City Council Regular Meeting Transcript – 2/27/2025 Title: ATXN-1 (24hr) Channel: 1 - ATXN-1 Recorded On: 2/27/2025 6:00:00AM Original Air Date: 2/27/2025 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. [10:01:00 AM] >> Good morning everybody. It's 10:00 am and I'll call to order the regular meeting of the Austin city council for February [10:02:02 AM] Austin city council for February 27th, 2025. We are meeting in the city council chambers, which are located in Austin city hall at 301 west second street. And we have all of the council members present. So let me walk you through what I think the order of business will be today. Momentarily, I'll read changes and corrections into the record so that we'll have all of those. We will then begin with our consent agenda. One item has been pulled from the consent agenda, and that is item number 24. We will take that up as a separate item. We will hear from our consent people that want to speak on the consent agenda. And once that is completed, we will then vote on the consent agenda. Following that, we will take up item number 24. Then we will go to items that are non consent items that weren't pulled, but they just naturally are by our rules non consent items. We'll have a public hearing on item 39. And the items associated [10:03:02 AM] 39. And the items associated with that public hearing are items 40 and 41. At 12:00 we will have the time certain of public communication and live music. I anticipate that what we will do is begin at 12:00. That will finish the public communication part will finish at 1230 to 1235. We will recess until about 110 so that we will have our live music. And of course we have our 2:00 time certain for zoning items. Members, I will read now the changes and corrections into the record. Item number nine should read districts nine, delete district ten and put district three. So it should read district nine and district three. Item number 25 is withdrawn and replaced by addendum item number 52 on boards and commissions actions. Item number two should read February 18th, 2025, recommended by the resource management commission on a 7 to 0 vote with chair stone and commissioner Harris absent and two vacancies. [10:04:03 AM] Harris absent and two vacancies. Item number three should read February 19th, 2025 recommended by the water and wastewater commission on a 9 to 0 vote, with commissioner pandurangi absent. Item number 18 should read February 19th, 2025. Recommended by the water and wastewater commission on an 8 to 0 vote, with commissioner panduranga absent and commissioner Marzullo off the dais. Those are all of the changes and corrections that we will read, that we have to read in the record for the February 27th, 2025 meeting. So that will take us now to our consent agenda. As I've indicated, one item has been pulled, that is item number 24, and I will turn to the city clerk's office to help us by calling out the names of the people to testify and provide their public comment on the consent agenda. >> Thank you mayor. For item four, we will have Zenobia, Joseph, and Carlos Leone. >> If your name has been called, please come forward. I don't see [10:05:05 AM] please come forward. I don't see either person. Oh, there he is. Would you call a couple of other names? >> That's it for item four. We will have item five next. >> So, Carlos Leone, first and foremost, gracias a dios for letting me speak to item four. Amending city code two. Dash one is critical because your library commission has last minute canceled its previous two meetings, shirking its responsibility to listen to us, members of the public to make recommendations to you on matters related to maintaining and operating Austin's public libraries. Therefore, in front of you now is testimony and evidence you need to read and respond to asap. Starting under previous failure, director Roosevelt weeks and continuing under current failure, interim [10:06:05 AM] under current failure, interim director Hanna Terrell. Austin's public libraries. Criminal trespass notification policies have contradicted and disregarded city of Austin superseding rules for public use of city properties since August 2023, resulting in weeks issuing an invalid banning me from all appeal premises that Terrell refuses to rescind because the invalid Seaton is still an APL system. Good German library staff and security following orders think it's valid. When I tried showing and telling them at little walnut creek branch that your rules and our constitutional law make the Ken invalid in multiple ways, they refuse to look or listen, telling me to leave and threatening to call APD, which could have resulted in a false arrest for which city of Austin would have been criminally and civilly liable in a court of law. That upside down insanity must be lawfully defeated and [10:07:06 AM] must be lawfully defeated and legally destroyed everywhere, which president trump's administration was voted in to do under god's protection and provision before your library commission stopped meeting, I gave them evidence and analysis to report to you to hold apple accountable for its insubordinate words and actions. If you continue allowing APL to openly disobey you. >> I'm sorry, sir, but your time. Your time has expired. >> No, sir, it has not. It's been two minutes and I have three minutes. >> No, sir. You don't. You have two minutes. I'm sorry, but you have two minutes. >> No, it's three minutes. You allow people to. >> Say we're having people speak for two minutes. And I've posted that on the message board. So you have two minutes. And we heard your testimony for the two minutes. And we appreciate your being here. Thank you. >> For item five. We have Zenobia, Joseph and bill bunch. >> Good morning. Mayor, council [10:08:19 AM] >> Good morning. Mayor, council members bill bunch, district five, resident for 35 plus years, former member of the tourism commission, speaking against item five, which is a fairly small matter related to your rush to demolish our perfectly fine convention center and then dig a giant hole in the ground to build a new, bigger one. For the purported bumper sticker price of $1.26 billion. Y'all were all here on Tuesday when council member duchen tried desperately to get your city council, your staff, to tell you when you might actually have a budget and financial statement of revenues, costs, etcetera. And she refused to answer it. He asked for a timeline. She said as soon as possible. You know, you're supposed to start this project. Well, you've already spent a ton of money. You approved 600 million. It's [10:09:19 AM] approved 600 million. It's supposed to start in two months, and you have basically no information on this particular item. To amend your agreement with the fairmont hotel for the connecting bridge. The first sentence in the supporting backup claims that Austin. And this is a quote, Austin has grown rapidly into a top ten preferred convention destination. Where's the where's the support for that statement? I don't believe that for a second. Attendance has been going down at the convention center, staying flat for years. As you well know, as you should know, if you've watched the magic hole yet, the film on YouTube from the Austin free press that was just released already has 1500 views in the last two days. It makes clear that the whole industry is way down, that you literally have to give the space away for free. Now, to get any convention centers, you need to take a step [10:10:22 AM] centers, you need to take a step back. >> Thank you, Mr. Bunch. >> Item ten Zenobia. Joseph. Item 11 Zenobia. Joseph. Item 11 Mr. Bill. Bunch. >> This item. Since we don't tell the public what it's about anymore when it's brought up. This is money for what we're now calling rally Austin. The Austin economic development corporation, which has minimal oversight at this point and funding for their cultural trust, including live music, heritage, etc. Of course people support that, I support it. [10:11:22 AM] support that, I support it. Speaking again individually, as a resident, what I don't support is taking this economic development arm into the back room off of this dais where the nexus of accountability is greatly diminished. This is creating we already have too much corruption at city hall in my view. And this is opening it up for even more, I don't think rally Austin is particularly a governmental type name, and kind of tells us that this is more about cheerleading than actually being responsible with public tax and ratepayer dollars. So I'm against this overall. Thank you. >> Item 19. Bill bunch. >> Okay. Yes. Bill bunch again. [10:12:29 AM] >> Okay. Yes. Bill bunch again. District five. This is $32 million for historic preservation grants. I support this. It's a good idea. I looked at the table of projects and activities that would be supported by this. 32 million from the hotel occupancy tax. It should be a lot bigger. And it could be for year in and year out. It could be 50 million or more. If you didn't rush ahead and literally pour billions of dollars into a giant black hole, a magic hole on Cesar Chavez, that will be a decision that you will regret for the rest of your life. If you keep going forward with it, it will be empty. Once you jump off that 30 year debt financing cliff, you're locked [10:13:29 AM] financing cliff, you're locked in. And nature, culture, historic preservation that should be funded with hotel tax will continue to get crumbs. And the 32 million is a few years of allocation is my understanding. It's not just a single year of allocation, but the backup was not clear on that. Thank you for your consideration. >> Item 20 Zenobia. Joseph. And then for item 25, which has been withdrawn and replaced by 52, we have bill bunch. >> Item number 25 became item 52. >> Yeah I'll. >> Pass on that. >> All right. On item 29 we have Michael bullock with time donated by Tyler Latham. >> Council mayor. Michael [10:14:32 AM] >> Council mayor. Michael bullock, president for the Austin police association. I wish this was a repeat of the last time I was up here, where we all had worked together and were in agreement and were able to come to positive outcomes, but sadly, that's not the case on this one. I was disappointed when I did see item 29, which is an item that directly impacts the Austin police association and our ability to negotiate and how our interactions with the city are to be handled. And yet nobody reached out. There was no collaboration, there was no discussion. There was simply an agenda item posted that effectively comes across to me and to our department as if here's the policy and deal with it. And that is not how we are going to be able to turn the page on public safety moving forward here in Austin. One thing to be clear about is that our meetings are public, and they have historically been public. That is not anything that is prevented in the law. Anything to that degree. And our agreements are in fact public. [10:15:33 AM] agreements are in fact public. But the law is very clear as to when it can become public. Matter of fact, we had these conversations during the most recent round of contract negotiations where it was asserted that chapter 142 applied, and even under chapter 142, it states that the agreement can be made public only after it is ready to be ratified. 143 differs slightly, but that is the law that was followed, and now this is one. It's unclear, but appears to be an attempt where council is trying to circumnavigate the law and we are trying to supersede state law and our right to effectively negotiate, which is extremely alarming. But even more so, my concern still lies in the fact that we have we have talked, we have had numerous conversations, and we have been here talking about our desires to collaborate. And that did not happen. There was no notification. There was no conversation. If there were a conversation, perhaps we could have understood the goals. We [10:16:33 AM] have understood the goals. We could have moved to something better. So I firmly believe that this resolution, if applied the way it appears to be intended to apply, does contravene, and it is an attempt to supersede state law and the rights that are conferred to the association and our members. And if so, I will tell you on behalf of the association, our responsibility and our duty is to protect the rights of our officers, and we will do so by every available means that we have. So for those reasons, on behalf of the 15, nearly 1500 officers that we have that are members, we are opposed to this item. And again, we'll do whatever is necessary to make sure that we do protect their rights. And I would strongly encourage you to please, if there is something that you are looking at. I have made myself very available and made it very clear that I am willing to have conversations. If you're going to do anything that does impact the association or APD officers and their rights. We are here. We are available and we are willing to have those conversations. But [10:17:34 AM] have those conversations. But cutting us out will not move us forward. It is going to set us back. So I would implore you, please let us truly turn the page and let us work together to find solutions on things versus trying to sneak things through that are going to directly impact us. So again, on behalf of the we do oppose this item and our door is always open if people choose to want to talk in the future. >> On item 38, we have Carol Philipson and Brad Knowles. >> Hello, my name is Carol Philipson. I'm a district ten and this is on agenda item number 38. The code for the. For the past four years, I've been the firewise committee chairperson for just helping homeowners mitigate the risk of wildfire gesture with its 950 homes are at the top of the list for wildfire risk as it is [10:18:35 AM] for wildfire risk as it is surrounded by balcones canyonlands endangered species habitat. With only one evacuation route. Austin fire department even had their wildfire training in gesture. The bcp, steep cliffs and little access limit and slow firefighting efforts, and we have all witnessed how fast a fire can spread with limited ways to fight it. Unfortunately, the city of Austin staff has added an additional wildfire risk. The first cell tower in Austin, located next to a federally protected endangered species habitat, the balcones canyonlands preserve. This monopole cell tower structure is 100 foot high and only 19ft from the bcp. That's crazy. More details will be given during my public communication. Unfortunately, no wui fire code, land or zoning code has been written to address this new fire threat. Vicki Goodwin and I've given you a passage of Vicki Goodwin has written a bill acknowledges this new wildfire risk to our endangered species and their critical habitat, and has submitted a bill mandating a [10:19:36 AM] has submitted a bill mandating a full zone of two times the height of the tower must be from an endangered species habitat. I would think that you all would agree with Vicki's concern. Updated code will mitigate this new wildfire risk, upholding both governor Abbott and mayor Watson's concern for increased wildfire danger. I urge you to update present code to include this amendment. A telecommunication tower location must be no less than two times the height of the tower from an endangered species habitat. The Sierra club, save our springs, Norwalk's, steiner ranch, river place, Lakewood are a few of the few of the many who support this. Adding this important amendment. No one plans an accident, but we can plan to stop it from happening. To this end, add this amendment to not only protect our endangered species and their critical habitat, but to mitigate this new wildfire threat. >> Thank you. Thank you. Ma'am. Ma'am, thank you very much. Please just state your name for [10:20:41 AM] Please just state your name for the record. >> Yes, my name is Brad Knowles. I'm also in district ten. I'm repeating much of what Carol has just said. I will begin actually halfway through the presentation in the event of saving time. I would think that everyone here would agree with Vicki's concern. I urge you to update the code to include this as an amendment. A telecommunication tower must be no less than two times the height of the tower from an endangered species habitat. The Sierra club, save our springs, nawalka steiner ranch, river place and Lakewood are just a few of the many organizations who support adding this important amendment. No one plans to have an accident, but prevention is possible. As such, please ensure that you include an amendment to protect endangered species and their habitats while reducing the [10:21:43 AM] habitats while reducing the fire. The wildfire threat to austinites living near the 33,000 acres of bcp winding through our city. It's also crucial to update land zoning and fire codes to address this new wildfire risk. Remember, it's not if a wildfire will occur, it's when. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> That concludes all speakers. Mayor. >> Thank you very much, members. As you just heard, that concludes all the speakers on the consent agenda. I will entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda as read the motion made by council member qadri. It's seconded by council member Laine. Discussion with regard to the consent agenda. Council member alter, I'll recognize you. And if others wish to be recognized, let me know. >> Thank you very much. I just wanted to take a quick moment to talk about item 29. You know, we [10:22:43 AM] talk about item 29. You know, we heard about it from the representative from the police union here. I believe we all got a letter from the fire union supporting this item. I think it's really important that we have as much transparency around our public safety negotiations as possible. It's what we've always done until our most recent negotiation. And I believe it's something, a practice that we should instill and get back to. And so originally I had hoped to add this to an item last time around, but that was not within the posting. So we did it as a own item here. Nothing sneaky about it. It's public, just as every other item is public. But really more importantly, I just think it's it is really for the public to be able to have not only access to the proceedings, but the documents that underlie it. And so I really appreciate the support that we've received amongst the rest of the diocese, as well as from the community, and look forward to passing this item. [10:23:44 AM] forward to passing this item. >> Okay, I got it. >> Council members, council member Siegel followed by council member zo qadri and then council member duchen. Council member harper-madison. I saw that you wanted to speak to. Thank you. >> Thank you. Mayor, I just want to highlight a few of the items on the consent agenda. First of all, item two is a wonderful opportunity for the city. This is a great partnership that Austin energy has developed with Harris county on the federal solar for all program. This is really pathbreaking. This is a program that will increase our energy Independence as a city. It will enhance our resilience and local sustainability. It's going to advance our renewable energy goals and the generation plan, create jobs, and really has a focus on lifting the economic advantage. So I want to thank you for your work on this. I also want to highlight item 23, which is a watershed project at buttermilk creek. It's not in district seven, but I'm a big fan of creeks and this is. >> And buttermilk. >> Yeah, well, I don't know about that. Could be you, mayor. [10:24:45 AM] about that. Could be you, mayor. But yeah, I want to thank watershed for leading on this. This is, you know, creek infrastructure that we're developing and an important part of town and also really want to express my appreciation for congressman Lloyd Doggett, who carried the legislation for the city. And this is something that really benefits an underserved community as defined by federal law and will protect water quality, avoid erosion, and nurture a very special creek habitat. On item 27, I just want to add $200 to the fee waiver for act. And thank you to. I believe it was councilman qadri who put that item forward. And finally, I just want to thank on item 29 council member Ryan alter for leading on this item. I think the public really expects us to promote openness and transparency when we're making big financial decisions, including entering into very large collective bargaining contracts. And I believe that the representative from the Apa misunderstands public information law. The Texas public information act is a floor, not a ceiling. And so nothing in state law prevents us from providing more [10:25:47 AM] from providing more transparency. I'm really happy to co-sponsor this item. And I also want to note that the Austin firefighters association has written to us today to express their support for this item. Thank you. >> Thank you. Councilmember. Councilmember qadri, followed by council member duchen and then council member harper-madison. >> Great. >> Thank you, mayor, and I appreciate councilmember Siegel for the $200 for the act. Item. I'm sure they're very excited and thankful for it as well. Just wanted to thank council member Ryan alter. I guess I could just say alter now since there's only there's only one. >> Council member to break. >> Yeah, yeah. >> I want to thank councilmember alter and his staff for bringing forward item 29. I know myself and the council that was here before for this current council heard a lot from advocates during the last negotiation about the need for more transparency during the meet and confer negotiations. So I appreciate councilmember Ryan alter's work on this item, and that's it. >> Thank you. Council member. Council member duchen followed by council member harper-madison and then councilmember vela. >> Thank you. Mayor. I wanted to [10:26:48 AM] >> Thank you. Mayor. I wanted to address item 29 also. I was surprised to see this item. Although I don't obviously know the backstory, but I did visit with both our attorneys as well as the Apa, and it does seem like there's a pretty big gulf in how they're interpreting the law, as well as how they're also interpreting the whether or not this provision was a particular success factor for why the negotiations were successful last year, but previously were not. I also don't know, to the extent that we're banking on favorable attorneys here, but could be appealed if this became a lawsuit at the state. So I don't really understand whether the one thing I'm struggling with is to the extent whether the Apa is really going to go to bat for this, or they feel powerfully about this, and this becomes another city lawsuit that we're entangled in. So that's one reason I'll be abstaining on this item. Thanks. >> Thank you. Councilmember. Councilmember harper-madison, followed by council member vela. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I appreciate the recognition. I [10:27:49 AM] appreciate the recognition. I wanted to start out by saying, you know, I really appreciate that we continue to do whether we have a practice rather of doing the proclamations. It's always a it's always nice to see community members appreciate being recognized. And so I wanted to follow that up by reminding community members that if you'd like to get a proclamation for an event, an organization, a special day, distinguished service awards, or another thing, we do recognition for the month, those are things we do as well. Feel free to reach out to the city's website. There's pretty clear instructions on how to go through that process through the clerk's office, but you can also reach out to your council member, and we're happy to help you through the process. So I'd like to recognize the American heart month as of this month and national week of prayer for the healing of AIDS. I'm really grateful to see the recognition and the necessary honor to the community there. Cecile Richards memorial day, which we brought [10:28:49 AM] memorial day, which we brought forward. I really appreciate being able to express to Cecile's family, friends, colleagues and people that she's impacted throughout the course of her life. For them to see that we're recognizing her today as a city. Mobile blessings from the heart day. And then lastly, but certainly not least, the saint John regular Baptist association was recognized by my colleague, council member vela today, which I'm really grateful we were able to do. It's such a blessing and an honor to be able to do so during and frankly, on the tail end of black history month. So in addition to that, I wanted to also, like my colleagues, highlight a few items that I'm happy to see on this consent agenda today. Item number 19 regarding historic preservation and restoration projects. So pleased to see that we have six locations on the 2025 recommendations in district one. Wu you know our constituents, if you have any [10:29:51 AM] constituents, if you have any questions about these facilities, you know, the city's website is a wealth of information. Really excited to see the new one coming. But the one that we have is full of information. And also your council member's office is a great place to start. But some district one assets that we're going to highlight with item number 19 include Doris Miller rec center, evergreen cemetery, oakwood cemetery. So all of Latin America international education services, LLC, the south gate, Lewis house and Houston Tillotson. And there's so many layers in recognizing those organizations and so much overlap. I'll just give a big sort of general shout out to community members and stakeholders who are steadfast in remaining present in advocacy and stewardship for these community assets. Item number 20. Regarding appointments to new terms for the Austin rosewood community development corporation. The CDC is also known as the body that's tasked with stewardship for the [10:30:51 AM] with stewardship for the millennium youth entertainment complex. We are ever, ever so grateful for every iteration of the board, and most especially this current board that's working so hard to move and the direction of an evergreen feature or an evergreen future for the millennium youth entertainment complex, a staple in the community in district one and in the oak two on the east side. Our office is super grateful to continue to work with community leaders like Dewey Smith, Nelson Linder, quincy Dunlap, and Francis Jordan. And lastly, I want to spotlight item number ten that regards our agreement with six square. For folks who hear that name and don't know what it means, six square, the six square miles that constituted the African American cultural heritage district is what people mean when they say six square and six square. The cultural arts and preservation organization charged with the stewardship of preservation, advocacy and fiscal sponsorship within the six square miles, has [10:31:53 AM] within the six square miles, has been ever present as one of the black pillar organizations on the east side and in district one, my office has pushed hard for policy to support our African American cultural heritage district, and six square is just one of those boots on the ground organizations that's always in the field. One of those organizations that helps us to activate and empower the district and bring stakeholders to the table as actual participants in a process, as opposed to an afterthought. After a process has been brought to them. So I just really appreciate their effort, their time. So on the on the subject, though, of supporting those efforts, I really want to welcome all of you to join my office tomorrow right there at city hall. My fingers are crossed that there's a free, free of contagion order from the doctor. Worst case scenario, you'll be hanging out with my staff at city hall tomorrow because we're hosting a celebration for black history month. With an arts and culture tribute, there will be live [10:32:54 AM] tribute, there will be live music and food, and you can check out the event details on all our socials and colleagues. I hope to see some of y'all on a Friday evening at city hall. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you colleagues. >> Thank you. Councilmember. Councilmember vela, followed by councilmember Velasquez. >> Thank you. Mayor. Councilmember Siegel covered all the ground I wanted to cover actually right now, but I wanted to also highlight item two, the solar for all grant, which will install solar panels through various. It's a great program. It's going to really help low income families, community centers, resilience in the community. And again, just wanted to highlight that and thank Austin energy for looking out for that grant and for moving forward with that project. And again, item 23, the buttermilk creek district four and the saint John's neighborhood. It's an impaired creek. It's a could be a beautiful creek that should be an asset to the community. Thanks to congressman Doggett for bringing the money to make [10:33:54 AM] for bringing the money to make those improvements, along with hopefully many other improvements that are coming to the saint John neighborhood. That's that's a lot of positive things happening in the in the saint John neighborhood. One of them today was the proclamation that council member Harper Madison highlighted the saint John Baptist association. We honored them this morning, found it in 1867. It is one of the oldest organizations in Austin, and it really is just a holds the history of really not just, you know, black Austin, but the history of Texas, the history of central Texas. For those of you that don't know, the saint John's regular Baptist association is a collection of Baptist churches that came together in community and faith and have been supporting the community, have been critical, really, to the history of Austin since their founding in 1867. [10:34:55 AM] since their founding in 1867. They have a building on that site. They have 23 acres in the saint John's neighborhood, including a beautiful tabernacle, which unfortunately is struggling right now. There was a fire there. I'm critical to preserve the building. It's about preserving the history and telling the story of Austin and looking forward to working with the association and with city staff on our efforts to preserve that. So, again, just wanted to thank the reverend Mayes, reverend Hendricks, and all the other folks that were here this morning to, for the proclamation, really appreciate their presence and look forward to continuing to work with them. Oh, and one more thing. I'd like to add $200 to the waiver for the Indian American coalition of Texas. >> Thank you. Councilmember. Councilmember Velasquez. >> Thank you. Mayor. I wanted to talk about item number 29. I want to thank council member [10:35:55 AM] want to thank council member alter, not Ryan alter, for bringing that forward. I think that this item reinforces our commitment as a diocese and as a as a community to transparency. And I'd like to be added as a co-sponsor. >> Without objection, council member Velasquez will be shown as a co-sponsor of item 29. >> And on item number nine. I wanted to highlight this. This is an exciting day. We are moving on with phase two of the Mexican American heritage corridor, and I want to thank the members from mexic- arte for being here today and, and, and look forward to that, because it is bringing a much needed sense of unity and path from west to east. And then we'll have that great wall of Austin torn down at some point, too. So I'm looking forward to it. And connecting district nine with district three. And the campus will be connected for life. Thank you mayor. >> Thank you council member members. That appears to be all of the discussion on the consent agenda. So let me ask. I have [10:36:55 AM] agenda. So let me ask. I have council member duchen being shown abstaining on item number 29. Is there anyone else wishing to be shown abstaining on any item on the consent agenda? Is there anyone wishing to be shown recusing themselves from a vote on one of the items on the consent agenda? Is there anyone wishing to be shown voting no on any of the items that are on the consent agenda? Without objection, the consent agenda is adopted with councilmember duchen being shown abstaining on item number 29. Members that will now take us to item number 24. I'm going to turn to the clerk's office and see if we have people signed up to speak on that. And then what I'm going to do is once we have completed the public comment on item number 24, I'm going to recognize council member Ellis for a motion on item number 24. Her motion. You have been you have been given a yellow sheet or it's in the back up a sheet from council member Ellis's office that's labeled [10:37:57 AM] office that's labeled councilmember Paige Ellis. February 27th, 2025 council meeting item 24 west creek redevelopment exception. I will recognize her for a motion to approve item number 24. With this additional direction to management. After public comment. I just want to make sure everybody has that in front of them. Turn to the clerk's office. >> Thank you. Mayor remote. We have Bobby Levinsky on item 24. >> Thank you, mayor and council, this is Bobby Levinsky with save our springs alliance. I wanted to point out a letter that I sent to your offices yesterday. It speaks about this item and the environmental commission's recommendation on it. This would be a really a missed opportunity to not require a full non degradation pond. Compliant with the sos standard. The applicant recently was able to take [10:38:57 AM] recently was able to take advantage of some increased entitlements on the property, adding an additional floor of height and that, you know, adds both additional revenue to work with as as well as additional flexibility for the overall development. Unfortunately, the impervious covers essentially the same, and it didn't get reduced. The building footprint did not get reduced. And nor is the water quality pond being upgraded to the non degradation standard. The environmental commission recommended both of those items to you as as part of what should be required. As for the redevelopment exception on this site, this is one of those situations where the redevelopment exception is entirely discretionary and not requiring a full non degradation pond would essentially lock in another 40 years of non degradation, or at least not meeting the degradation for the site. Yes, we are improving the conditions with doing a sanitation pond, but it's not the sos standard. It's not what science says is needed to [10:39:58 AM] science says is needed to protect the Barton springs zone and the long term. And it would be better if we could just push a little bit harder on this site and get true non degradation. The other thing I'd like to point out is there's a perverse incentive in the redevelopment exception that needs to be addressed. There is a basically a requirement that if you keep more than 40% of your impervious cover, that you don't have to do sos non degradation. That just incentivizes people to keep more impervious cover than what's scientifically considered safe for the aquifer. And we need to address that in the long term. This is a large site that has. >> Thank you, Mr. Levinsky. >> Thank you. >> For in-person on item 24, we have Leah Ziegler, Rita berry, and bill bunch. >> If your name has been called, please make your way forward. Please go ahead. Just state your name for the record. >> Leah Ziegler, chair of the oak hill neighborhood planning [10:41:00 AM] oak hill neighborhood planning team, and my slides. >> They're working on it. >> It's not working. >> All right. >> Try it now. >> Good morning. With so many exceptions in this case, I'd like to point out other recommendations suggested by the environmental commission. Drainage mitigation options can help restore sheet flow on the property without water conservation. Expect significant negative environmental impact both on site and upon the surrounding properties. Mitigation restrictions should include rooftop water collection coupled with dispersion to establish tiny forests and rain gardens and prevent overflow. The site plan and current code [10:42:03 AM] The site plan and current code do not adequately compensate for the gross loss of mature trees, 65 out of 81 to be removed, vastly ignoring their important environmental function. As seen here, the existing well placed retention pond will become multi-family units by impervious cover extension. Remapping of impervious cover also removes real community integration on the highway corridor frontage by eliminating public commerce on the first floor, replaced by a parking garage and a single biofiltration pond. Most of the remaining green space will be dedicated as a water conduit encircling the property and by force fit, bringing increased waste and pollution from the added people and cars to existing drainage and into the creeks. Since purple pipes aren't allowed in the Barton springs zone, neighbors hope council will require an innovative ten year restrictive soil management water [10:43:04 AM] soil management water transpiration plan. Of course, an sos pond for the entire area would also serve the function of containment and pollution control. Under the redevelopment exception, please require an equitable substitute for the Austin water on site reuse system available to the rest of. All right. >> Thank you ma'am. Appreciate you being. The next speaker. If you'll come forward and just state your name for the record. Thank you. >> Rita berry. Good morning. My name is Rita berry. Past west creek neighborhood association president and I have been involved in this project from the start. When wayfinder notified us of their plans, west creek neighborhood association is concerned with the possible increase in stormwater drainage from the proposed construction of the west creek mixed use project. We are concerned with the drainage from the courtyard area. The area contains a pool and concrete surrounding the pool and drainage from the rest of the site. We feel the [10:44:05 AM] of the site. We feel the drainage system currently proposed would not meet the needs of the runoff due to the 65% of the trees being removed, including heritage trees. The heritage tree should be plants planted to another property to continue with the tradition of oak trees in this area, the smaller trees need to be replaced with trees at least two inches in diameter. We feel an sos pond would provide better control for this project and meet the water quality standards required for Barton springs zone. Please consider approving the environmental commission's recommendations. The decision made today will not only affect west creek mixed use project, but our schools, soccer fields and our west creek neighborhood that are adjacent to the west creek mixed use project. Please consider the sos pond to keep our neighborhood safe and Barton springs zone. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> For item 24 bill bunch and Roy Whaley. [10:45:06 AM] Roy Whaley. >> Mr. Whaley go ahead. >> And oh bill's on his way down. I need to sit down. I have a cramp. So. >> Well goodness gracious. >> Thank you. Mayor. Council members bill bunch with save our springs alliance and district five just really wanted to emphasize what you heard from our senior staff attorney, Bobby lavinsky. I also passed out to you all just a few minutes ago, a copy or had your staff a letter from Mr. Lavinsky laying this out. You know, we're concerned about the project overall, but we strongly urge you, as you've heard, to support the environmental commission recommendation to require sos compliant controls on the site and to recommend reducing the [10:46:08 AM] and to recommend reducing the impervious cover from 45% to 40%. I think I want to thank commissioner, council member Ellis for amendment, but we don't know what it is. So I would ask in the future, and when y'all have these last second amendments that are on your yellow sheets, that you at least tell people what what's on there so that we're taking up your time and have us take up your time usefully by speaking to the matter that's on the table. Thank you for your consideration. >> Thank you. >> Howdy, y'all. My name is Roy Whaley. I'm the conservation chair for the local Sierra club. I want to start out first by saying thanks to council member Siegel and his comments on item number two and the rest of you, thank you very much for that. You don't always get I don't always get a chance to sign up [10:47:09 AM] always get a chance to sign up just to say I support an item and not want to speak, but I do want to speak on this because Sierra club say Barton creek association sos those years ago when we were going through the sos redevelopment ordinance, it was pretty clear the limits. And thank you for Bobby and his good statements. It needs to adhere to those limits, although it's not in there about the water quality pond. As y'all said earlier, doesn't mean we can't go in above and beyond, and we're asking for that here. You know, Sierra club is not opposing the development, but the potential impact of the development. And if it follows the rules that we discussed all those years ago, that would certainly make a difference. And yes, it was unanimous at the [10:48:09 AM] yes, it was unanimous at the environmental commission that they agree with us on that. And we would hope that you would look at that and follow those. And then just while I have a second, I sent a general email to all offices regarding bicycle infrastructure that council member Ellis and council member Laine spoke about recently on the convention center. I'm not going to get into relitigating all of that, but I would ask that as we try to make alternative transportation more viable, that we have public showers. No one likes sitting next to me in August after I've ridden my bicycle. >> I know some people don't like that at all, but I think. >> It's great. Great to see you. Good luck with the cram. >> That concludes all speakers on item 24. >> Okay, members, that concludes [10:49:10 AM] >> Okay, members, that concludes all speakers. I'll recognize council member Ellis on item number 24. >> Thank you. Mayor. I move to approve the item with the following direction. And I'm going to go ahead and read this because I understand folks desire to know what's in here, which is in alignment with the environmental commission recommendation. 2020 50205003 city council encourages the applicant to consider incorporating solar panels into the development, providing at least 14 electric vehicle charging spaces upon opening and designing the development to provide at least 30 ev charging spaces total in the future. Working with patent elementary and small middle school to offer signage or educational materials on the aquifer and watershed, further reducing impervious cover from 25.40 5.29% to 40%. Oversizing the water quality biofiltration ponds to meet the minimum sos pond depth standards. Oversizing the water detention system to bring overall site outflow to Greenfield conditions, further [10:50:11 AM] Greenfield conditions, further mitigating runoff, increase biodiversity and reduce heat island effect by planting at least 100 trees and shrubs on site and including native pollinator species in the landscaping plan. City council further directs city staff to explore joint partnership opportunities with aid to develop community parks that can serve this development on the patent, elementary and small middle school campuses, and updating the city's roadway capacity plan to include roadway improvements on west creek drive and old fredricksburg road, with a focus on improvements that would also improve safety. To mitigate the impact of the new development. And this captures a lot of the conversations that we know folks have asked for along the way, including the road safety improvements, some of the need for more park space and community collaboration, and some of the other things that the environmental commission had recommended. >> Great. Thank you. Members, you've heard the motion. Is there a second to the motion? Seconded by council member alter discussion on the motion. Yes. Councilmember duchen. [10:51:11 AM] Councilmember duchen. >> So my only question. I've got a couple of questions. One is I don't really have any sense of what the lift is for some of the requests here. I understand that the environmental commission unanimously approved all of them, but I don't know what it means to encourage the applicant to reduce their impermeable cover or impervious cover. And the biofiltration pond, which I understand are important requirements that sos and other organizations have asked for. So what I'm really trying to get to there is right now, this has encourages the applicant to consider, but I'm not sure if that is has strong enough teeth in it to make sure that these things actually get done, nor as part of that do I understand if they're realistic things to ask for and what the cost of these things would be to them for considering. So that's my only concern here. And then I think there's a related question, which is if this really doesn't [10:52:12 AM] which is if this really doesn't have a strong teeth in it, what do we do going forward to ensure that there are better outcomes for similar kinds of projects going forward in similar circumstances? >> Who's your question directed to council member? >> Would you like the applicant to answer those questions? >> I yeah, that'd be great. If the applicant. >> Why don't we bring a representative of the applicant up to. Were you able to hear. >> Yes. >> David Hartman on behalf of the applicant. And thank you for the question. Council member duchen, we are in agreement with the recommendations of the guidance and provided by council member Ellis and things like we are we have oversize the water quality biofiltration pond to exceed the minimum sos capture depth standards, and we've oversize the detention pond, for [10:53:14 AM] oversize the detention pond, for example. And so we're in complete agreement with the very good recommendations. >> So these would not be challenging to implement then. >> No. Council member okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Council member and thank you, Mr. Hartman. Any further discussion on item number 24, the motion that's been seconded. Without objection. Item number 24 is approved. Members that will now take us to item number 39. Item number 39 is a public hearing. Without objection, we will open the public hearing on item number 39. And actually, before we start that, just well, we'll open the public hearing. Public hearing is now open before we start taking public comment on that. Members, the next three items. And for members of the public, the next three items are items related to short term rentals 39, 40 and 41. We will take them up separately. Item number 39, of course, is the public hearing. And as we [10:54:14 AM] public hearing. And as we discussed and has been put up on the message board and over the last couple of days, we're we had a joint public hearing with the planning commission. The planning commission also had a public hearing and made determinations. And then on Tuesday at our work session, we had discussions about that. And we have discussed that. It's very important that we be thoughtful and in our approach to strs, and we need to consider not only the current court rulings, but also conversations that are happening up the street with at the legislature. I want to say that I appreciate the work we did at the work session, and I appreciate what the planning commission has done and staff in trying to get us to this point. We are very dedicated to working toward a better system of short term rental regulation in the city. But in order to make sure we make we move on improving our [10:55:15 AM] make we move on improving our licensing requirements. We also in order to make sure that we're better in line with our peer cities and to make sure that we're also in line with anything that might happen legislatively. And we continue to talk up there and partner with them. We have in front of us. And it's been it was posted and I actually posted it on the message board so that the public would also be able to see it in advance. Alternate versions for items 39 and 40 and just real briefly. Item number 39 moves the regulations from the land development code over to the business regulation aspect of our code. And because we're we're doing it this way. The alternate version for item 39 will also change the effective date to August 4th, 2025. And the reason it did that, and I know we're going to have some discussion about [10:56:16 AM] have some discussion about effective dates. So but I just want to put it out there that the reason the original version, the one that that will be laid out first, is that that's ten days after the July 24th council meeting, which was my suggested date for originally bringing back these items. The effective date, the effective date needs to change in order to make it align with the implementation of item number 40. Item number 40. The alternate version that you have aligns with current code requirements reflecting the current regulation structure. This ordinance assures insurers will be completing the administrative task of moving the items from title 25 over to title four. In addition, and again, these are. These are dates that will likely be changed based upon what we know are proposed amendments. But I want to lay it out there. The version of the alternate version for item 40 includes a different effective and implementation [10:57:18 AM] effective and implementation date. The effective date is March 10th, 2025. The standard ten day effective date is that's that's how that's the method to the madness, if you will. But again, we'll talk about that when we get to it. I just wanted to for those that might be confused about what dates we're using, I wanted to get that get that out there. So with that, the public hearing has been opened on item number 39, and I will turn to the city clerk's office to begin the process of the public hearing. >> Thank you. Mayor. We will take remote speakers first. On item 39, we have Angela Benavides Garza. >> Can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Okay. Hi, this is Angela Benavides, Garza, and I'm the interim president for the Springdale airport neighborhood association and a co-chair for proudly for the east mlk combined contact team. First of all, I do want to say thank you to everyone's hard work for the [10:58:20 AM] to everyone's hard work for the I want to change my position from a neutral to a for because I could see all the updates still going live right now. One thing the planning commission for doing all their hard work on this, the one thing we ask on behalf of the community, what we don't agree with. And thank you for the purple card for the meetings. But there were three original meetings in January that we did not know about. And we thought everybody was on vacation. But somehow expedia group knew about those meetings and we didn't know about those meetings. We do ask in the future because we are so community driven. And of course, you know, everyone's very working hard out here in the neighborhoods as well, that we get that information, just like expedia group or any other company would get in our area with respect to our community, because we respect you all as well. We want to make sure that we're up to date with that as well. I also understand, thank you. I've read the ordinance that this ordinance be considered, that we don't wait to get the kpis or the feedback until six months to 12 months [10:59:21 AM] until six months to 12 months later that we have, since it's going to be brand new, that we have somebody that's following it every month getting actual kpis and numbers that are coming back, that we can see being in alignment and then going back into the 95% of complaints going to 311 that we see the complaints broken down by zip code, so that we can understand what zip codes are getting hit the most with the complaints that are there. I read all the public comment as well, in addition to the ordinance proposed, and I also want to say thank you. It sounds like you all are listening. Thank you so much for all the hard work that you all are doing, and we can see that you're listening. Thank you, thank you, thank you. The other thing that I wanted to also let you know, according to this, is that if we can have a live dashboard, I'm. >> I'm sorry, but your time is expired. >> On item 39, Susan Morrison. Susan Morrison, please unmute. [11:00:25 AM] Susan Morrison, please unmute. On item 39, Nyla akinyemi. Sankofa. Nyla, please unmute. >> Good morning. Sorry I was on I was muted. You can hear me now right? Yes okay. Thank you. Okay. Good morning. I am a resident of a small apartment community in Hyde park and council member zo district. And our complex and the owners and operators of our complex on other properties nearby. And they have made several units, short term rentals specifically like airbnb and at looking at the operational requirements from the February 25th planning commission recommendations that [11:01:27 AM] commission recommendations that sites with four but less than 51 units can have up to 25%. 25% of those units be str. And that number is really excessive, especially for since like hotels, strs do not have to have guests do criminal background checks as you do when you're leasing, you know, an apartment or home. So we feel like and I'm representing a lot of the residents of my community, that there needs to be more regulations to and more public transparency to see what different complaints have been made about the strs or the guests of the str, and different apartment communities. And I guess the single family ones, [11:02:27 AM] guess the single family ones, but mostly the concern is, you know, what regulations are you all applying to make sure that regular residents who hold leases are safe and their and that our environments are not being upset by these short term guests. >> Next we will have on item 39, Adrian Macias. Alexia Leclerc on item 39. On item 39, Marion Sanchez. Susana Almanza. Still on item 39 Valerie Menard. Pedro Hernandez junior on item 39. [11:03:32 AM] Hernandez junior on item 39. Carlos pinon. Item 39 Bruce blumentritt. Next on item 39, we will have Michael curry with time donated by Barbara Macarthur and Jenny Grayson. Are Barbara and Jenny here? Thank you. You will have six minutes. >> Thank you. Mayor, council. >> Good morning, I'm Michael curry. I reviewed the city's proposed findings of fact regarding strs and learned that our argument over strs has narrowed dramatically. It's gratifying to know that the community and the city agree that strs are predominantly located in neighborhoods, that they reduce the availability of long term housing for residents, [11:04:33 AM] long term housing for residents, and that in doing so, they, quote, impact housing affordability, neighborhood dynamics, and the quiet enjoyment of one's home. Close quote findings four and five finding eight acknowledges that strs undo city policies designed to increase housing supply. These findings beg the question why does the city city's proposal authorize short term rentals as an accessory? Use on all residential lots, even declaring that licensed short term rental use, quote, cannot be prohibited? Close quote why isn't the city limiting the spread of str in Austin? The city suggests that recent court decisions have tied its hands. However, a careful reading of those cases reveals they actually leave city viable options to limit the number of future strs. While the courts held that Austin can't target non-owner occupied str with more stringent regulations than owner [11:05:35 AM] stringent regulations than owner occupied strs, it can issue regulations that apply equally to both classes of strs or create rules that don't make that distinction. Second, the court has held that a city could not, without a reasonable justification, retroactively prohibit or phase out existing non-owner str, who had a reasonable expectation of str use. However, these cases do not prevent the city from banning or restricting new strs. For those owners who purchase a property after the effective date of the new regulations. By crafting regulations that curtail the proliferation of future stars by new purchasers, the city could prevent a land rush by str investors and over time, reduce the number of home to str conversions. The city could also build a more substantial record than it has in the past, through better data collection to justify the use of retroactive str regulations in specific [11:06:35 AM] str regulations in specific circumstances or locations, merely waving your hand in the direction of court decisions as an excuse for allowing the proliferation of str is unacceptable. Governance. There's also been some council message board suggestions and murmurs that the council is wary of acting while the legislature is in town. I was one of a group of people who worked in the last two sessions to successfully defeat bills, including those involving Sade, that would restrict local control on land use and environmental issues. And I can tell you from talking with legislative staff that you would be hard pressed to find a community in the state that wants strs in their neighborhoods, and the representatives and senators understand that city staff helpfully referenced to str related bills that have been filed, but they deal with user information and tax collection, not str str regulation on the ground that we need to protect [11:07:37 AM] ground that we need to protect our community. Your fight at the legislature, if you have one, will be with platforms and information and tax collection. It's not going to be with regulating strs in the neighborhood. If. Besides, if you are afraid to enact reasonable protections for your citizens out of fear that the right to protect will be taken away, you end up in the same place you should never obey in advance. Finally, I see that it has been proposed to pass item 39 and delay its effective date until this summer. With respect, this ordinance is not ready to pass with any effective date, and putting something on the shelf that way is a poor way to run a railroad. It needs to be reworked to provide real protections for the community consistent with the law. At present, it contains no protections against the number of stars, but literally authorizes them on every single family lot. If you want to document a wave around at the legislature to show them what you're doing, pass a resolution [11:08:38 AM] you're doing, pass a resolution that outlines a balanced approach that respects all interests. And then let's create an ordinance. Everyone in this room knows that if you adopt this ordinance now with a prospective date, meaningful restrictions and strs will never be included. The city has admitted that str is undermine housing affordability and disrupt neighborhoods. So why would you prepare a proposal that promotes strs over families? This proposal has some laudable, laudable licensing ideas, but it's housing lasts, not housing. First, please do not pass item 39. We can do better. Thank you. >> On item 39, we have noee Elias, Chris Paige and bill bunch. >> Bill bunch, district five [11:09:42 AM] >> Bill bunch, district five with zilker neighborhood association. I really want to urge you all to listen and respect the what you heard just now from Michael curry. He's one of the most respected attorneys in this whole city. He does his homework. He's right dead on on the law and on the policy. You know, the previous council, which includes most of you, voted heavily for the home ordinances with the idea that we need to increase our supply of housing. These are taking away the supply of our housing. You don't even have a good information about the extent of that, or the extent that it would be that conditions would worsen. If you go forward with this, you have the authority to put housing first rather than hotels in residential first. Please do it. Exercise the local [11:10:46 AM] Please do it. Exercise the local authority that you have. Walk the talk that you give us. All the time. These these are driving people out of town and they're making the housing stock. We have be a much smaller supply and substantially more expensive. So sometimes you need to tell, you know, business operators what to do. And this is the time to do it for families, for our neighborhoods, for our, our whole city. And you know, this is a problem across the world now, in any city that's attractive, the real thrust of this ordinance is to fill the giant black hole in the convention center budget, because that's getting the lion's share of the hotel tax. The staff is not being honest with you that that's the real driving force for this. So let's [11:11:47 AM] driving force for this. So let's think about you think about that. >> On item 39. Can we do Colin Mcnamara, Roy Whaley and Monica Guzman? >> Mr. Paige, your name was called. Do you wish to testify on this? Okay. Thank you. >> Should have some slides. That's the document, not the slides. It should be basic. One moment. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Council members first. All data here is provided to the city clerk as well as the planning commission. It is also available on str. Org. My name is Colin Mcnamara. I'm a Dion resident and homeowner, as well as a artificial intelligence engineer. More than a homeowner, I use my va home loan and the blood I shed as a marine to buy that home, which is now [11:12:48 AM] that home, which is now surrounded by hotels, right? There's over 100 unlicensed short term rentals, mostly unlicensed short term rentals in my neighborhood. What they brought is gun violence, including shootings, sex trafficking, drug use and drug dealing. Next slide please. Now, as a city, we're losing about a quarter million dollars a day by lack of enforcement of these of these properties and 82.1 million in a mix of hotel occupancy tax and licensing revenues. Right now, we have 13,000 unlicensed strs and a backlog of 850 complaints. And my experience, it takes almost four months to get to get access to code compliance. Next slide. Now if you compare us versus Denver or Nashville, their response times are under three weeks. How did they do that? Well, they properly staffed code compliance, right. They have ten and 12 full time, full time equivalents in the field where we have four people in the field that are actually doing code compliance. Next slide please. What is the path that we can [11:13:49 AM] What is the path that we can take to Denver's success. Well you know we can fund just by getting us up to eight. We can fund that in five days of going and ticketing the unlicensed the unlicensed strs and another. And they'll bring $36 million into our city coffers, as well as, most importantly, help protect us, the residents. Next slide please. So my ask to you is one. If you're curious, check out the data. Studies are all based on city data. It's been provided to you and the public, but most importantly, support Daniel ward, support his organization and his inspectors. They're ex-cops. They're ex officers. They put their lives on the line every single day, and it'll take them like 15 years to get along. So please hire the amount of people we need. >> Do I go next, Chris? Do you want me to? You can go. Okay. Thanks. [11:14:51 AM] Thanks. >> The screenshot of inside airbnb, the database that shows both licensed and unlicensed short term rentals in Austin. And you can see they're mainly central and east Austin, but it's still a lot. So start with my points here. Good morning. I'm Monica Guzman, policy director at lugo Austin. Austin. We're opposed to item 39, amending the land development code to permit an str on every residential lot. Doing so eliminates a home for an Austin family or resident. In addition, there's no legitimate. And if I understood Mr. Curry correctly, legal reason to state that str cannot be prohibited because they can be. Our proposal prioritizes investors over Austin residents, str platforms and tourists over the interest of austinites who live, work, [11:15:52 AM] of austinites who live, work, play and pray, who want to raise their children or age in place in the residential neighborhoods. During the home initiative. Public hearings for both phases, residents and then council member Alison alter spoke out against anti and str. Millwood neighborhood association member. Please consider adding a short term rental restrictions so neighborhoods don't fill with short term people at the expense of community being lost. Then council member Alison alter, increasing the potential for high income, investor driven use of our limited housing stock does not, in my estimation, further our housing supply goals council approved the home initiative to address a housing shortage, a housing crisis. Yet with every house, accessory dwelling unit, apartment, condo and modular home that is converted for use as an str or built set up as an str is loss of a home for Austin families and individuals. When amending [11:16:52 AM] and individuals. When amending the land development code, your focus needs to be on an equity anti- displacement overlay in Austin's eastern crescent and other vulnerable communities to prevent displacement, as well as ensure low income, working class residents are part of the project. >> Thank you, miss Guzman. >> We have Chris Paige with time donated by Brad Massingill and that would be a total of four minutes. >> So. Thank you. >> Come and take it. I think that's a Texas motto. I think you all should be familiar with section 25 251 specifically reserves areas in the city for residential occupancy. That [11:17:55 AM] residential occupancy. That means for families, not for short term rentals and the municipal. The municipality of Austin has great deference from courts and within the framework of our laws to govern its zoning districts. So I've quantified some of the str impacts, and there's 2191 licensed short term rentals, over 15,500 on just one platform. There's I went through code enforcement 83,000 over 83,000 entries, the first time that code enforcement ever logged an str related case. And there's a part of the form for every code enforcement case where they should indicate whether or not it's str related. First time they logged one was December 1st, 2020. Out of all 83,000 entries in code [11:18:57 AM] 83,000 entries in code enforcement, there's less than 5% that check that box of whether or not it's str related. And out of the ones that did check the box, over 96% were str related. That's a nuisance. City has 44 zip codes 78702 the fastest gentrifying, formerly segregated east Austin zip code is number two in the city for str. That's because people buy lower cost houses and turn them into strs, which are more profitable than long term renting. Type two currently has 3 to 5% density cap. That's the 1000 foot buffer that we have now. Type two part of it got wiped out for interstate discrimination based on the homestead requirement. But if you take that out and still have the thousand foot buffer, you stay at a 3 to 5% cap. What you're proposing today is 100% cap. 100 people from New York could buy 100 houses in Austin [11:19:58 AM] could buy 100 houses in Austin and turn 100 houses in a row into short term rentals that nobody lives in, and they're unoccupied for 60 to 70% of the year. Type three 3% originally proposed 25%. If four companies buy into a db 90, that's 100%. I think hotels are probably interested in seeing that not happen, which is why we heard from planning commissioners to guard against that. But if we're going to guard, and I know there's also been some city council members who've talked about capping multifamily str, but if you're going to do that, why would you cap it for multifamily, but not for neighborhoods? Supply side affordability. It makes everything that you've been saying for the last two years totally vacuous. You know, that this is going to take homes off the market. These are the cities across the country in the last three years that have significantly increased their str regulations, because they recognize that it has a disparate impact on communities that have lower, lower valued [11:21:00 AM] that have lower, lower valued homes. And it also significantly reduces the availability of long term housing. So what are feasible regulations, property rights are technically a constitutional right, but within that bundle is the right to lease land. But that's not an unlimited right. We have regulations, and not only do we have regulations, but str is a licensed use and that's in every city. Licensing is something that specifically serves as consumer protections. It serves for health and safety. Quality of life licensing is a valid use. The right to lease land is not unlimited. And I'm going to have more on this presentation for the next items. Thanks. >> On item 39, Roy Whaley and Marissa Peralez. >> If your name's been called, please come forward. >> Good morning. My name is [11:22:15 AM] >> Good morning. My name is Marissa Peralez and I reside in district three. I even though I'm in district three, I received council member Siegel emails, which I find very useful. And so I was reading the most recent email which indicated, quote, council decided to postpone action on new short-term rental regulations until after the Texas legislative session. And I think that's a great idea, and I urge you to, in fact, postpone action on these regs until after the session. If you postpone action, this will allow you to really, truly engage in the affected public residents, such as those in in our district in the o2, where we see a whole lot of what was formerly affordable housing being bought up, demolished, turned into speculative housing and then rented out as a short term [11:23:17 AM] rented out as a short term rental, you could engage the public who have been affected, like we have to come up with some more creative solutions within our current legal limitations. And then implement those after the legislature has finished up with its session. What what's been proposed now does nothing to address the proliferation of short term rentals in neighborhoods such as mine. It does nothing to try to limit the buying up of what is currently affordable housing in order to make money through leases, through the short term rental market, the limiting of the ability of corporations to operate short term rentals within a certain 1000ft. It really that does nothing for the nearby residents. And so if you really want to make a difference, then just postpone [11:24:18 AM] difference, then just postpone it. >> Thank you. >> Mayor. That concludes all speakers on item 39. >> Thank you very much, members. You just heard that that concludes all the speakers on item number 39. So without objection, we will close the public hearing on item number 39. Member of members, it's 1123 and we have a 12:00 time certain. So what I was thinking we would do is go ahead and hear from speakers on items 40 and 41 and then take them all up together, even if it's after we do the time certain, unless there's objection, that's what we'll do. That being the case, we've closed the public hearing on item number 39. Let's go to item number 40. >> We have a couple remote speakers on item 40. Angela Benavides Garza. >> Hi, this is Angela Benavides Garza again. And like I am in district three, and like the other ladies who spoke, I do get Denise letter from Mr. Mike Siegel. Thank you for that [11:25:19 AM] Siegel. Thank you for that because it is very helpful and I would agree to a postponement as well. With all this new information that we're learning today because it's ongoing. Right. But it's really important to understand this document is not perfect. Right. And we have legislation that's coming down the pipeline and understanding how real estate laws work and private land works there. There are also laws that are set at a state level that we always don't have control over. And that's why we've got to understand that all this interconnects, and I appreciate the information from Mr. Michael Kerri for doing your due diligence for us as well. Thank you for that. But we have to understand that these things are running legally today and they're not making them safe. It's not making it safe for our neighborhoods today, while we're in our neighborhoods and talking to members of the community, I hear almost every day when I go out there how unsafe it is and how these things are being run illegally. And there's complaint after complaint after complaint [11:26:20 AM] after complaint after complaint about this. And if you go into the ordinance, at least we have a work in progress to start working towards solutions to that. And I did listen to the planning commission as well, planning commission as well, and how they were actually implementing fines, deep fines as well to get this thing done. We only have about 4 to 7 people that are doing code compliance, and this will give us the open door to get our people staffed up so that we have this regulation being taken care of the way it should be. Okay. And I'll continue on 41. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Next on item 40, Nyla akinyemi sankofa. >> Good afternoon. Akinyemi sankofa. Again, regarding item number 40, I don't know if I'm neutral for it or against it because there's not enough information out there for, you know, at least readily available [11:27:22 AM] know, at least readily available to see why you all are recommending removing. Removing the I mean, it's not removing but the removal. Yeah. Of the adding the related regulations to apply to owners, operators and platforms. What does that mean for us in our small apartment community here in Hyde park, which now a lot of the units now are being rented to small families as, as as opposed to graduate and undergraduate students, primarily in the past. And we're a small community. We're a quiet community. We know each other. We commune with each other. But yet when we have these str guests here, we don't know who these people are. They don't want to adhere to the same rules that we have to as residents. And I agree with the previous speakers that allowing [11:28:24 AM] previous speakers that allowing so many strs, especially whether they're in single family homes and neighborhoods, neighborhoods of single family homes or neighborhoods with multi-family units like large and small apartment complexes, these folks are coming in and out, and they have no regard for the peace and identity of the folks who live in our communities, in our neighborhoods. And so what is the city doing and applying to? Enforce regulations that apply to str guests who are either visiting a city? Thank you for guests. >> We will now switch to in person. First, we have Jenny Grayson with time donated by Brad Massingill for a total of four minutes. >> Jenny Grayson opposing item [11:29:36 AM] >> Jenny Grayson opposing item 40. One of the goals of this ordinance is to make strs more compatible with neighborhoods. So I got curious and wondered what defines a neighborhood? It's a district forming a community within a city. So what does community mean? It's a group of people living in the same place sharing common interests and goals. So I started looking at some of the airbnb listings in my neighborhood. We hosted a bachelorette party in Austin, perfect for our group of 12. This is an unlicensed str that claims homestead exemption. Had a great stay. Oh, had a great stay. Definitely a party house. There was tape on the cabinets from decorations and champagne corks in the yard also claiming homestead exemption. This is the house where a shooting occurred last November. The house was unlicensed at the time, but now they have a license. Even though the city and APD knew about the shooting. The owner lives in California, is claiming homestead exemption, still has a license. Bachelorette party sleep 16 another bachelorette party. Sleep 16 plus this sleep 614 43rd birthday party sleeps [11:30:38 AM] 614 43rd birthday party sleeps ten. So going back to neighborhood and community, I argue that none of these guests are coming to our neighborhoods to have a community dinner with us, help us with our trash pickups, watch a baseball game, or meet people at the community garden. And since you all won't regulate the uses of strs there, simply incompatible with neighborhoods and none of the proposed regarded regarding regulations and enforcements will make them more compatible with neighborhoods. This is the approximate location of strs in Mckinley heights, which is my neighborhood. Where's the evidence that the current 1000 foot buffer is actually enforced? It's not. And how will you enforce the revised 1000 foot buffer that actually allows more str units? I argue that you won't remember a few months ago when the city passed the home options for middle income earners ordinances to increase housing supply and affordability. Do you think that any of these homes should be on the market for long term rent, or for purchase by the people who live and work in Austin? Do [11:31:38 AM] who live and work in Austin? Do you all remember us standing here during home asking what stopping this new supply from becoming short term rentals? And you all said we would be a part of the planning process in 2025. And here we are with the only entities involved in drafting this ordinance have been this str industry itself. Should we care that the realtor.com also has recruited some of you to speak at a south by southwest panel next month? Will you say Austin is a success story? Will you mention the 15,000 unlicensed properties that are off the market for middle income earners? We talk about how this ordinance will allow more short term rentals than affordable units. Should I attend this event to get a chance to speak to my council person, since we don't know if she's engaging in us here. If you would like to build a cohesive, complementary ordinance that accomplishes the city goals, you will ensure this ordinance prioritizes affordable units over strs. You won't allow new strs until we have a majority of current properties in compliance, and you would encourage smaller, more efficient homes by not rewarding party mansions that sleep 16 plus, the ordinances will not [11:32:39 AM] plus, the ordinances will not accomplish any of your goals. Please do what's best for our city and affordability. Regulate the current market before expanding it, and actually mean it. When you say you care about affordability or low income earners. And mayor Watson, I don't know where you went while I was speaking, but I'm going to go back to this, the panel which you're hosting and a part of next month during south by southwest. I would love to know what you're going to say and how you're going to frame Austin at realtor.com, knowing that you all didn't engage the community whenever you were writing these proposed ordinances and you worked strictly with the industry, the short term industry, it's ridiculous. How how are y'all doing this? And why can't we get our council person here? Thank you. >> Appreciate you. >> On item 40 we have Carlos pinion, Deborah blumentritt, [11:33:39 AM] pinion, Deborah blumentritt, Michael curry, Noah Elias. Chris Paige with time donated by Barbara Macarthur and Marissa Peralez. >> Or any of those names, people that are going to provide testimony. All right. Please come forward. >> Chris Paige will have six minutes. >> Creekmur. >> I think this. >> Is different. It's the one I put on. [11:34:40 AM] put on. Good. >> So as I said, come and take it. I've included in this one the all these cities, these are national piers, many much larger than us, some around approximate size, that have substantially increased their regulations on. The primary motivation for most of those was to increase or maintain, at a minimum, the [11:35:41 AM] maintain, at a minimum, the supply of long term housing. These are the cities in the fifth circuit that have done the same, most of which are in Texas. And you can add to that list New Orleans, which is currently in litigation and its regulations. I'm curious how much communication the housing department or any of you have had with peer cities in the fifth circuit to talk about this problem, because I don't see any of the innovation that other cities are using getting built into Austin's short term rental regulation policies. So for property rights, you do have a basically a constitutional property light, right? Within that bundle is the right to lease land. As I said before, it's not an absolute right. The right to lease land is not the equivalent of the right to lease land for any use in any place. It's not equivalent to the right to short term rent. There is no constitutional right to short term rent. Property owner property owners capacity to [11:36:45 AM] property owners capacity to lease land for residential use is untouched, even by a prohibition on short term rental. Every landowner can always lease their land. They can always lease it to somebody who needs a home or any other permitted use within their zoning district. There's anti clustering provisions that other cities have used. It's been brought up in passing at your work session. There's currently a 1000 foot buffer. Why would you change that to an ownership based thousand foot buffer. How many problems do you have with one person owning multiple strs within 1000ft? What you see is a scattered portfolio across a general area that has more affordable homes to buy. When I see anti clustering used in the context of an ownership based thousand foot buffer, what I hear is a hotel protection. There's hotels that are concerned that there's going to [11:37:45 AM] concerned that there's going to be many hotels eating into their business. You have a non owner contingent thousand foot buffer. You should maintain that. And I'd love to hear an explanation for who came up with an ownership based thousand foot buffer. I know the hotel lobby was substantially in touch with our tourism commission when they were crafting their recommendation for you, and I'm sure that their voice has been built into what we're looking at now. We also have 1000 foot buffer for bed and breakfast. Well, what is airbnb? What is the b&b stand for? A bed and breakfast? If we have 1000 foot unlimited buffer for bed and breakfast, why would we have a less protective of long term occupancy land use? Why would we have a weaker buffer for airbnb and other short term rental platforms? There could be a prohibition on new str use with, you know, the appropriate [11:38:47 AM] you know, the appropriate measures to make sure that it's not an unconstitutional taking. You can allow the grandfathered uses, but you can totally turn off the spigot on this problem. Another way that cities have dealt with regulating the proliferation of short term rentals is instead of as as we did here in Austin, using something like a homestead exemption, which is purely based on where someone is domiciled, you can't get a homestead exemption if you're not domiciled there, but if you go to hosted str or owner occupied, then you have not made a constitutional violation. You have not discriminated against non-texan residents and their capacity to own and operate short term rentals. They simply have to be on site while they're doing it. You should have zero cost transparency. I know there's been talk about hiring third party data scraping services. You're licensing a business in your city. You have [11:39:49 AM] business in your city. You have the authority of government. You can regulate these things down in a way to also negotiate greater transparency and direct data transfer from the platforms. You shouldn't have to pay taxpayer dollars or, you know, change some tax to fund a third party data scraper to try to figure out. And then you don't even know if that's working. Who's auditing the data scraper? You should have direct transparency from the platforms. Another problem is platform platforms are not willing to validate licenses. What that means is that anybody can punch in some numbers that look like a license, and the platform will still operate. And we've seen what temp tags did here in Texas with the paper license plate. It became a national a national joke basically. Every platform should be validating. And we know that in other municipalities like New York, they do it. So it's not [11:40:50 AM] they do it. So it's not impossible. You should also increase fines and penalties for unlicensed strs if you're serious about bringing things into the light. Having them operate with a license, with cities, you know, oversight and regulation, then you should ensure that the penalties exceed the value gained from operating in violation. It's common in most cities, and that's one of the things that's been changing over time. Who are we protecting? Hotels. >> Thank you. Your time. >> Short term platforms and wealthy residents that want to defray their increasing taxes with their second house. >> Thank you sir. >> We're not protecting the poor. >> On item 40, Colin Mcnamara, Roy Whaley and Monica Guzman. >> If your name's been called, you wish to provide comment, please come forward. >> Okay. Can you go ahead and [11:42:10 AM] >> Okay. Can you go ahead and jump to the next page or next image, please? Thank you. Good morning. I'm Monica Guzman, policy director at Garvey. Go, Austin. Vamos, Austin. We're experiencing a crisis of unregulated strs. Affected residents know the truth. Here is an image of the strs licensed and unlicensed in 78702. As Mr. Paige said earlier, the second most gentrified zip code in Austin, and it's in district three. Next slide please. In that area, Gonzalez, which I stood out with the blue seven strs on that street alone, it's hard to tell because of the where the pink dots fall, but I compared it on a Google maps to get a better idea. There are at least seven on that street. Next slide please. Quail hollow, a small north Austin district for neighborhood. There are at least 15 strs in the neighborhood and that circled towards the upper left hand corner. That's not exact spots, but I am willing to [11:43:12 AM] exact spots, but I am willing to bet that those additional three are also in the neighborhood. 18 strs in a small neighborhood. This is not good for the neighbors. At the last public hearing, one of the residents who lives in that area spoke about having to go to the emergency room due to exhaustion, people coming and going, music blaring, vehicles at all hours of the night. And this morning, Austin free press put out an article, the title animal house. Next slide please. That's that's their Instagram post about it. Animal house Austin seeks rules to curb the rowdiest short term rentals. However, a lot of these again, they're LLCs. They're owned by platforms. Others that I don't know if they have if they're actual platforms like urban stay, they put out messages that are confusing. One of them says, quote, drinking not mandatory, but encouraged no parties to respect the neighbors. And [11:44:12 AM] respect the neighbors. And obviously the guests prefer the first one. >> Thank thank you, miss Guzman. >> Thank you. Outside. >> That concludes all speakers on item 40. >> All right. Let's please go to item number 41. And what we'll do is at noon, we will pause this if we're not finished. And we will go to our 12:00 time certain. >> We have a couple speakers remote. First will be Angela Benavides Garza. >> Hello, this is Angela Benavides, Garza, and I'm just going to continue from 39 and 40 as well. Once again, this is not a perfect document, but at least it gets us in that direction. And going back to the lady who spoke earlier about the safety and needing to know backgrounds who are renting these spots, I do agree with her about that, that we do need to know who is going into our neighborhoods. At our schools. We have to go through an insurance process to make sure that we don't have [11:45:13 AM] make sure that we don't have sexual predators in our schools, the same thing we need to do in our neighborhoods as well. But it does go back again to lack of code enforcement to code anything, code enforcement, anything. In in Austin, Texas. And that can be something else that maybe we need to bring up as we continue evolving this document and to give it permission to continue to evolve based on information that we get back, look at it monthly, and not wait till six months down the road to tell us information that we're needing. We can look at a zip code like 78702 and we'll know on a dashboard. Wait a minute. We've got to figure out what's going on. We have too many strs in that area right now. What is happening with that? So we need a system that's going to keep us up to date on what's actually going on, but also adjust to what's going on at the state level, which also ties our hands. Thank you again for all the work that you all are doing. I know it's complex on both ends, and I've heard the complaints on it in the neighborhoods on both ends, but [11:46:14 AM] neighborhoods on both ends, but at least you're doing something. You're getting something moving. Thank you. >> On item 41 we have Nyla akinyemi sankofa. >> Good morning again. This is Nyla akinyemi, sankofa speaking to item 41 as it relates to item 40 and 39. So the part of the regulations for strs about being not being not having multiple ones per owner or operator within 1000ft of each other, well, our small apartment complex here in Hyde park is also owned and operated by the. The owns and operates the property next door, which also has several str units, and they are less within less than 1000ft of each other. So how is that possible? What what is the city doing to, you know, maintain [11:47:16 AM] doing to, you know, maintain regulations and compliance with these regulations, whether with these owners and operators of strs, we, you know, had an incident during Halloween week where one of the str units, one of the guests, decided some young ladies decided to have the 35 to 40 people come onto our property that night to have a party in a two bedroom apartment above the heads of regular, you know, long term residents. Well, after midnight. And I had to sort of break that up and get them out of there because we're not allowed to do that. So why are str guests allowed to violate noise ordinances and other regulations, codes and so on. And that and also that, you know, tenants have to comply with and our leases and also the units that are being that are [11:48:20 AM] units that are being that are set aside for strs in our complex, they're no longer available for low income families. >> We will now move to in-person on item 41. Carlos pinion. No. Elias. Chris Paige with time donated by Barbara Mcarthur. Chris Paige will have four minutes. And on deck we will have Colin Mcnamara and Brad Massingill will also have time donated at that. >> Third time. Come and take it. [11:49:28 AM] >> Third time. Come and take it. So I was just telling you about some of the legal tools that are available to you that you're currently not using and not even thinking about using. That would stem the excessive proliferation of commercial uses within residentially zoned districts in the city, districts that are specifically reserved for long term occupancy. Strict licensing is another tool that cities have been using. New York City in particular. It's a consumer protection for homebuyers, for existing residents, it's also a consumer protection for platforms. And it's part of the reason why str is across the entire country are a licensed business use. Whoever we protecting with the reforms that have been proposed, hotels they're trying to protect hotel [11:50:30 AM] they're trying to protect hotel occupancy tax revenue for their promotion. They have a huge say in how our hotel occupancy taxes are used. If you've seen the magic hole, you know that it's about 70% of hot that they determine where it goes. They're also looking at a decline in hotel occupancy taxes in the years ahead, because the Austin convention center is proposed for demolition and construction, and in that at least four year period, they want to maintain their promotion budget. We also see that short term rental platforms are interested in being protected because they've seen significant, significant decline in revenue after the pandemic era aversion to hotels. As that continues to fade, we see those companies starting to look at how they can pivot their business into more lucrative operations, and one of the ways [11:51:30 AM] operations, and one of the ways to offset a reduced profit margin is to increase volume. So maybe that's why we're looking at potentially 100% str use throughout the city. We also know that there's wealthy residents who want to be protected because they find their increasing taxes annoying. Well, I think we all find those increasing taxes annoying, but is that the first step in what we're trying to triage for the housing problems here in Austin? Someone who doesn't want to give up their vacation once a year, or doesn't want to offset some superficial cost for entertainment affordability in this context is a misnomer. A person who can afford multiple houses and has property for multiple houses is not our first priority. And if it is, it shouldn't be. I'll tell you some anecdotal information too. I've seen family specifically [11:52:31 AM] seen family specifically displaced from my neighborhood families who were already displaced from section eight housing and are when they were displaced by de facto rent increases, their homes turned into unlicensed short term rentals. They sat vacant almost all year, and one of the biggest interruptions during that otherwise vacant period was when that unlicensed str had a shooting in my neighborhood. My neighbors watched somebody die in the street. We saw two other people taken to the er, and that might be the most extreme instance of this, but we've seen substantial nuisance crime, things that don't get addressed because code enforcement doesn't have a night shift. So what are we going to do to enforce a noise ordinance when it's after ten, 30 and 30 or 40, people show up to a house where it's utterly out of control and police don't have capacity to be there? [11:53:33 AM] there? >> Thank you. >> Let's be practical. Thank you. >> Is Jenny Grayson here? >> You wish to speak? >> Brad Massingill will have time donated by Jenny Grayson. He will have four minutes on item 41. >> The other. Brad, I. >> Hope nothing. Okay. Thank you. >> Here's that pesky map again. Of all those dots, I can't help but look at that and think of all that housing that's being taken up by short term rentals. Many of them are just a few days a year, and that's that's ridiculous. New braunfels, the home of a schlitterbahn. They banned their ban on strs, was upheld in federal court last month. There are no stars in [11:54:33 AM] month. There are no stars in residential areas. Owners must have a valid permit and submit to an annual life safety inspection. There's not a lot of middle ground with this issue either. Platforms allow local authorities to regulate their activities, or there's an outright ban, which is totally legal. Airbnb spent $100 million in San Francisco fighting regulations. Same in Dallas and Miami. New Orleans is currently being sued by airbnb, Austin and you, the city council, have got to be feeling the pressure from these str from the str industry. With that kind of money floating around, I think it's logical to assume representatives and lobbyists from the str industry have been pressuring you all to with the threat of lawsuits and the like, and they've been losing their lawsuits, mind you. I think it's time for us to take a step back and get in touch [11:55:33 AM] a step back and get in touch with our peer cities. Like Chris was saying, especially tourist hubs, this is a national problem, and it's up to our nation's mayors to band together and push back. It's national reforms. I mean, Mr. Mayor, I know y'all are in the mayoral council and you all meet, and this is a big problem. I wish you'd take some leadership and get with some of these people and figure out something we can do nationally about this, because it's the housing crisis. And the homeless crisis is a national issue. And this is one of the major components of it is pulling all these houses off the market. The fact that considering passing this now and then revisiting in six months for things to kick in doesn't make much sense as well. You know, we should be having more public input before you pass this to get to that stage. Why waste all that valuable time [11:56:34 AM] waste all that valuable time getting the public more time to have input on this? Sorry, I'm not as organized as I thought I was, but we're not alone in this and we're playing catch up. So I would encourage you all to reach out to those other cities, especially new braunfels. And we got a precedent in the city, of a city in our state that has successfully pushed this back. And I think we can do the same. Thanks. >> For speaking on item 41. Roy Whaley, Monica Guzman and Marissa Peralez. >> If your name's been called and you wish to be heard, please come forward. >> Oops. [11:57:42 AM] >> Oops. >> I'm a resident. Was trying to get me their statement to read for them, but they didn't get it to me yet, so I'll just go ahead and say what I was going to say. Good morning. I'm Monica Guzman, policy director at lugo. Austin. Austin, I'm going to start by quoting Michael curry's February 25th Austin free press article, hotels over homes Austin can and must do more to stem the loss of homes to short term rentals. Quote where every local str that exists today is licensed, well behaved and paying its hotel occupancy taxes. The fundamental flaw of the city's proposed str rules is that they fail to cap the total number of stars. Stars don't just replace neighbors with a rotating cast of strangers. Each str eliminates a home for Austin families and residents, reducing available housing, end quote. There are already existing str regulations. I remember because I was working a temp job in [11:58:43 AM] I was working a temp job in Austin code at the time that those came out to give them teeth. That's where the focus needs to be. Make them enforceable. Make it possible for inspectors to go out to answer calls that come in to three, one one, especially if there's not a special number set up for the neighbors of strs to call. I, you know, the main platforms airbnb, vrbo, they automatically collect the hotel occupancy taxes. They've been doing that for years in Texas. What you need to do is find a way to address the ones who aren't paying it all because they're on alternative platforms like Instagram, Facebook marketplace. That takes time. We urge you to postpone action on this item 41, as well as items 39 and 40, to allow time for the Texas state legislature's sine die. Find out what comes out of that session to allow time for authentic community engagement and input. Thank you. >> Good morning again. Marissa [11:59:52 AM] >> Good morning again. Marissa Peralez and I am from district three and I reside in 7702, in the holly neighborhood on willow street. Go willow and I you know, I've, I've resided there for a while now, but I used to drive around my neighborhood and observe so many homes being demolished. And every time I'd see a home demolished, I'd go look. Look up on tcad to see who purchased it, who owns it, who's demolishing the home, and every single time, like 100% of the time, it was not an individual who had purchased the home. It was a corporation, an LLC. And that home was inevitable, that the homes were always, you know, existing, affordable, smaller units, and they were inevitably replaced by large duplexes or condo regimes that were no longer really affordable to the existing residents in the area. My understanding is that the home ordinance that was passed [12:00:53 PM] home ordinance that was passed by city council was intended to kind of stem some of this gentrification, maybe maintain some level of affordability. I remain skeptical, I'll admit that I don't really see that happening. But if we do nothing to discourage short term rentals, then any of the stated objectives of home will absolutely fail and they will fail. A particularly in neighborhoods such as mine. These proposed regulations, in my view, do nothing to stem short term rentals from taking over our neighborhoods. Our concern is not going to be so much rapid gentrification and what it's doing to the folks that have lived in my neighborhood for generations, our concern is going to be, you know, turning our neighborhood from a gentrifying neighborhood into a hotel neighborhood. And that's really something that we should endeavor to prevent. This [12:01:54 PM] should endeavor to prevent. This doesn't. >> Get us there. Peralez. >> Mayor. That concludes all speakers on item 41. >> Members. As you've heard, we've now conducted the public hearing on item number 39 and heard all of the speakers and close that public hearing. And we've heard all of the speakers that are signed up on item 40 and 41. So what I it's 1201. So we will go to our 12:00 time certain which is public comment, general public comment. And then at the end of that we will recess. I anticipate that will be at 1230 to 1235. We will recess for live music and the we'll recess until 110 and be what I would suggest we do. We come back at 110 and we will take up items 39, 40 and 41 at that point in time. So if we could let's go to our 12:00 time. Certain general public comment, folks. If you signed up on general public comment, you know the order that your name will appear. Please come forward and be prepared so that you can [12:02:54 PM] and be prepared so that you can come to the microphone and give your public testimony. But we will, in fact call your names and I'll turn to the clerk's office to do that. >> First speaker we have is cliff. Cliff. >> Nope. >> Austin against apartheid is a boycott campaign aligned with the global boycott, divestment and sanctions movement, uniting businesses and customers in a call for freedom, justice and equality for the Palestinian people by building a network of informed customers and businesses. The campaign aims to reduce Austin's contribution to companies profiting from Israel's illegal occupation of palestine. Some have called this an antisemitic campaign against jewish businesses, but rr does not target identity. It strictly targets companies and institutions based on complicity in denying Palestinian rights. More importantly, Israel is committing the crime of [12:03:56 PM] committing the crime of apartheid. Palestinians living in the west bank have been subject to a brutal military occupation for 58 years. Israel has been establishing settlements in the occupied territories, which is a crime under the Geneva conventions. Businesses that operate on these stolen lands are profiting from human rights abuses. The international court of justice, in its July 2024 advisory opinion, found that Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories violates the international convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination, which prohibits racial segregation and apartheid. The United States and its western allies have ignored this decision, and Israel has gone on to commit a wave of vicious pogroms, with over 40,000 Palestinians being forcefully displaced from their homes in the west bank this year. While our government refuses to comply with international law and sanction Israel, Austin against apartheid enables local businesses and customers to vote with their wallets to put pressure on companies operating at the expense of Palestinians. Basic human rights. Apartheid is [12:04:57 PM] human rights. Apartheid is practiced inside the state of Israel as well. The jewish nation state basic law, passed in 2018, constitutionally enshrined jewish supremacy and the identity of the state of Israel as the nation state of the jewish people. But this principle had already governed policy towards Arab Israeli citizens for the preceding 50 years. For 20 years before that, they were denied citizenship and subjected to martial law. Inside the state of Israel, schools are segregated and jewish schools receive more resources. Arab villages are not allowed to expand beyond defined boundaries. Palestinians may run for seats in the knesset, but political parties are banned if they advocate for equal rights for all. Americans, including many jewish activists, fought for generations to bring about the civil rights movement and an end to legalized segregation here. The decades that followed have shown that legal reforms are only a first step. Racial discrimination still permeates our society. If we turn a blind eye when our closest ally is estate built on this principle, [12:05:58 PM] estate built on this principle, then it's no wonder we have failed to fix our problems at home. Thank you. >> Next we have silver white mountain. >> Hey y'all, silver white mountain here. I'm going to be speaking with a little seasoning for added flavor. I'm here to give you all a break from all those speakers you all have been having. At the noon hour. I turn 70 waiting to sign up to speak. I don't have the rights to this music, but it has a message. It's titled I can't drive 55. I've added on 35 most of the time. Action. Play it. >> Down. You ready boys? One [12:07:08 PM] One foot on the brake and one on the gas. Hey! When there's too much traffic, I can't pass. No. So I try my best legal move. I'm big, black and white. Come and catch my groove again. Come on, ride me up a I can't hear you. My face wanted dead or alive I take my license and all that jive I can't drive because. >> I'm 35. >> Schmalbach. Oh. Wu. So I sign my name on number 24. Yeah, the [12:08:10 PM] my name on number 24. Yeah, the judge said, boy, just one more. I'm gonna throw your pass in the city joint. I say, you get my point, I say, yeah, why? Yeah, qadri uncle 125 yeah, hold my face. Wanna get out of line? Take my license in all that time. Because I can't drive. >> On 35. >> I can't drive 55. I can't drive. Let me hear you, my. I can't drive 55. I can't drive 55. Oh! [12:09:16 PM] 55. Oh! >> Thank you. I can't drive 55 on 35. And I was born in 55. >> Next we have Chris Chen Shaw. >> Should have some slides. >> Chris Chen sappi district ten. Today I'm asking for council to allow six story single stair apartments. This is a case study of what a single stair building would look like on an actual lot, in an actual Austin neighborhood. This is a project that I'm looking at doing with a couple of my friends. We're we're we have no big money behind us. We're no mega corporations or anything like that. We're just individuals looking to build some apartments. Yeah. So this is the lot. This is what it [12:10:17 PM] is the lot. This is what it looks like now. It's a very small lot, 39, 70ft S. And in this project, I really want you to see how single stair enables these small lot apartments. Yeah. So this property is five minutes from the 28th street project connect station that will be built. Five minute walk. I've walked it myself. And it sits currently just outside of the uno boundaries. It looks like it's going to be brought into the uno expansion. Yeah. And this is kind of what a massing looks like relative to some of the other buildings in the area. There's a lot of big blocky apartments nearby. So this is by no means spectacular in this. In this area it's again, the property is owned owned by me and it's rented out [12:11:17 PM] owned by me and it's rented out by just students at this time. Yeah. And this is a rendering of what a six story building could look like on this lot. You can see it's not that much bigger than the apartment building to the right. It kind of like fits similar scale. There's an entry to an elevator or stairway. And I want you to see how much room there is for windows on this building. And I know west campus windows in your bedrooms. What a concept. So I know it's really hard to imagine actually living in windowed bedrooms in west campus, but this layout pushes all the bedrooms to the outer perimeter. So you get all of these nice windows on the perimeter, lots of sunlight. Yeah. And this is a sample floor plan of what this might look like three units per floor. And [12:12:18 PM] like three units per floor. And I just want to say people love European style living. And this is a project of that proportion of that building proportion. Six story single stair is how we start to get some of that appeal. And there's lots of sunlight windowed bedrooms, balconies. And then let's talk affordability. Six story single stair is the most cost effective for renters. I run a pro Forma comparison on four story single stair, five story single stair, and six story single stair. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Next we will have Kesha brown. >> Followed by Robert Talley and Katelyn Barnes. So if you're that's one of your if that's your name, please be ready to come forward. Welcome. Please state your name for the record. >> Am I. >> My name is Kesha brown. Okay. So thank you, city council, for [12:13:21 PM] So thank you, city council, for the time and opportunity to address this. I love Texas and I love Austin, born and raised. And as you know, we have a beautiful, rich history. The vision for historic preservation means preserving history. History is preserved by street names, books, school names, parks, etc. And if we don't preserve history, there will be nothing to revisit. The history of Austin is fascinating. The east Austin is part of why we're Texas, why we're Austin. I'm nominating two extraordinary women to be added and preserved to the great history of Austin. Righting the wrong of our past. Dorothy turner was told two times to this nomination. She was the Harriet tubman of Austin. Hopefully everyone has copies of the documentations detailing their contributions and achievements to east Austin. Austin, Texas, the nation, and possibly the world. As a young girl, they made a positive impression on me, never fully understanding why. Now I understand they were great women [12:14:22 PM] understand they were great women of history. I'm not nominating them for a street name plaque, not a street name change. Example Hamilton avenue over that sign it says Richard Overton's name plaque placing Dorothy turner's name plaque over rosewood avenue is perfect to go along with the celebration of the beautiful revamp of rosewood apartments. And miss Marvin Kimbrough's plaque placed on any street between rosewood and seventh street. Tillis 10 or 11 street is perfect. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Next we have Robert Talley, followed by Jessica Cohen. Caitlyn Lianes has informed us she will not be speaking today. >> I'm sorry. Say that again. >> Caitlyn Barnes has informed us that she will not be speaking today. >> Is Mr. Robert Talley here. >> Jessica Cohen. Carol Philipson. On deck is liana Gillum. >> Well, she's coming forward. [12:15:25 PM] >> Well, she's coming forward. Robert Talley you said Caitlyn has already contacted us Jessica Cohen. >> Correct. >> Okay. Very good. Please come ahead. Yes. You're welcome. I was just trying to make sure I was up to date. >> So am I supposed to work this? >> If you can? Yeah. >> I've never done that before. >> Well, give it your best shot. And if you can't, we'll help you out. >> All right. Okay. Sorry. So this is regarding case sb 220240140 cs tower ventures. As I previously stated, city staff has disregarded you, mayor Watson and governor Abbott's intentions to mitigate wildfire risk by approving an additional wildfire risk to a high risk location. The bcp and bordering neighborhoods. Like most, I knew nothing about cell towers. This shows you the different types of cell towers. This monopole design is self-supporting without guidelines for stability. Monopoles can catch fire and or fall from design flaws, flaws, engineering defects, lack of maintenance, [12:16:26 PM] defects, lack of maintenance, weather, ice, wind or lightning purchased at the highest point of gesture. Lightning strikes are a real concern. Already one jester home has structural fire and others have sustained electrical damage from lightning. Tower ventures have no environmental assessments on file. When asked why Keith Mars of dsd emailed me, I only have information related to compliance with city of Austin regulations and further explained unless this matter is addressed in the current adopted land development code, my staff must approve a compliant site plan. Why, then was municode 25? Dash 2-8 39 not enforced? Section F, line D states the proposed tower location will not negatively affect a residential neighborhood. This particular tract of bcp was steep canyons and little access for firefighters is unique and more dangerous than others as it merges into bull creek and saint Edward's park with no fuel break, so it will negatively affect thousands of bordering homes. Unfortunately, wildfire does not abide by Austin code. [12:17:29 PM] does not abide by Austin code. Vicki Goodwin build to mitigate risk is also supported by Sarah Eckhardt and Lloyd Doggett. The 100 foot tower is being built as I speak, and it's only 19in 19ft from bcp. I implore you to stop construction and update all city codes to mitigate this new wildfire risk and for future cell installations, I don't know. Let me see. Oh, there we go. Somebody did it. Thank you. All right. But yeah, it's just a serious situation there. Vicki Goodwin is very poor for this. I spoke to Sarah Eckhardt, Lloyd Doggett and Donna Howard. They're up for it. But city staff, they need to take. They need to get rid of this thing. 19ft, and it's 100 foot. And I know that the risk might be small, but the dangers are so extreme. Thank you so much. >> Thank you. >> Next is liana Gilliam. >> Hello. [12:18:33 PM] >> Hello. >> Hi. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, the same photo. Thank you. Hi. I'm speaking about the same case, tower ventures. >> Could you state your name for the record? >> Pardon me, liana Gilliam. Thank you. According according to the Austin fire marshal's office, this is the first time the cell tower is being built just feet away from the federally protected endangered species habitat. The balcones canyonlands preserve. The site plan fails to illustrate the severity of this new wildfire threat, which is evident in the accompanying pictures. The first two pictures thank you show where the 100 foot monopole is being built only 19ft and 100ft, respectively, from bcp property. The generator, with backup batteries and diesel fuel storage is just 33ft from bcp. That's the third picture. I think there's another. >> Ma'am. I'm sorry. >> Okay, I don't think we have that picture. Thank you. Note [12:19:35 PM] that picture. Thank you. Note that tower ventures have misled city staff by saying that in their experience, no cell tower has fallen and caught fire as there's no electricity on the monopole, except there is a stadium light on this pole. However, experts at the international association of wildland fire disagree. Telecommunications sites present unique risks, primarily because of the signal and power supply lines at the base of the tower. Cell tower fires are electrical fires that cannot be fought through conventional methods. Until the power is cut. It can take up to 60 minutes to cut power to a fallen tower, once it is confirmed, is down. Furthermore, this project likely violates the endangered species act, the migratory bird treaty act, and the national environmental policy act. The endangered species act prohibits harm to endangered species and their habitats without review and mitigation. The migratory bird treaty act protects migratory birds that nest and [12:20:37 PM] migratory birds that nest and breed in the preserve, and the national environmental policy act requires the FCC to review tower construction and registration for licensed services as actions, which has not happened in this case. Given these concerns, I urge you to halt the construction of this project and conduct a full environmental review in accordance with federal laws. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Our last speaker will be joining us remotely, James Roberts. >> Hello, everyone. We are remote and so we don't have control of the slide deck, but hopefully y'all can see it. I'm just going to step through. We are just doing this presentation as an awareness and to support the fact of building with responsible materials. And this is not primarily focused on fire, fire and noncombustible materials and new and performance building habits. So the second slide, you can just see we're focusing on acoustical [12:21:38 PM] see we're focusing on acoustical performance, high strength eco friendly fire resistance, moisture and weather. These are all major components that are required when you're building a structure, whether it's a residential property or a commercial property. On the third slide, mostly for firefighters, the most important thing is containment of that fire and reducing the amount of combustion so that we can get people out of the building and then reduce the, the, the, the ability of spreading to neighboring properties. On the third, the fourth slide, you can see that we design and engineer. And this is also pushing for awareness for other builders to be smarter about what we're building. And building with timber studs is an archaic form of construction, and doing it with light gauge steel is not only a recyclable, recycled project product, but it's also lighter. It can be installed with half the crew and it's [12:22:39 PM] with half the crew and it's straighter and it's going to last longer. We are looking at doing methods on slide five, where all your walls and trusses and everything are prefabbed inside the factory, and then delivered to site and then erected into the residential or the commercial structure. If you can see on slide six where all the design and engineering, everything's done just the same in a cad form like program and then is erected on site. The wall assemblies, this is on slide seven is it's very simple. It's very it's very much like a regular house. You've got your interior wall board, which is your number five. Number four is your steel framing then number three which is your insulation, your number two which is your structural sheathing panel. And in this case this is this is your fireproof barrier. And then your number one is your exterior siding, whatever whatever you like to choose, whether it's brick or stucco or other siding. [12:23:41 PM] brick or stucco or other siding. But all this is all fireproof fire retardant materials. Being a stronger and more durable product is the most important thing because it brings in safety and it's easier to install, and it has a much longer lasting, lasting life. All these products, by the way, on this slide, number nine are mold resistant, water resistant, bug proof, you name it. So we'll get into a lot of the. And then it's also for residential commercial. >> Your time is expired. Thank you very much okay. >> Thank you. >> Jessica Cohen. >> Well Mr. Mayor council thank y'all so much. Sorry about that. It's a little hard for me to get away at lunch. I'm here to talk to you about something really, really simple. After Thanksgiving, I received a call [12:24:41 PM] Thanksgiving, I received a call from a friend of mine who bartends on red river crying, telling me that she had gotten another parking citation. So I started thinking to myself, we love to trot out the moniker that we are the live music capital of the world. And yet the parking meters in the red river cultural district are adversely impacting the employees who work there. When I chaired the park district working group, we worked really hard to include housing for our musicians, artists, sound engineers, bartenders, staff. I'd like to see us do the same thing, because what it feels like is that patrons can come once, twice a month, watch a show, leave. And that's not really an overly hard burden for them to pay for those parking meters. But for the folks who may have to walk 6 or 7 blocks with the cash they just made in their pocket, they tend to want to park a little closer to their business. So I'm just here simply to ask on behalf of them, because they asked me to speak for them if y'all would at least consider maybe changing the hours or removing some of the parking meters along red river [12:25:43 PM] parking meters along red river between sixth street and 12th street. And that's it. Thank you so much. >> Thank you for being here, mayor. >> That concludes all. Speakers for noon. Public communication members. >> That is all the folks that have signed up for our 12:00 time certain on for public communication. So with that and without objection, we will be in recess until 1:10 P.M. The city council is in recess till 1:10 P.M. It is 12:25 P.M. >> Ready? [12:37:09 PM] >> Ready? >> Oh. All right. Hello, everybody. I have the privilege today of introducing a district five resident, Chris Gebhard, who, upon moving to Austin, Texas, in 2000, Chris began working as a sideman with a variety, a wide array of bands and projects fastball, Ian Moore, Bruce Robinson, Kelly Willis, cotton Mather, Susanna schaufele, Rick Trevino, Patrick Patrice pike, ginger Lee, Bob Schneider, Casey Crowley and many others. 2022 saw the release of his first solo album, moon landing. 2025 will be an exciting year as well, because Chris will be releasing two separate jazz guitar trio records, both of which were produced by Eddie basil. He is also looking forward to releasing his next rock record, as well as doing private gigs with his cover band project radio gold, and shows with skyrocket and little wedding band. And so with that, I am privileged to introduce Chris [12:38:10 PM] privileged to introduce Chris Gebhard. >> Thank you, thank you. Bells and whistles fill my mind. I can go there anytime. Like an ocean built upon goodbyes. I've been cut and sliced so thin or [12:39:15 PM] been cut and sliced so thin or in sky. Poison wind. When I was hoping I would see you there. Just leave me here to slide. You found me better and whistles. They surround me. I can see it. City lights blinking off into the night. No one knows the secrets that they hold. Keep the pictures in the box. Keep the boat tied to the dock. Said I was hoping I would see you [12:40:16 PM] was hoping I would see you there. Said leave. Me here. To slide. You found me bells and whistles. They surround me to leave me. Just like you found me. Bells and whistles. They surround me. I was taken by the sound. Never falling to the ground again. Getting lost within the sound. Never falling to the ground. Said leave. Be here to slide. Found me. Bells [12:41:19 PM] here to slide. Found me. Bells and whistles. They surround me. Thank you. Thanks, thanks. >> Well, thank you so much. We have a proclamation here. I'd love to have you join us up here for. So be it known that whereas the city of Austin is blessed with many creative musicians whose talent extends to virtually every musical genre, and whereas our music scene thrives because Austin audiences [12:42:20 PM] thrives because Austin audiences support good music, good music produced by legends, our local favorites and newcomers alike. And whereas we are proud, we are pleased to showcase and support our local artists. So now therefore, I, Ryan alter, on behalf of Kirk Watson, mayor of the live music capital, do hereby proclaim February 27th, 2025 as Chris Gebhard day in Austin. >> All right. Thank you, thank you. Great. >> We'll go ahead and give you guys stay, right? >> Yeah. Sounds good. All right. Over here. >> All right. >> Picture. >> All right. >> On three. 123. One more on three. 123. >> Great. >> Thanks. >> All right. Thank you so much. Thank you for being here. Yeah. Thanks for you. All right. Cool. Thank you, thank you, thank you. >> To everyone. >> All right. [12:43:20 PM] >> All right. >> Is that. >> Yeah. Wait a minute, mayor. You gave [1:10:56 PM] Wait a minute, mayor. You gave him. >> I know, I know. >> I. >> Good afternoon everybody. It's 1:10 P.M. On February 27th, 2025. The city council has been in recess, and we are now back to order. Members, the order that we'll go in is item 39, 40 and 41. And then we will, depending upon what time it is, we will go to our zoning items. The first item is item number 39. As you remember, that was a public hearing. We held the public hearing today. The version that you have for us to discuss is item 39. It's labeled alternate version. That is the version that is in your backup and was put on the message board last night. And also you received a copy from legal counsel. So with that, I will entertain a motion on item number 39. Alternate version. [1:11:58 PM] number 39. Alternate version. Motion is made by council member alter. Is there a second? Seconded by council member Velasquez. Discussion on item number 39. Yes. Councilmember. Duchen. >> Is there a way for me to ask staff some questions? Okay. Thank you. What I'm trying to figure out is, is are we viewing, first of all is do we need to pass 39 or 40 in conjunction as part of a strategy to either as a, as a way to make sure that we are doing everything we can regarding our purple notices or that we're regarding the state legislature? Is there is there a strategy that we've got to pass both of these at the same time? Now? >> Trish link with the law department. For item 39 we had to do the joint meeting. We went [1:13:01 PM] to do the joint meeting. We went through the joint meeting process with the purple note notice cards. If council does not want to take action on it today, you would need to postpone it to a date. Certain. And we have to kind of be mindful of how far out we push it. Alternatively, if you do it now and you put it into effect later, then it will be taken care of and resolved, and then you wouldn't have to take it up again. But if you wanted to postpone it, say indefinitely, then we would need to renotice. >> So outside of the notice, though, as part of some other strategy to these, the two items need to be joined together as part of a particular strategy that dsd or you all have have unveiled. >> So both ordinances work together. If you were to adopt 39 and let's say hypothetically, it goes into effect in ten days, and you were either to postpone or a have item 40 go into effect at a different day. You would [1:14:03 PM] at a different day. You would have no regulations other than what is in 940 at that time. So they work together because what we're doing is we have a set of current regulations that kind of combined all of it into one, and we're now kind of set we're separating that out into two pieces. Now one is going to be the zoning piece, which is about the eligibility of land, not who can own and operate an str but the like. Whether land can be used that way. And then you'll have the title four piece, which is regulating the individuals and businesses who own and operate strs. >> And 40 is doing the movement between ldc and economic development. And then the and 39 is the actual code that's getting moved. Then essentially. >> It's getting yes. We're taking out a chunk of out of 39 that exists today, and it will go into title four. >> And is the understanding then, that we're going to come back in a number of months after [1:15:03 PM] back in a number of months after the session is over, and update, amend, modify, make changes to implement other enforcement items? Et cetera. To part of the code, which can include item number 39. >> Code it. Based on the conversation on Tuesday you would be bringing back item 40 and any other that are items that are not related to item 39. So item 39 would be done. >> Okay. Thank you I appreciate that. >> Thank you. Council member. Council member. Siegel. >> Thank you mayor. And if staff would please stay forward. So I'd like to talk a little bit more about item 39 and part six. I guess proposed new code, section 25 two 904. And in particular subsection B, which basically plainly states short term rental use cannot be prohibited. And some of the context that I want to bring is that I've heard from the community that some people are [1:16:04 PM] community that some people are reading this as basically a complete deregulation of short term rentals in Austin, and that after we pass this, the city will be allowing strs everywhere, potentially opening up a new flood of short term rentals. And I wanted to see if you could comment on that concern. >> Sure. Item 39 will address the land use component of strs. So we have always treated strs as a land use, but we've managed it based on who owns strs. That's our current model today, and we aren't able to do that anymore. So what we have done is made it an eligible land use an accessory use provided someone has a license, and then the limitations on how many licenses someone can have, and the spacing will apply to those who own and operate the str. So we're taking a different we're stepping back from the land use as the limiter. We're using ownership as the limiter, not the land use itself. [1:17:05 PM] the land use itself. >> Thank you. And just to follow up a little bit. So by having this, you know, assuming we adopt the alternate item 39 here and this will become the law of the city, although with the delayed implementation date, while we wait for the legislature to finish its work, do you see a risk that we're going to open the door to greater short term rental density before we can adopt new regulations? >> No, because if assuming both ordinances follow the same track in terms of when they will be implemented and effective, no, because today we cannot apply the limitations that we have for type two strs at all because of the court decisions. And so right now what whatever you do today, tomorrow will be the world we're operating in at this moment. And in ten days it will be the same world we're operating in. In this moment. It won't be until the August timeframe when any of those things will have an impact on how we function as an from an str regulatory standpoint, or if [1:18:08 PM] str regulatory standpoint, or if you choose a different date. >> Great. Thank you. And I'd just like to make a few comments. Mayor. Thank you, miss link. So I just want to say that I share the concerns by members of the public regarding the proliferation of short term rentals and how str is affect affordability and can promote displacement of working Austin residents. I also just want to share that in my prior career as an Austin city attorney, I actually spent time defending our previous regulations, which were struck down in court. Unfortunately, Texas tends to value in its law property rights above all else and that in this case is to the detriment of neighborhoods and residents. There's been a fair amount of testimony about the legal landscape, including from attorneys I respect greatly, but it does take a lot to understand exactly what we're allowed to do in terms of preventing str. For example, Dallas has been sued successfully so far for its regulations on short term rentals. New Orleans has been sued twice successfully so far for its str regulations. Austin [1:19:09 PM] for its str regulations. Austin has been sued multiple times, successfully so far for its str regulations. So I do think it is prudent that we wait a couple of months to fully understand the regulatory landscape so that we don't have our rules struck down yet again. Some of you are aware that I filed an amendment to limit how strs would impact multifamily properties and how we could protect renters, protect working class residents to avoid displacement, and this is consistent with the authority we do have, at least right now, to limit the density of strs. And even though we are delaying action on new regulations such as my proposed amendment, we will be bringing this item back, and I can promise that I will do as much as I can to protect Austin residents, to protect affordability, to prevent displacement and protect our quality of life. Thank you mayor. >> Thank you. Council member. Members I'm now going to recognize council member Velasquez for a proposed amendment. You have a proposed amendment to item number 39 by [1:20:10 PM] amendment to item number 39 by council member Velasquez that moves to amend the effective date of item 39 to October 1st, 2025. And by the way, he also, as you know, has a proposed amendment on item 40 that does the same thing so that they would be in concert. Council member Velasquez, you're recognized and have the floor. >> Thank you. Mayor. This motion will allow staff the time to award the contract for the new software and systems, and so that we can see some data and that we can make informed adjustments to our regulations and implement them in line with the with the new fiscal year. >> Council member Velasquez moves approval of Velasquez amendment number one. It's seconded by council member qadri discussion on the motion to amend. Hearing none without objection. Velasquez, amendment number one to item 39 is adopted. Members. That takes us back to the main motion, which is the adoption of item 39 now as amended. Is there discussion [1:21:13 PM] as amended. Is there discussion on item 39 as amended? Council member vela. >> Just a couple of questions on it. For law. Will, with regard to the collection of the hotel occupancy taxes on the unlicensed, the on the rentals, when will that on the str. Excuse me? When will that commence? >> So item 41 is your hotel occupancy tax ordinance. So depending on when the council sets the effective date is when they will become responsible for omitting the draft ordinance. Right now, says June 1st, I know there's some other dates that council members are interested in, but the I think the latest would probably be June 1st, but earliest would be potentially March 10th. >> And the and the collection of the hot taxes is not contingent on any other parts of the ordinance, is it? [1:22:14 PM] ordinance, is it? >> No. >> Great. And another question. Will the even unlicensed rentals will be required to pay the hot tax under the current scheme. >> So what is proposed will require the platforms to remit the hotel occupancy tax. And the. My understanding is platforms would not distinguish between the two. They don't. Licensing isn't a part of their framework. It's ours. And so they would be remitting what they have in their possession. >> Thank you. And then another question. Do the str regs apply in the etj. >> No. >> Okay I I'm sorry I didn't hear the last part of your question. >> Do they do the str regulations apply in our extraterritorial jurisdiction? No. All right. >> What about limited purpose? >> Market areas that are zoned by the city are subject to them. So if we've annexed something for limited purposes and it's not zoning, then it would not. But if they are subject to our [1:23:15 PM] But if they are subject to our zoning requirements, they would be. >> Vela. >> I think that's all I've got. >> Thank you. Thank you. Any further discussion on the motion to approve item number 39, as amended? Hearing none without objection. Item 39, as amended, is adopted. Members that will take us to item number 40. Item number 40, you have as an item 40 alternate version as well. This was also placed on the message board so it could be seen. And in addition to that you received a copy. And it's in the from council and it's in the backup. The chair will entertain a motion to approve item number 40. Alternate version council member qadri moves approval. It is seconded by council member alter. I'm going to ask if there's any discussion on this, [1:24:15 PM] there's any discussion on this, but the next thing I'm going to do is I'm going to go to council member Velasquez for a motion to amend. Council member Velasquez, you're recognized on Velasquez. Motion to amend item number 40. Number one. >> Thank you. Mayor. This like my last amendment, this will give this amendment will give staff in dsd sufficient time to issue the rfp and award contracts and to collect data to inform our future fee schedules. >> And members. This makes it the effective date delays implementation to an effective date of October 1st, 2025, which corresponds with what we just voted on in item number 39 as it was amended. Council member Velasquez moves approval of Velasquez. Amendment number one is seconded by council member alter discussion on the motion to amend Velasquez. Number one hearing none without objection. Velasquez amendment number one to item number 40 is adopted. Members. I'm now going to recognize the mayor pro tem on a [1:25:16 PM] recognize the mayor pro tem on a proposed motion with regard to item number 40. >> Thank you. And thank you, colleagues. I believe that the number one thing that we can do today in regards to enforcement on short term rentals is moving forward with the software license that councilmember Velasquez just referenced. And so my motion is I move to direct the city manager to expedite the solicitations needed to purchase one or more software programs that will address licensing processes and license compliance. The city has determined that these programs are necessary for robust short term rental, licensing and enforcement program members. >> You've heard the motion by the mayor pro tem and seconded by council member Velasquez. Is there discussion on the motion to amend? Yes. Council member duchen. >> I appreciate the kind of desperate need that we've got to start finding a way to license and bring people into compliance and especially collect taxes. I really just want to urge a point [1:26:18 PM] really just want to urge a point of caution regarding selecting the specific technology compliance vendor for the short term rentals, including testimony we've heard today from people looking for a new technology to help them understand the situations that are happening in their own neighborhoods. Really, it's whether we're whether we're interested in the tax remittance angle of the technology or the enforcement of the quality of life issues, or even the enforcement of the potentially new rules that we might be coming up with over the summer, or surrounding density or whatever other requirements we focus our energy on. I'm really hopeful that we select someone who we think has the right technology in this space to ultimately identify what could be thousands of scofflaws or bad actors, or does anybody trying to avoid paying taxes or otherwise out of compliance of either current or future policies that we might come up with over the summer, and really [1:27:19 PM] with over the summer, and really just acknowledging the different vendors and different space in the space have different capabilities. Some can scrape data from data portal or from APD or from code enforcement. Some may have proprietary tools and systems. They've invested millions of dollars into. Some may have ai and machine learning to help them. Some may have, you know, individual staff that can help them verify the results of the technology tools they've built to help match addresses and id properties and, and essentially help track down the people that are out of compliance. I think more importantly, though, someone some of these vendors can help with enforcement of these bad actors and the quality of life issues we've heard about today. And frankly, I'm still getting emails about and I'm hoping some can also help enforce the whatever future policies that we [1:28:19 PM] whatever future policies that we come up with as a council. And I know I asked some questions on Tuesday about data, and I think some of them could also be asked to help provide better data for where we are and how many non-compliant units we've got, and the breakdown of those units and where they're advertising and so on that help us make better decisions about where we want to invest the technology, which I think is important because, you know, when I've looked at national data, it's different from the data that I know staff has compiled. You know, airbnb nationally, according to a report, has about 46% of the marketplace. And along with vrbo, makes up, you know, maybe two thirds as opposed to 90%. So I don't really know what the environment looks like for the data that we've got in the current environment and compliance, and that's going to maybe affect what solution we implement and how we rate and how we're able to deploy technology for different platforms, and whether they're direct bookings and whether they're on major [1:29:20 PM] whether they're on major platforms and whether they're on, you know, what could be dozens of smaller platforms that are out there that people wind up migrating to because of policies that we've considered. So city staff, they propose solutions based on those advertising platforms. Depending on your point of view, that could be, you know, and again, I've heard, I think, different things from different people that that could be the major platforms, that could be all platforms. If we interpret what a platform is very loosely, including a direct relationship between an operator and a lease. And so, you know, again, I've got a question of how do we have a sense of how many operators are using even multiple channels in the marketplace to advertise on and what sort of complications that could create for us, making sure that we've got the right vendor that's thinking about where people are advertising, where they might be migrating to, depending on what decisions we make. One other point, there's also a lot of churn. From what I've discovered in this space. [1:30:21 PM] I've discovered in this space. When I look at that report, I think about 40%, 41% of the marketplace has only been in this space for over four years, so it's turning somewhere between 15 and 20% a year. We want a vendor that understands that aspect of the market and is consistently updating our information and data with what's going on in the Austin environment. You know, what we're really trying to say is a single scrape is probably not of our current data set, is probably not sufficient to keep us current for where we need to go on this. Another implication is what happens to our enforcement personnel. My understanding is they're using a very time intensive, laborious process to try and use, you know, whatever online tools they can scrape together to match addresses right now. But what happens to those people? Because different vendors have different tools for how we how they approach that? And so those people might be turning to negotiators to then once we've got the correct information, [1:31:21 PM] got the correct information, connect with the scofflaws and hopefully bring them into compliance or some other purpose. You know, we heard somebody say we need to double the amount of enforcement we've got, but depending on the tool that we've got that may be obsolete. So all I'm just trying to do is make sure that we're thinking about this, because the last thing I'd want to see is us having to go through this process again, like do an rfp right now and then do a second rfp later. Once we've got a new strategy in place over the summer that solves a different problem. I want to make sure that we have a vendor that can hopefully has the capability to either customize or do it all, provide data, solve our enforcement problems. But also obviously the hot tax remittance that we're talking about right now. And so one last thing is that, and maybe this is the genuine point of my concern that I've been here for all of two months, and it seems like there are times that we have struggled with technology issues at the city. I know we've got some amazing people that do some amazing work every day here, but [1:32:22 PM] amazing work every day here, but I'm also knowing that sometimes my own constituent liaisons are struggling to get information out to the right people because, you know, some of that technology doesn't seem to work really well, which is strange. It seems totally out of alignment for a technology city where I can go outside and throw a rock and hit like a dozen major technology companies. And by the way, that's. >> Not regulate that. >> I was going to say I'm not advocating rock throwing, by the way, to be real clear. But, you know, this is a city with like national instruments, Dell, amd, a bunch of other powerhouses. It seems strange that sometimes we struggle with some of those issues. When I look at some other cities and how they practice technology, they sometimes have, like ctos in acm or executive level positions in their in their team to help them with these kind of problems. So bottom line, I'm just hoping that we make sure that we've got the time and expertise to make sure we are consulting with the vendors, with other cities and municipalities and counties that [1:33:22 PM] municipalities and counties that have addressed this issue in a meaningful way, that whatever our rfp process is, whatever our timeline is, that we've got the tools and the data to try and solve the hopefully totality of our problem and not just the tax remittance piece, and have to come back for what could be like a very expensive, you know, second vendor data integration or system integration. That's all I really was hoping to try and accomplish. So thanks for that consideration. >> Thank you. Councilmember. Councilmember qadri, great. >> I want to thank the mayor pro tem for her for her amendment. I just had one question for staff. Once we acquire the new software, when can we anticipate that it would be implemented? >> Part of my goal in pursuing these contracts is to try to keep them as off the shelf as possible, so to speak, so that there's less integration requirement with our existing systems, because that's what tends to drag out the runway in terms of getting to the actual [1:34:24 PM] terms of getting to the actual implementation. And so that that would be the strategy to try to avoid having a long delay once the contract is awarded. >> Got it. Do you have a rough timeline? Summer time would be great, but I don't know if that's that's feasible. >> I mean, we're certainly going to move as quickly as we possibly can while also being mindful of the comments that we've heard. >> Great. Thank you. >> Thank you. Councilmember, councilmember, mayor pro tem, to close on her motion to amend. Oh, I'm sorry, councilmember alter. >> Just had one question. Did will there be two separate programs, one for the scraping and one for people who are applying for their license? >> That's how it's structured right now. Yes. >> Okay. Well, as you're going through the process, I would just encourage you as much as possible to have that lease the license piece, be as simple and. I envision someone who wants to do this. They want to comply. They go online, they try to do it, and all of a sudden they're [1:35:25 PM] it, and all of a sudden they're asked to do ten different things and they're going to say, forget it. I'm just going to list on airbnb and be done with it. And so the degree to which we can make this, put your name, put your credit card, put your address, whatever other information, get your license number, you know, a single transaction that is in the moment gets you that license. I think we will see more compliance. So I really appreciate the mayor pro tem doing this, because I think this right here is probably the most important thing that will get our short term rental regime into actual order and people using it. So appreciate it very much. >> Thank you. Councilmember. Mayor pro tem, to close on the motion to amend item number 40. >> Thank you. Thank you, colleagues, for your consideration. And thank you, councilmember duchen, for your comments. But I just want to underscore that this motion today really is brought forward with the sense of urgency. I really don't want to make perfect the enemy of the good. I hope with this direction to the manager, is that the city of Austin can move forward and [1:36:25 PM] Austin can move forward and getting the necessary software as as needed. This direction lays out the purchase of one or more software programs every single day that we're delayed in working with or getting and acquiring this type of software, or days that we're losing out on thousands of dollars on hotel tax dollars that support our cultural and arts scene, and so much more. So the for the manager really this motion. And I hope to have the consensus of the diocese here is that we expedite these solicitations because it is the number one thing we can do for the enforcement and regulation of short term rentals today in our city. >> Thank you. Mayor pro tem, mayor pro tem is closed on her motion to amend item number 40. It's been it's been made and seconded. And that will end discussion. Without objection. The mayor pro tem motion to amend item number 40, alternate version is approved. Members that will take us back to the main motion. The main motion is to approve item number 40, [1:37:26 PM] to approve item number 40, alternate version as amended by two amendments. Councilmember Velasquez's amendment and the mayor pro tem amendment. Any discussion on item number 40, alternate version as amended, without objection. Item number 40, alternate version, as amended, is approved. That will now take us to item number 41. Item number 41 you have in your backup. I will entertain a motion on the motion is made by councilmember alter. It is seconded by council member qadri to approve item number 40. I will now recognize council member Fuentes for a motion to amend item number 41. >> Thank you. Okay, colleagues. So this motion has two components. The first part is to excuse me, I'm in the wrong section. The first part of it strikes subsection F and direct staff to bring it back. When council considers the additional changes to title four. And the [1:38:27 PM] changes to title four. And the second part is in relation to moving the effective date to the standard effective date, which is normally a ten day. Ten days. And so this would be moving for March 10th, 2025. >> Members. The way I'm going to approach this, just so that you'll know what's in store, is we also have a motion to amend that you have in front of you by council member alter that is directed at the effective date as well. So it is conceivable that what we have is this motion to amend pass. And once it passes, I will. Then I'm going to recognize council member alter, and I'm going to recognize it as a motion to amend the main motion so that we avoid things like tertiary amendments. If anybody remembers those and do it that way so that his motion can also be heard, that may very well put us in a [1:39:28 PM] that may very well put us in a situation where you're voting for this amendment, but then you vote for another amendment that would ultimately change where we are on this. I just want to make sure that that's clear as we move forward. So the motion has been made and seconded. Well, the motion been made by the mayor pro tem. It's seconded by council member Ryan alter to amend item number 41 with the mayor pro tem motion to amend. Is there discussion on the mayor pro tem motion to amend item number 41? Without objection, the mayor pro tem motion to amend item number 41 is adopted. The chair will now recognize council member alter for a motion to amend. >> Thank you very much. So as the mayor alluded to, this motion impacts the effective date that the mayor pro tem just talked about and makes it moves it to April 1st. And that is not out of any desire to not have these be implemented as quickly [1:40:31 PM] these be implemented as quickly as possible, but a recognition that requiring platforms to collect these dollars and remit them is something that we have been told is going to take more than ten days. I know the representative from one of those platforms is here today. If we'd like to get any clarification. >> Why don't you bring him up and. And I'm recommending this members because of the conflict in the dates I just want we want to get clarification. >> And if I could to you. You know, one common thought that I know I've had myself as well is, you know, whether it's whatever platform they're doing this in other cities, why is this not a copy and paste? You could do this tomorrow type situation. >> Why is Michael Whalen on behalf of expedia, vrbo? Fair question. And I pressed Jacqueline tyrwhitt. Many of you met her. She's a representative from expedia. She pressed her [1:41:32 PM] from expedia. She pressed her tax compliant folks on at expedia on how much time they would need to flip the switch as. >> You would. >> They asked for 45 days. We told them that is not what is going. >> To happen. And they are. They have pending projects for other jurisdictions, but they conceivably could make it April 1st or or may 1st for reporting purposes. Tax folks like to start at the beginning of a month, rather than at a random date in the middle of the month. So that would be one thing. They also I question, as do many of you, why can't you flip the switch immediately to implement collection of the hotel occupancy tax? And I was told that just like other clients that I've represented who have software and have large companies, they have to do quality control before they go live, which is a term of art, don't ask me. And it's also a matter of notifying all the hosts to let them know that they will now be collecting the hotel occupancy tax for them, and giving them the host adequate time to make that shift. So [1:42:32 PM] time to make that shift. So we've waited a decade, a decade. Expedia has offered to voluntarily collect this for a decade. We've waited a decade to collect this hotel occupancy tax. I think we're asking for 20 additional days from what's been proposed to help make sure that this implementation will be successful and will not just kind of flounder. So that's what's going on. And I would ask for those additional 20 days to make sure we get this right. >> And I do have a question for law. But Mr. Whelan's up here. >> So anybody got any questions Mr. Whelan, that relate to this I've got questions. But councilmember vela. >> And just as long as we have them up, they're going to the question of the will the unlicensed properties be will the platforms be collecting the hotel taxes due from even unlicensed properties? Thoughts on that? >> I have no Michael Whalen on behalf of expedia. I don't have any thoughts on that. >> As far as you know, the will they from verbals perspective is that because my understanding is [1:43:36 PM] that because my understanding is that they're not going to distinguish between licensed and unlicensed properties. They're going to, you know, put that on every single account that they have in the Austin area and that they'll pay it. >> That's currently what our voluntary collection agreement is with the state. We collect hotel occupancy tax on each transaction that occurs on the system we now have to build. Make sure that have the right number. Et cetera. In terms of percentage collected. Et cetera. And we'll be doing that on for every transaction that occurs in the city of Austin. All right. Is what is what will happen. Obviously it's different when there's mandatory field and mandatory takedown different day. We'll be talking about that in July. >> Appreciate it. And just from the for the public at large this is really an unfair competitive advantage that that stars have had versus hotels. And this in in one way will kind of help level the playing field. Now you know you're not getting a discount essentially if you're, you know, reserving an unlicensed str before you [1:44:37 PM] unlicensed str before you weren't having to pay the hotel motel tax. So really you're kind of price was cheaper than before. So I do see this as an important leveling the playing field step between the hotels and str. >> Thank you. Councilmember vela. Councilmember alter, you'll be recognized for your question of counsel. >> Thank you very much. My question is, and I share the desire to capture as much of these taxes as possible, regardless of what the effective date is, we still there still is a requirement. Whether they follow it or not is a different question, but there is still a requirement on every short term rental to collect and remit hotel occupancy tax, correct? >> Yes, it will just if you have a platform and you're using the platform, that's how we are going to take your hotel occupancy tax dollars. >> Okay. Very good. Well, I think all has been said and I. >> We need to get a council member alter moves. Approval of his motion to amend item number 41, as amended. It is seconded [1:45:38 PM] 41, as amended. It is seconded by council member qadri. Councilmember Fuentes. >> Thank you. Thank you, councilmember alter, for bringing forward this motion. Unfortunately, I cannot support the delay here. We talked about customer vela. You talked about the importance of retrieving these hotel tax dollars and the impact that they have on our city. And we know that every single day delayed is thousands of dollars that are not coming to the city, that are not helping our residents, and they're not helping our arts, culture and musicians. And so knowing that we have pressing needs before the city, knowing that our standard implementation date for ordinances is a ten day notice, I would like it to stay consistent with what it is traditionally. And also in light of where these dollars go towards. And the second point that I want to point out, you know, these platforms do collect hotel taxes locally in other cities. And while I understand that it may be challenging to change the software and provide notice within the next ten days, [1:46:39 PM] notice within the next ten days, I do think that is a reasonable amount of time and would like would like to keep the date as is on March 10th. >> Thank you. Any further discussion on the altar? Motion to amend item number 41. That being the case, all those in favor, raise your hand. All those opposed, raise your hand. There being nine eyes and two nays that. Well, hang on a second, councilmember harper-madison, I apologize. Did you vote aye or nay? >> Mr. Mayor? I didn't vote one way or the other. I'm still struggling to understand, especially in light of our recent executive session. I didn't vote either way. I'm going to abstain. [1:47:39 PM] going to abstain. >> Very good. I'll show you who's abstaining. So there being eight eyes and two nays, the mayor pro tem and council member Velasquez and one abstention. Councilmember harper-madison. The motion to amend is adopted. Members that will take us back to the main motion, which is to approve item number 41, as amended by council, by the mayor. Pro tem motion to amend, except for that part about the effective date because and by council member alter's motion to amend which does set the effective date as April 1st, 2025. Discussion on the main motion, as amended. Without objection. Item number 41, as amended, is adopted. Thank you, members, and I want to pause and say also thank you to the staff, legal counsel and dsd and all the hard work that's gone into getting us here. I know there's a lot that's yet to come, but you're listening to us and we [1:48:41 PM] you're listening to us and we all appreciate that. So thank you very much. With that being said, members, the next item on our agenda is set for a 2:00 time certain. So what we will do is without objection, we will be in recess until 2:00 pm, when we will take up zoning items. Without objection, we are recessed at 1:48 P.M. See you at two. Good afternoon everybody. It's [2:01:04 PM] Good afternoon everybody. It's 2:00, so we will call to order back to order the Austin city council meeting for our 2:00 time. Certain. I wonder if miss harden's watch says 2:00. >> So. >> Does your watch say 2:00? >> I can't hear you. >> Mr. Mayor. >> Yes. >> I gave joy a time, and I think she's trying to slow it down. >> Yes, she. >> I think miss harden gets it. I think miss harden bets against the mayor and council. >> I think so I think so yeah. >> She's got she's got money riding on something other than what we're trying to do here. >> Mayor and council I'm joy harden with the planning department. Your zoning agenda begins with item number 42 c14h 2024 0102. This item is offered for consent on all three readings. Item 43 c14 2024 0119. This item is offered for consent [2:02:07 PM] This item is offered for consent on all three readings. Item 44 c14 2024 0112. This item is offered as an applicant postponement request to your April 10th council meeting. Item 45 is c14 2024 0113. This item is offered as an applicant postponement request to your April 10th council meeting. Item 46 is c14 2024 0114. This item is offered as an applicant postponement request to your April 10th council meeting. Item 47 is c1484022 rca. And again this item is being offered as an applicant. Postponement to your April 10th council meeting. Item 48 is c14h 2024 0153. This item is offered for consent. Second and third readings. We do have speakers for this item. This is a rezoning for historic landmark against the owner's wishes. I do have a motion sheet that I do want to read into the record, which reads move to amend the draft ordinance as follows. Number one. Amend the caption in [2:03:08 PM] Number one. Amend the caption in part one of the ordinance to reflect a portion of the property is being rezoned to include historic landmark H. To amend part one to incorporate the attached exhibit as exhibit a, which has been distributed on the dais by adding immediately prior to the property the following language, and as more particularly shown on exhibit a and three, reorder the letter designation of the remaining exhibit accordingly. This motion sheet limits the limits of the historic zoning to the footprint of the house, and not the entire lot. Again, this will require a minimum of nine votes for passage, as again, the owner is against this designation. So that is for 48. Item 49 c81482006 .0283. This item is offered for consent. Second and third readings. Item 50 814 2023 0057. We received a neighborhood post request, but this item is being offered by for [2:04:10 PM] being offered by for postponement by council member qadri to your March 6th council meeting. Moving on to your addendum items, we have item number 53, npa 2024 0015.03. This is being offered for consent, second and third readings and the related rezoning is item 54 c14 2024 0109. Again this item is being offered for consent, second and third readings. And just to note, there is no valid for petition. Staff received signatures removing names which invalidated the petition, and there is a letter of support from the east mlk neighborhood contact team. And this concludes the reading of the agenda. And as always, this is at your discretion. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any questions, miss harden? Members, for purposes of the consent agenda, I'm going to go ahead and pull item number 48 off the consent agenda so we can take up the consent agenda. And people can leave and not have to wait until we take up item 48 as part of [2:05:12 PM] we take up item 48 as part of the consent agenda and delay things. So the consent agenda motion that the chair will entertain for the consent agenda will be item 42 and 43. All three readings. 44, 45, 46 and 47 a postponement to April 10th. 49 second and third reading. 50 postponement to March 6th 53 in the related item 54 on second and third reading. Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda? We. At some point I'll. I'll call on you, Mr. Subtle, but right now. >> Without the discussion that. >> I'm going to have a motion to postpone you, and then we'll have a discussion and I'll give you plenty of time to talk about it. Is that okay with you? Okay. Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda made by council member Velasquez, seconded by the mayor pro tem? All right, now I will turn to the city clerk to call for people to comment on the consent agenda. >> Okay, mayor, we have on item [2:06:14 PM] >> Okay, mayor, we have on item 45, Brad Massingill. And he will speak to the merits of the postponement. >> Hey, y'all. As you all know, I'm against these db 90 and have been from the beginning there. They're not really set up for our town. And with the impervious cover restrictions that they don't have, we're setting up a bunch of our smaller watersheds for some serious flooding events. I'm glad this is being postponed. It gives the neighborhood a little more time to understand what's going on. Just the folks at home know this 45 is at 708 east 53rd street, and it's in the [2:07:14 PM] street, and it's in the Tannehill watershed. And just wanted folks to know. Thanks. >> Thank you sir. >> Item 46 Brad Massingill two minutes. >> I'll just let folks know this one is across the street, basically at 705 east 53rd street. And to give you an idea of how packed these watersheds are, this is in the boggy creek watershed, just a few blocks away. So these are really narrow corridors leading to town lake. And we're starting to pile up a bunch of projects in them. I wish I'd have brought the slide of the approved db 90 we have right now, but it's a lot. There are so many of them around town, and I think we need to slow down on this, especially in light of the fact that 25% of any of these db 90 can be str. We're turning our our town into a big hotel tourist attraction, [2:08:15 PM] hotel tourist attraction, disneyland, and we're forgetting about our citizens. So good on y'all for postponing. >> Next speakers for item number 50, Richard suttle, Kelly Wright, and Amanda Murrow. >> Mayor. Council members. My name is Richard suttle. Is it okay if they donate their time to me? If they already talked to the clerk? Well, there wasn't a place on the thing to donate. >> But you just tell me how much time I got. I apologize in advance for coming in hot. This one has got me hot. >> Well, I appreciate that. Did they sign? What we'll do is we will. We'll allow them to donate time. Even though that's not the way this is supposed to operate. They're supposed to do that before you were called on. But both of the people called. Please call the names of the other two people that have signed up to speak. [2:09:17 PM] signed up to speak. >> Kelly Wright and Amanda Murrow. >> All right. You have six minutes. >> Thank you. Mayor. Members of the council. My name is Richard settle. I'm here on behalf of the hunt family. They are the developers of the project at 200 Riverside, where I'm speaking against the proposed postponement today. Just as a reminder of where this is. Can we flash up the screen? I thought this. >> Was agreed to. >> I think. >> It's not working. Okay, well, then I'll. I'll describe it. This is a case that sits on Riverside drive, where the train station wants to be. As it comes across the river. It's a four acre site. It's been in the process now for two and a half years. It has waited to come [2:10:17 PM] years. It has waited to come through the pud process. It has waited to come through the south central waterfront process. The only thing this pud does, there's five requests. One is to do a pud less than ten acres. One is to share parking. But the main thing is to build density on this site and to build tax base. The current building on this site is on the tax rolls for $1,200. We're proposing to put hundreds of millions of dollars of tax base if we can get this busted loose. We are requesting second reading today for one sole purpose, and that is to get direction from the council. That fee in lieu of for affordable housing would be more appropriate here than trying to do on site affordability in a high rise building. If the answer is no on fee in lieu, then we can all go home and there will not be a high rise here, and we'll build 96 foot tall buildings. That it's the wrong one. We'll build 96 foot tall buildings just like the water's Marc next door, and [2:11:18 PM] water's Marc next door, and we'll keep them there for 50 years, and the city will lose the tax base. The train station will lose the tax base. It'll be a more difficult road to hoe for getting right away from us. And it just all for not. The whole point of this case is to allow heightened density at the train station. Again. It's been in for two and a half years. It had ev board recommendation, it had planning commission recommendation. It had first reading here. Recommendation. It's been since December that it's been to here. It's already been postponed three times here because the ordinance wasn't ready. It's just been delay upon delay. And we don't understand the delays. Atp wants right away. But they can't tell us whether this train station is at grade or above grade. They want a substation, but they can't. And it's a big substation and they want it in our building. But we can't design a building [2:12:19 PM] But we can't design a building until we know what we can do through the zoning process. So we're caught. Our next door neighbor is opposing us now because the access point along our western line is a private access point. The city of Austin doesn't have any right of way. Atp doesn't have a right of way. What's not going to happen is for us to dedicate right of way through this zoning case, when the train company doesn't even know what they need or want. What we have offered up is we'll reserve the right of way. We will stay out of that whole area, and we'll build the first building on the eastern side. So there is no loss to the train company, no loss to the city, but we can't move until we get an idea of whether this is a viable project or not. And that decision point today, we're not even asking for second and third reading. We just need to know for second reading is fee and Lou at the enhanced value. And that's an important point. The current fee and Lou price is $8 a square foot. We're offering $9 a square foot for the bonus area. What are the what are the [2:13:20 PM] area. What are the what are the consequences? And I don't mean to be threatening at all. This is just reality because I've got a client that's got the money to build this. Today, unlike most builders in our city today. But the consequences are they leased this property at a price because they trusted the city of Austin, that either the south central waterfront ordinance would be passed, or this pud would be passed. Neither have happened. They're leasing at an inflated value based on what they can do today. They've got to stop paying that that overcharge. And to do that, they will build their way out of it. They will build what they can buy. Right. And what they can do by Wright today is cover wall to wall. The entire track at 96ft, exactly like the building next door waters Marc. But what will that do? That means there'll be a big fight about right of way. A big fight about the substation. There will be no affordable [2:14:22 PM] There will be no affordable housing and no affordable housing fee. There will not be 25 superiority items that we've offered up under the pud. And there will be a huge loss of tax base. So today and I again, I apologize for coming in hot, but I'm so angry about this I can't see straight. We've been told several times we'd be on this agenda to try to get an answer on the fee and loo for affordability. We can put the rest of it off till third reading, but that gives us the ability to keep moving on a project. And that's why we're opposed to the postponement. Today. I'll be happy to answer any questions. The thing that can't load up, I don't know why it can't. We've loaded up a thousand of these before, but it will show you the layout and how this sits at main and main, where this train station comes through. It is the east west and north south intersection of the train. Thank you. >> Pichette. Yes, sure. [2:15:22 PM] >> Pichette. Yes, sure. >> If you want to ask questions now. Does somebody have questions. >> Now? >> I do, I just wanted to make sure. That in district nine if he had any questions first, I'm just curious from a timing perspective, it whether we did second reading today, third reading on the sixth, or do both second and third reading on the sixth, does that still accomplish the same? In my mind, that seems to be the same for your client. Is there? >> It would. I'm I'm guessing that your staff is going to tell you they cannot be ready for the six on third reading. I'm just. But if I have an answer today on the affordable housing piece, we will keep working towards it. And it may not be the sixth, it may be after south by and all that, but at least we can keep going. Got it? >> Okay, well, I can tell you it's only one out of 11. I support the fee in lieu option. And when it comes before us. So if you can ask five of my other colleagues at any point between now and then, then you'll have [2:16:23 PM] now and then, then you'll have your answer. >> Anybody else have questions at this point? Thank you, Mr. Suttle. >> Thank you. >> Next speaker is Angela Benavides, Garza, speaking on item number 53. Then if she can hold or stay on the line for 54 as well. >> Hi. >> This is Angela Benavides, Garza city city councilwoman Natasha harper-madison. We want to assure you, ma'am, as promised in the last time that everyone was involved in getting this taken care of, we made sure the biggest family in the area. And that's Velasquez because part of this was in part in district three as well, a little bit part of it at the Valdez family with mobile blessings from the heart was involved in these discussions. We went very above and beyond to make sure everybody was involved in these discussions. Nicole was lead on [2:17:25 PM] discussions. Nicole was lead on this matter, who really led a tremendous effort to make sure that everybody's voices were involved in these discussions. And she's also the lead in the matter to make sure that she, with everybody's approval, that was involved in the discussions. According to the zoning change, to go ahead and voluntarily, voluntarily back out a validated petition that she worked really hard on as well. That is amazing that that was accomplished. And there were there were. I do also want to state that there were complications and complexities, both on the side and Nicole's side. And these discussions started back in June or July with Nicole on our side as well, on a neighborhood side. And then we came in in October to progress everything. And this is how we've gotten to this part where with a compromise as well. But I do want to give you the assurance, councilman, that everybody has been anybody who [2:18:27 PM] everybody has been anybody who wanted to be involved. We went way above and beyond to make sure everybody's voices were involved in that area as well. And we want to thank everybody else. And if I if it ends here, I'll continue with the next thing. But we want to thank everybody. Joy district one transportation state that helped us legal the contact team sauna. >> You almost hate to cut him off there thinking somebody. >> Thank you Angela. >> For your testimony. >> You can speak on item number 54 now. >> Okay. In item I'm going to continue here really quickly. Eric Byrd also, we want to thank again Nicole I'm sorry, Nicole, for leading a tremendous effort in our area. We want to thank. There's so many atoms. There's so many neighbors that came together Candace, Omar, all these people that came together. And I'm just naming them because [2:19:27 PM] And I'm just naming them because there was a lot of people in Eckhardt that were involved here, and I'm sure I'm forgetting incredible people as well that were involved in this discussion. And the Valdez family for hosting on their land next door that they actually get food from as well. We want to thank also, I'm probably forgetting people, but I just this is just such a wonderful example of what can happen and what we do. Ask for help on that. What we did hear from feedback, in all fairness, is how complicated this process is for the neighbors. And we really need to come up with some kind of streamlined process for them and some kind of online help on this new website to help them understand how to navigate the process as well. But thank you to everybody who is involved in this, and I just want to give complete confidence to city councilwoman Natasha. You would be proud of these teams. All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. [2:20:29 PM] >> Thank you. >> That concludes all the consent speakers. >> Thank you very much, members. That concludes all the people that signed up for on the consent agenda. Councilmember harper-madison, do you have your hand up? >> Yes, sir. I just wanted to make some brief commentary. I call it more along the lines of personal privilege than a than a question about the consent agenda. So I'll follow your lead. >> With if you can hang on then for just one second, I want to talk about the consent agenda and make sure we have a clean motion. And then I'll call on you. Okay. Members. What I'm going to suggest is that what we do on item number 50, because it's a long delay and because in order to do it on second and third reading. It would have to be ready by tomorrow. So and we also have Austin transit partnership is a third party that plays a major role in this. And there's no way for us right [2:21:32 PM] And there's no way for us right now to be able to cuss, discuss whatever is needed in order to be able to decide what a second and third reading might look like. So what my recommendation would be is so that we keep the process moving and we allow for we allow for the time necessary to be able to get to second and third reading, the time necessary to get the atp or atp at the table and figure out what what might be hold ups, legitimate or illegitimate. My recommendation would be that we amend the motion, the consent agenda motion on item number 50 from a postponement to passage on second reading, and by that passage, on second reading, we are letting the applicant know that a fee in lieu of is something that is seen in a positive light by the council, [2:22:36 PM] positive light by the council, otherwise we won't be passing it on second and third reading. So I'm happy to have discussion on that. But that's my recommendation. And so I would move to amend the consent agenda as to item number 50 away from a postponement request. Postponement to passage on second reading only with the statement and direction that a fee in lieu of is considered appropriate by the council. That's my motion to amend the consent agenda seconded by council member Siegel. Is there discussion on the motion to amend? Without objection the motion. Yes. Yes, please. >> I I'm not quite fast enough. I just want to ask a couple questions of the applicant. >> That'd be great. >> If Mr. Settle, are you still available? >> Yes, sir. >> Hi, sir. I just want to see if you could respond briefly to the letter in support of postponement, there were a couple of items identified in the letter, and I'm sorry if I missed it in your earlier [2:23:37 PM] missed it in your earlier presentation, but I guess the reason they were requesting postponement had to do with the traffic impact analysis. And also, I guess, reference to a street name, if you could just briefly respond to those concerns. >> Sure. That's our next door neighbor. They own the street that goes next to us, and we don't have access rights to that. As part of the staff review, rta showed ultimate access to that point. We can't access it without their consent. That lone landowner, as I understand it, wants a deletion of all reference to access to their land deleted from our pud. And frankly, I don't think we have a problem with that, but it's referenced 27 times in the tia and we were not able to do it today to satisfy them. >> And do you think that could be resolved before third reading? >> I think so, because today we do not have access rights to that road. [2:24:38 PM] that road. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. The motion has been made and seconded. And by the way, it would. We would be shooting for March 27th to bring it back. And I want to I want to make sure that's people think that's doable. All right. Motion has been made and seconded to amend the consent agenda. So that item number 50 is not a postponement, but is passage on second reading with a direction that a fee in lieu of is considered appropriate by the council? Without objection, the motion to amend is adopted. That takes us back to the main motion on the consent agenda, as amended with regard to item number 50. Is there anyone that wishes to be shown? Oh, before I go to that, councilmember harper-madison, you wanted to say something, so let me recognize you. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I appreciate getting to getting [2:25:39 PM] appreciate getting to getting the opportunity to do it. Relatively close to her testimony, I wanted to make reference to one of our constituents who made testimony and just sort of speak to how refreshing it was to maybe one of the first times in my six year tenure watch valid petition be pulled down because members of the community and big shout out to the east mlk contact team. I don't know that. Frankly, there's a harder working contact team in the district that I represent, and when I say that, I just want to make sure that I acknowledge that they really do it right and that they thoroughly vet the issue and they speak to all parties involved and stay at the table in good faith, with due diligence, to make sure that they do their part for advocacy for the community that they represent. And I just I really appreciate that this process was able to go exactly like democracy is supposed to go. Everybody came that came to the [2:26:40 PM] Everybody came that came to the table in good faith and negotiated until we got to a place where all parties were satisfied. And an item is going forward on the consent agenda that we just didn't see going that way in the beginning. And a group of concerned, creative, innovative austinites got together and solved a problem. And it's just a dope thing to get to watch, especially when you're not feeling so great. And I'll round out that personal privilege by saying to our constituents, even if we you don't see us, doesn't mean we're not here. We're always here. And for what it's worth, as we move forward with our technology and chambers, one of the reasons I don't know about you guys when you're virtual, but one of the reasons I turn my camera off is because I've been in chambers when we're virtual and your head is 92in big when you're virtual, and it's just very awkward. And so that's one of the reasons I turn my camera off. But it's certainly no indication of me not being present or any of my other colleagues, just so our [2:27:41 PM] other colleagues, just so our constituents know that. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you, colleagues, for allowing me to speak briefly. >> Thank you. Appreciate those comments as well. All right. The motion is to approve the consent agenda. Is there anyone that wishes to be shown abstaining from a vote on the consent agenda? Anyone wishing to be shown as recusing themselves from voting on any item on the consent agenda, anyone wishing to be shown voting no on the consent agenda, as amended. That being the case, without objection, the consent agenda, as amended with regard to item number 50 is adopted. Members that will now take us back to item number 48. And I will recognize miss harden if she wants to say anything about this, or we just move into item number 48. >> Thank you. Mayor Karen Contreras, planning department item 48, case number C 14 H 2024 0153 is an owner opposed historic zoning case initiated by the landmark commission. [2:28:42 PM] by the landmark commission. After their review of a demo permit was filed for the property. Staff recommends historic zoning for the building's footprint only, based on the finding of eligibility for designation by the 2016 east Austin historic resource survey, no action was taken by the planning commission on this case, and it passed on first reading with three abstentions. At your January 30th meeting. This map up here shows the extent of the staff recommendation, with the original building footprint shown in yellow. And I will be available for any questions. Thank you very much. >> Thank you for that presentation. Members. You have any questions of staff at this point? All right. We will hear. Normally I would say we'll hear from the applicant. But we that we just did that. I'm sorry. >> The owner is on the phone. Okay. >> But the owner is in opposition, right. >> That's correct. >> So. So what I want to what I but I was I'm trying to follow our process that members that not only was the staff [2:29:43 PM] not only was the staff presentation, but it also counts as the presentation on behalf of the applicant. And now we will go to opposition. >> Hello. >> Hang on one second. I'll give you all. Give you your time. And this. This is the owner who's in opposition. And then we will hear from any speakers that are signed up. First for and then against. Thank you for waiting. >> You're welcome. Yeah. You know, this house is really in horrible shape. I have two people that are present there. I don't live in Austin currently and couldn't make it in person, but we've already gone to 2 or 3 of these meetings. And the house is got termites. The foundation's really torn up and inside is a disaster. There were homeless people living in it. And just it's just it's destroyed. So yeah, we would like to be able to have the [2:30:46 PM] like to be able to have the authority to take her down. >> Okay. Anything else you want to add? >> Yeah. Dominic, would you could you add something to this, please? >> I'm not sure what you're asking. >> Mayor Dominic lévesque is a speaker who he registered to speak against. >> When it comes his time. When we recognize him, he'll he'll speak. Do you have anything that you would like to add at this point? What we're going to do is that the way our process is set up is you still have some time to speak if you wish to. If you don't, that's okay. But now we will go to speakers that have signed up to speak. We will start with those that are in favor. Then we will go to those that are opposed. And it's my understanding that Dominique is one of the people that has signed up in opposition. So we will hear from Dominic in just a moment. Do you have anything else you would like to add? >> No, that's just that's it. I [2:31:47 PM] >> No, that's just that's it. I just I just want to be able to have the authority to take her down. >> Very good. Thank you. Very appreciate. Appreciate your your comments. With that, I'll turn to the clerk and ask. Please call first on those who have signed up to speak in favor of the application. >> Thank you. Mayor. There are no speakers in favor. >> Okay, let's go to those opposed. And I bet there's somebody named Dominic. >> Okay. Dominic, lévesque and Alexander Shane will follow. >> Great. >> If your name's been called, please just come forward and be ready to testify. >> Pinkys. And thank you. I'm a district seven member. >> And please state your name for the record. >> Dominique Leveque. Yeah. I was hired by the owner just to investigate this and bring this through to where we are today. I am a builder, and we are actually working on a house in pflugerville right now. That is historic. It's the best little in Texas. Where the film was [2:32:48 PM] in Texas. Where the film was actually made. And this is a amazing house with all the beautiful woodwork and things inside it. And it's a it's a gorgeous house. It's completely different in contrast to what we're talking about, where this particular house in question has been abandoned for a very long time. It's right off of, you know, the highway and Cesar Chavez. You find hypodermic needles around it and it's a complete mess inside with we have termite reports in the things that we've submitted videos of all sorts. You know, with no disrespect to historic zoning, this this this isn't the this isn't the place for that. I think we need to be able to move along with this. It's the cost of trying to restore this is just would be insane. It's a it's a house that's been gutted of all livability. And it basically sits on toothpick foundation. And we just we're hoping that somebody taking a [2:33:48 PM] hoping that somebody taking a look at the documentation from engineers, etcetera, to kind of see what this property really is. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Who is the second name? >> Alexander shine. >> My name is Alexander shine. I'm here to pretty much say the same thing that everyone else has already said, that the house is just at its complete worst. And I've spent majority of my 33 years of my life framing houses. And it is living on termite rotten cedar stumps and cylinder blocks, and where there is floor it has been blocked up with new two by fours. The house is completely. It looks like a shed kids would build at this point and I have in my 11 years of framing, I have done historical homes that require 75% to be [2:34:48 PM] homes that require 75% to be restored and kept, 25% kept. And at this house I don't see much that needs to be saved. Specifically the termite damage in columns that are supporting the side roofs that are supporting the lower foundation. And that's it. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> That concludes all the speakers. >> Let me ask if there's anybody, on behalf of the city and the applicant that wishes. Do you wish to say anything? As part of rebuttal? >> No thank you, mayor, we'll have no rebuttal. >> Can I ask a question? Do you know how long that the owner of this property has owned the property? >> I believe it was 2021. But the applicant can confirm. >> Okay. >> Is the owner still on the line? >> Yes. >> Did I hear somebody say yes, I am. Can you hear me, sir? Okay. [2:35:52 PM] Okay. >> Mayor. The county register says the last day of 2021. >> Okay. >> Very good. >> Thank you. 22. >> Appreciate that. >> Hello? Can you hear me? >> Yeah. Ken. Now, how long have you owned the property and why did you purchase it? >> I purchased it to be able to build actually two homes on it. It can be split up. And it's been. We've been dealing with planning and zoning or the. Excuse me for it to be kept as a historical home since I purchased it in 21. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you kindly. >> Council member vela. >> How long has it been since the home was occupied, and how long has it been? Because it just looking at the pictures available online. Yeah. It doesn't look like it's in great shape. [2:36:53 PM] shape. >> Go ahead. >> Council member. It's my understanding that the home has been unoccupied since Santos Romo died. And that would be early 2021. >> Early 2021? >> Yes. >> And just a couple more questions. The historic zoning, obviously the age of the house. I think it's 1918 construction. Any other compelling factors? I know this you said in the backup says it be contributing to the historic district. >> Yes. So the 2016 east Austin historic resource survey found the building eligible for landmark designation as an individual structure, as well as contributing to the potential historic district. It's already a contributing structure in an existing national register district, which is a federal designation. >> Got it. And any concerns? Because this is just a second house off of the highway right there, I believe. Second or third property off of the [2:37:54 PM] third property off of the highway. How does that factor into to the historical property analysis? >> So the position of the house, you know, near corridors does not factor in. We evaluate based on the historic designation criteria in 25 to 352, which is purely an evaluation of the historic significance of the building as well as its integrity and its age. >> Thank you. Thank you. For duchen. >> I just have a question about the department comments. There's a line in there that talks about how the house's cumulative occupancy history is a good example of the overall settlement patterns of the district. How unique is that in this area? >> It's hard to say. Council member, you know, without knowing the history of all of the buildings in the area. But typically when we see historic landmark eligible properties, they're associated with, you know, a specific person, a specific event. You know, some kind of time point in history. [2:38:54 PM] kind of time point in history. Or person in history that's had a big impact on the city as a whole or a particular community. So we don't have a lot of buildings that are already designated that are sort of emblematic of demographic shifts or overall settlement pattern changes. Because these are buildings. Typically that are the homes of normal people. Folks like you and I, who, you know, maybe don't have their name on anything else in the city, but who contributed in their way. To how our city developed and how it how it established the cultural heritage of Austin that we see today. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Any other questions? All right, members, I'm going to entertain a motion the way I would offer to proceed on this is if there's a motion to approve this item. There's also, as you recall by miss harden's presentation, an amendment. The way I would do this is just ask [2:39:55 PM] way I would do this is just ask for a motion to adopt or to approve the item. And then I would read the amendment again and we would amend it separately just for clarity purposes going forward. I just want to make sure our record would be clear. So the chair will entertain a motion. With regard to item number 48. Council member Velazquez moves to adopt item number 48. It is seconded by the mayor pro tem. With that being said. Members. Just for clarity purposes, and I'll just do this to make it easy. I would move to amend the draft ordinance as follows one. Amend the caption in part one of the ordinance to reflect a portion. The word portion of the property is being rezoned to include historic landmark H. Two amend part one to incorporate the attached exhibit as exhibit a, which has been distributed on the dais by adding immediately prior to the property the following language comma and as more particularly [2:40:57 PM] comma and as more particularly shown on exhibit a three. Reorder the letter designation of the remaining exhibit according I move approval of the of the amendment to item number 48. Is there a second? Is there a second to the motion to amend made by council member Siegel. Is there any discussion on the motion to amend? Without objection, the motion to amend is adopted that will now take us back to the main motion, which is the approval, and the motion is on second and third reading item number 48, as amended. All those in favor of item number to approve item number 48 on second and third reading. By the way, this requires nine votes. So if there are six votes or more but less than nine, it will pass on second reading. So all those in favor, please raise your hand. Opposed? >> Harper- madison. Tovo. [2:41:59 PM] >> Harper-madison. Tovo. >> And how are you voting, councilman? If not, council member vela abstain. >> Mayor. On this one, there's. >> Yeah. Hang on one second. Here's my count. Okay. I'm sorry, I didn't have that either. Okay. >> All right. >> Here's the here's the count that I currently have. So y'all help me with this. Six in favor, two in opposition. Those voting in opposition are Ellis council members Ellis and harper-madison. And three abstentions, those being council members. Vela, duchen and Siegel. Have I recorded anybody incorrectly? >> I don't see okay. >> Well, then the motion fails. There being five votes in favor, [2:43:03 PM] There being five votes in favor, two votes in opposition and four abstentions. Alright, the motion fails. Members there being no further business to come before the city council at this regular meeting of the city council. Without objection, we are adjourned at 2:42 P.M. Thanks, everybody.