pausing just a bit to think through this and to prepare, and that it will be coming back to any proposal will be coming back to the mobility committee. And again, I just really appreciate councilmember Ellis's office and the staff working with us so closely to get it right. And I think this is a really good product ultimately that's coming out of here, that's going to accomplish the bike Laine enforcement mechanism because that that is ultimately the goal. And I share it. And again, I appreciate council member Ellis bringing this forward. >> Any other questions from the dais? All right. Thank you. Transportation public works we appreciate the update. Colleagues seeing no further business at hand. It is 10:12 A.M. And I will adjourn this meeting. Thank you.