City Council Regular Meeting Transcript – 3/26/2026 Title: ATXN-1 (24hr) Channel: 1 - ATXN-1 Recorded On: 3/26/2026 6:00:00AM Original Air Date: 3/26/2026 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. [10:00:04 AM] Good morning everybody. It’s 10 o’clock in the morning on March 26, 2026. And I will call to order the regular meeting of the Austin city council for today. We are meeting in the city council chambers, located in city hall at 301 west second street, and we have a quorum of the Austin city council present. What I'm going to do first is I'm going to kind of go through the order of the day, and then we will begin the actual aspects of the meeting. In a few minutes, I will read changes and corrections into the record. Which changes the agenda. There are no action items that have been changed, but I'll come back to that in a minute. Then what we're going to do is we're going to go to our consent agenda. There's only been one item pulled from the consent agenda, and that is item number 31. Item number 31 has been pulled from the consent agenda. After we hear from the public on with comments on the items on the consent agenda, we will then have council members. We'll [10:01:06 AM] have a discussion. I'll take a motion and get a second, and then we will have discussion among the council members with regard to the consent agenda, and we will vote on the consent agenda as close to 1030 as we can get, but it will not be at 1030 because of the number of people that have signed up to speak on the consent agenda. We will recess the Austin city council meeting, and I'll call to order the Austin housing finance corporation board of directors meeting. That has one agenda item. We will take that up, and then we will adjourn that meeting and go back to the Austin city council meeting. My guess is that's when we will take up item number 31. We have a number of non-consent items that aren't pulled from the consent agenda, but they're non-consent items because they come from the from council committees. And under our rules, those are non-consent. Those are items 48, 49 and 74. Those will be taken up after we take up Austin housing finance corporation and probably after we take up item number 31. We [10:02:08 AM] also have a number of public hearings, items 51 through item 66 are public hearings. I will probably well, I'll wait till we get to those and we'll see what how we're managing time. But what I will say is, at least right now, those will probably be taken up in the order of their numerical order at noon, wherever we are on the agenda at noon, we will move to, we will pause and we will go to our time. Certain public, general public comment period. I anticipate that we will recess at at the end of that public comment, and that will be around 1230 to 1235, probably till about 110. At 110 we will reconve a and we will just go with wherever we are on the agenda at that point in time, and it's close to 2:00 as possible. We will take up zoning items. So that's the [10:03:09 AM] unless there's questions, I'll now go to changes and corrections. In the record, as I indicated, there are no items thatnges and corrections that I need to read specifically to an agenda item, but I do want to. For the record again say that the item pulled off the consent agenda is item number 31. So with that, members, unless there's objection, we will go to the public comment on the consent items, and I will ask the city clerk to navigate us through that process. >> Thank you. Mayor, starting with item two. Natalia acme sankofa. >> Make sure you have this as well. >> This is. >> On item eight. William bunch item ten. William bunch item 13. William bunch. [10:04:11 AM] >> Mr. Bunch. >> Good morning, mayor council members. Bill bunch, district five, save our springs alliance speaking on item eight, which is two point $2.5 million to upgrade the parking garage at the convention center. Just want to flag whether is this really a priority. Y'all are trying to de-emphasize car parking. It's a whole lot of money just to clean up. Add some signage to a parking [10:05:13 AM] garage. This is money that could really be used for delivering important services. It says that it's not part of the convention center expansion project, but the reason it's not is because there's no such thing as a convention center expan project. Y'all can continue to call that, call it that, but you tore down a perfectly functional convention center. There's nothing to expand. You're building an entirely new project that has nothing to do with the convention center we had, except it happens to be in the same location. It's it's a fraud on the community on so many levels. If you read Texas monthly last week, you have the south by southwest CEO saying they may well not ever go back to the convention center. That was a third of the entire [10:06:15 AM] business, the entire annual business of the convention center was south by. It's shrinking. It may not survive. And they're saying point blank, they may not go there. It's time for y'all to quit throwing money away. Millions. And here we're talking about billions misleading the public, abusing the English language with zero integrity. Please go a different way. I'm signed up for number ten. I am skipping on that one. She called me on item 13 also, so I guess I do. I keep going, Maya. >> You have you have two minutes on item 13. >> Okay. Thank you very much. Speaking here just on my own. This item and the following several items is for various types of computer services and software. Enormous sums of [10:07:16 AM] money again that you're spending outsourcing, just doing the same old, same old when technology is rapidly changing, I don't see any sort of coordination or valuation of any of these contracts, whether we actually need them or not. It seems like at this point there really needs to be a time out and and bringing a bunch of that work in in-house. Item 1 related to 13, it's a $78,000 contract that now all O sudden is $1.6 million contract. It's just a just a mere tweak, but it's an order of magnitude increase. And y'all aren't even asking any questions, thinking twice. And yet you say you care about affordability, that you've heard the community about taxes and spending and fiscal accountability. You're [10:08:18 AM] sleepwalking through this over and over, and you got four items here stacked up. That's an enormous amount of spending that deserves a whole lot more attention. Thank you. >> Mr. Bunch. You also signed up for 19. >> Yeah, I'm going to skip on that one too. >> Thank you. Item number 24, Scott Cobb, item 30. Sharon Blythe and 30 Ben zohaib. >> Hello. My name is Scott Cobb. I live in district nine and I would like a meeting with Mr. Qadri. I'm here because I. I should be in class at UT. I skipped because I knew no one would come and speak against this. Just like last summer. No one came and talked to you all about the dental insurance being taken away by hr. This is another hr initiative that [10:09:19 AM] would set aside two over $2 million to line up probe management law firms to investigate claims. Allegations against employees that I just had done by one of these firms, treaty oak law firm, employers law firm. I'm signed up to speak April 9th on that. In no case should treaty oak ever get any more additional contracts from the city of Austin. I specifically asked for a reasonable accommodation because of my hearing problems, and they refused to allow me to meet with them in person. They required her to be on zoom. I could not follow the conversation. I repeatedly asked my lawyer, what is they saying? What is going on? They violated the law. You hire them, you hire them again, they will mistreat your labor force. You [10:10:22 AM] need to decide, are you on the side of management or are you on the side of the workers? You set aside this $2.25 million. You are on the side of the management. That $2 million could pay for almost 20 years of dental insurance. They retaliated against me. They broke the law. This law firm affirmed that without investigating a thorough investigation, without interviewing me. >> Miss Blythe. >> Hi, Sharon Blythe, district six. I'm here to speak on item 30. Very rarely do I agree with an item. I kind of agree with this one. Other than the agenda item. Didn't really specify specify who's going to be able to use the furniture out of the warehouse. And I would lto know that before y'all vote on it, because if I heard a [10:11:27 AM] meeting the other day that Austin city lutherans are supporting this, and I guess they would be one of the organizations that would be allowed to go in there and get furniture for the homeless. But I don't know who else would be able to do that. Is it a general public or is it just the homeless? Is there anybody here that could answer that question for me? >> We'll get somebody to answer the question for you. Go ahead and finish your testimony. >> I'm done. >> Okay. Well, then why don't you visit with we'll have somebody. >> I would like to for the public to hear his answer. >> Well, that's really not the way we've set this up, but go ahead and give a quick answer. Yeah. >> Good morning, council members. Richard Mckell, director for Austin resource recovery. We're still working on the business plan, but primarily this the furniture will be we'll work with nonprofit organizations that are in the business of getting homeless people back on their feet. And so we'll be working with thoseroups. There may be a time later where we can be able to expand that program, but that remains to be seen at [10:12:28 AM] this point. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Zohaib. >> Good morning, mayor and council, Ben said. I'm speaking on behalf of myself for everything today on a vacation day, anyone who's worried about my my daytime employment, I'm here to speak in favor of this. As a d4 resident and somebody who bikes past this pretty regularly on my way to soccer games and other events. Going to grab a bite to eat. I'm thinking about when people I know, you know, say a young couple, they decide to get married and they're moving in together and both of them have a perfectly good use. Couch. What do you do with one of them? I think it is wonderful for our city to set up ways that make that less of a burden. This is not something that should go to our landfill and take up space. It shouldn't be a burden for our resource recovery workers who work so hard and are so dedicated to the city, for them to try and fit that into, into, [10:13:29 AM] you know, regular service pickup of your neighborhood, recycling and trash and compost. It is good for us to have a place where people can take those things. And for our nonprofits who work so hard and community organizations to, to connect people who are exiting homelessness, to give them some of the basic things to make their next situation feel like home. This is a good it is good in climate impacts to think about how much energy goes into building furniture, moving furniture for it to end up taking up space in our limited, you know, dump. That's that's not a good use having, you know, the reduce, reuse, recycle. As we learned in elementary school, this is, this is that reuse is very good, good for the climate, good for the people who are donating something and good for the people who are receiving it. So just wanted to come and speak in favor of this since it is in d4. Thanks. >> Item 37 bill bunch. [10:14:34 AM] >> Mr. Bunch. Please call some other names while we're waiting on Mr. Bunch to come down so people will know they're coming up. >> Sure, my next speaker is remote, but I'll go ahead and call some in person. Item 39 srikar nalluri Jeff Dickerson, Christian Schoepf, and Zachary Faddis. >> So if your name has been called, please make your way forward. Mr. Bunch, you have the full floor. >> Thank you. Mayor. Council members. Bill bunch, district five, save our springs alliance. This item is to add $4.4 million to a previous $ million contract or agreement to subsidize the construction of a major sewer line out east. To serve a large development. I think that's about an 80% increase in your share of this project. The backup doesn't [10:15:35 AM] justify that. It's an enormous increase. It's a huge wastewater interceptor. And again, you're making you're just going you're sleepwalking through the water crisis that we're in. We don't have the water to convert into sewage to serve development at th capacity. It's a service extension request, which right now is administratively on the east side. So I think you're you're committed to doing something here. You're not committed to paying an extra $4.4 million on it, but you need to revise your policies right away so that this council is looking at all of these large service extension requests for water or sewer that you may not be able to meet. That could be an enormous cost burden to our ratepayers. And already your water and sewer rates are going through the roof to serve new development, because the impact fees only cover a percentage of [10:16:38 AM] that. And now with the data centers, the latest announcement of the tariff ab, you're talking about enormous potential, enormous commitments of water, sewer service that you simply can't provide. Or if you do provide it, it's going to be a phenomenal cost burden on your ratepayers. Please don't sleep. Walk through this anymore. It's time to revise these policies. >> Thank you, Mr. Bunch. Your name has been called. Please feel free to just identify yourself for the record and begin your comments. >> Hello, my name is Jeff Dickerson, speaking on behalf of myself with district five local council members, mayors speaking on item 39. This item is directionally correct, but operationally complete. I will only cover the parking issues we know from Austin's own data. >> I hate to interrupt you, but if you'd move that microphone a little closer to your mouth, I [10:17:38 AM] think it'd be better. C can you hear me now? >> That's better. >> Yeah. Perfect. We know from Austin's own data that parking is not neutral. If parking is cheap, more people will go. If parking is expensive, less people will go. That's just human nature. But here's the problem with this resolution. It sets up parking maximums without defining what a maximum is. In measurable terms, there are no kpis. There are no targets for reduced car trips, no threshold for parking utilization. Without those, this becomes the policy by assumption, not a policy by performance. This violates basic performance management having no baseline or targets. This violates basic governance and auditing standards, which the city council is really proposing. There is a statement in there that explicitly states that prior LTE actions had no fiscal impact. That is highly implausible, given that there [10:18:39 AM] are infrastructure costs, enforcement costs and land chip costs. Finally, there is no neighborhood protection framework here, no permit strategy, no enforcement plan, no mitigation for residents streets. With the recent removal of parking requirements earlier, that omission is guaranteed to cause conflict. So this is totally silent on a critical issue of neighborhood impact congestion, spillover parking inflow. If we're serious about this, etod, we need hard metrics, tight caps, and neighborhood safeguards that are funded. Thank you. >> Thank you sir. >> Howdy. Zach Faddis speaking in favor of item 39, resident district one president of aura. Very excited about this item. We are putting huge amounts of money into a light rail system to to allow our neighbors to get around. Hopefully in the [10:19:40 AM] near future we will see lots of of new development and it's often developers know how to fund what they're, what they're used to. And we're not, they're not used to a city with, with making developments with less parking. And so I think that we have a ability as a city to, to nudge the markets and to make them see the wisdom of, of this new, beautiful way that we're, that we're building. That's all I got. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I'm going to call two remote speakers for item 39. Joshua Goldenberg. >> Hello. Can you hear me? >> Yes, we can hear you. >> Okay. Yeah. My name is Josh Goldenberg. I'm a high school. I'm a junior in high school. Speaking on behalf of myself, I'm also a member of Boston youth council and I'm involved in aura, which is a grassroots advocacy organization. So I'm speaking in support of this item because I believe limiting [10:20:40 AM] parking around our future light rail stations is really, really essential to meeting our city. Goals outlined in the imagine Austin plan, the Austin strategic mobility plan, and like other goals in vmt reduction goals and limiting parking around our future light rail stations is also going to be really, really important to in terms of making sure that our future light rail line serves people as best as possible. As a young person, I'm really, really excited about using this line in the future, and I would hate for the future station areas to just be surrounded by parking. So yeah, I think, I think limited parking around the future station areas is a really good way to make the land use around the light rail line as good as it can possibly be. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Peter Breton. [10:21:44 AM] >> Good afternoon, mayor and council members. I'm Peter Breton and I'm a resident of district eight. I'm in strong support of this item and I will yield my remaining time. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I'm going to go back to in-person speakers for item 39. I'm going to call several names at a time. If you hear your name, please come down and take an open seat at the podium. Charles Bradbury, Judith rice, Eric kyllburg, Miriam Schoenfeld, John stark. >> If your name has been called, please come forward, take an empty seat or sit at the front. Welcome. Please state your name for the record. >> Good morning. My name is Miriam Schoenfeld. I'm a resident of district nine and here representing the Austin parking reform coalition. We are very excited about this policy and want to thank council member Laine, her staff and the co-sponsors for bringing it forward. This is about making sure that we get the full value out of our [10:22:44 AM] transit system. Light rail is an extremely important and also expensive investment, and its success depends so much on what is built around it. Excessive parking near these stations can be devastating to the system, and it limits the number of people that can live, work and access it. Parking is also very expensive. Those costs that get passed on to residents, and by making sure that developers are building an appropriate amount of parking near these stations, we keep living near transit and affordable option for more austinites. We are so excited about the light rail investment, and we want to make sure that we get the most out of it. Parking caps are a simple and practical way to do that. Thank you so much. >> Thank you very much. Next, speaker. >> I'm going to continue on with item 40 tie Kiki Adam Greenfield. Jordi Tello, Campbell mnilsson felicity Maxwell. Again, if your name's been called, please come down and take an open seat at the podium. [10:23:46 AM] >> May I? >> Yes, please go ahead. Just state your name. >> All yours. Hello, my name is Campbell Nilsson. I'm a member of district eight, so thank you, councilwoman Ellis, for sponsoring this. I, I moved to Austin about three months ago to start a, you know, to start a company. And I moved here sight unseen. The reason was that we sort of said, okay, well, what is the only city in the country that has a big tech scene and can also and also, you know, has cheap housing and there's only one, you know, there was only one option. This is sort of this is Austin's comparative advantage in the nation. You know, you can you know, it has, you know, probably good 75, 80% of the network of, you know, San Francisco or New York, but you're not paying, you know, $2,500 a month to live in a shoebox. That is, you know, it's important to keep that going. You know, I mean, any, you know, you know, additional housing, you know, lowers rents, you know, basically no matter, you know, what kind it is. And, you know, miss, you know, building more missing, building [10:24:46 AM] more missiles, more, more missing middle, you know, housing can, you know, you know, allows, you know, allows more density to develop, you know, more organically. Thank you. >> Good morning, mayor and council Adam Greenfield here with safe streets Austin. We're also a member of the Austin parking reform coalition, speaking in support of agenda item 39. One of the really exciting aspects of the light rail project is not just that we're going to get high capacity transit, which is just going to be a dream to ride, but it's also going to have generational impacts on the streetscape around the light rail. Any one of the streets that are going to be transformed, like the drag or south congress, would be a lifetime accomplishment. And yet we are doing a series of these as part of the light rail project. It's incredibly exciting. Agenda item 39 acknowledges that it's crucial to get the land use right [10:25:46 AM] around light rail, so that we're maximizing our investment in this infrastructure. Also, you know, it will maximize walkability, bikeability, so that people can get from the light rail and make that that last mile trip to their final destination. As is so often, parking reform is the path to salvation here. Great to see it connect up with project connect and really take us home and make this this incredible investment work. So thank you very much to council member Laine for sponsoring this and for council members. Qadri, Velasquez and Siegel for co-sponsoring. Thank you. >> Good morning. Felicity Maxwell, d5 resident or a board member as the aura representative to the Austin parking reform coalition. I'm delighted to speak in support of item 39 today and the concept of limiting excess parking around our project connect stations and future transit oriented development [10:26:47 AM] areas. Thank you to councilmember Krista Laine and her staff for their diligent work on this item. Efforts like capping parking near transit stations ensures we continue to create an Austin that is more walkable, bikeable, and transit friendly. And thank you to all the current and past council members, including former council member Chris Riley, who have helped Austin make make Austin a leader in parking reform nationwide. You may have heard that we. Recently. The Austin parking coalition recently won a national award for our advocacy efforts around parking reform in the city. That's only possible because of the partnership we have with so many of your offices. We appreciate your support of this item and the item by councilmember zo qadri all of the work you do on parking reform in our city. Thank you. >> Hello. >> My name is jordi Tello. I'm a resident of district nine and I wanted to speak in support of item 39. I think for the light rail, it's important that the land around it be oriented towards pedestrians in order to get the most out of that [10:27:48 AM] investment, and I yield the rest of my time. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Continue with 39 Chris Gannon, Jen Robichaud, Richard easterling, Nikolai tango, liza Wimberly. >> Your name has been called. Please come forward. Miss Robichaud, you may begin. >> Good morning council. I am Jen Robichaud, a longtime Austin resident. I'm speaking on item 39 in opposition to the proposed parking maximums. The city council previously eliminated minimum parking requirements citywide in 2023, and this new resolution would add yet another layer of regulation by imposing maximum parking limits in equitable transit oriented development. Combining district instead of reducing government interference. This proposal creates more rules, more administrative oversight, and er costs for development. We do not solve Austin's housing affordability crisis by layering on additional [10:28:49 AM] regulations that increase the cost and complexity of building, the very fact that the resolution includes special exceptions proves the point. The city recognizes these parking caps will create real problems and burdens, yet council wants to burden some residents while carving out relief for favored interests. This selective approach is unfair and discriminatory. The free market is the best solution here. If parking is expensive to provide, developers will not build more parking than their customers actually need and are willing to pay for market demand, not city mandates should determine parking supply. Developers already have every incentive to control costs and maximize housing units. Council seems to have a deep distrust of the free market, preferring instead to micromanage developers and dictate exactly how much parking can be built. This single minded focus on reducing car use through restrictions, rather than making transit truly attractive, only lowers quality of life. People cannot be forced out of their homes by [10:29:50 AM] making driving less convenient. Real progress would come from positive incentives, improving public safety on transit, and delivering services that people actually want. Austin deserves policies that trust residents and the market, not more top down control that picks winners and losers. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you, miss Robichaud. >> Okay, I'm calling the last group of speakers for 39 Jeffrey Bowen, Amy de Luna, Ben zohaib and Katy Kam. >> Well, good morning, ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Mayor, council members, Jeffrey Bowen, district eight. I'm really kind of split on this entire issue, primarily because just like miss Robichaud said, why are we not letting the market take its place? This not this particular [10:30:51 AM] council body, but others prior to got rid of all of the parking. Yet it brings up other questions. You know, we talk about the magical Choo Choo that we're supposed to be getting, but there's nothing in this that talks about what about people that are coming in to park because there's no parking at the end of the line where they're trying to go. How is that issue going to be resolved? That's not that's nothing really talked about in this. So what about those builders that are building based upon their target market? That's actually a marketing term so that they people build to what the people they're trying to attract. So if cars are part of those people that they're still trying to attract because they still use a vehicle and also use the transit system, don't those considerations also need to be put into effect? Yes. The cost of the affordability in this issue is, is something that needs to be concerned with. But the one thing that council cannot control is the cost of [10:31:54 AM] labor and the cost of materials. Concrete's a very expensive product, yet we have to dig deeper to put in parking garages, as we have one in this building right here, yet we need to have that parking for those that do need that facility. So I really think that there's some issues in this that needs to be addressed. And it's been a much a lot of unintended consequences with the fact of removing parking requirements at some point completely versus just easing those. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. Just feel free to state your name for the record. >> Okay. Hello. I am Katy Imam, resident of d9 and a planner and civil engineer. I support the creation of neighborhood commercial districts that enhance quality of life and the experience of living in the city for everyone. I support the exploration of policies such as these that achieve those goals. I'm speaking today to highlight some insights I'm hearing that the exploration should consider. I'm sure you all are familiar with these, [10:32:54 AM] but I'm here to emphasize them first. As with all parking reform policies, there's always a concern that there will be spillover parking into neighborhoods. The concern is especially heightened in neighborhoods that do not have any sidewalks or have discontinuous or poor quality sidewalks. In those neighborhoods, the neighborhood residents use their street space along the curb as a walking path or kids to ride their bikes if safe to do so. When spillover parking begins to happen, their walking distance space disappears and the neighbor is not as walkable. I'm advocating for proactive planning to prioritize installation of sidewalks and or implementation of parking management programs, such as residential permit parking and parking benefit districts, and the areas impacted should be an integral part of this process. This will result in a net gain. Second, I'm a civil engineer and I will occasionally hear from clients about certain tenants requiring a minimum amount of parking or the site will not be considered. Education and ongoing conversations will be needed. Shared parking agreements can help in some of those situations, but those are not always an option. Third, the policy will need to consider the needs that have of those that have no choice but to [10:33:55 AM] drive because of a lack of transit service to the area, or because of the need for loading and unloading, such as musicians or delivery. Cute, walkable commercial corridors such as those we have in Austin now, is a community goal worth pursuing and should be pursued with proactive planning and implementation and strong public engagement feedback that ensures a smooth transition that works for everyone, and that results in a gain in walkability, in the corridor, in the neighborhoods, and access to businesses and residences. Thank you. >> Thank you. Mr. Why don't you go next and then we'll. >> Ben sappi, district four. I want to thank the sponsor and co-sponsors of this item. I think this is an excellent continuation of this conversation that we're having as a city. For those who may be feeling trepidation or concerns, I want them to note that at the whereases or the resolves on this, if you look at the resolves, this is the conversations instructing our city manager to explore options. So this is not by any means anything final. And in fact, I want to talk about specifically [10:34:57 AM] that the numbered items. Number four, I love that it's including language that talks about exploring options to ensure our low income rents, essential workers, and affordable housing developments aren't burdened by parking reforms, but still getting the benefit of the equitable transit oriented development. That's exactly the type of conversation that we need to have pulling in stakeholders, looking at the benefits that we can get. We've heard about some of them today, but making sure that everyone's at the table so that we can write rightfully weigh the consequences of these long term decisions as we build out this much needed infrastructure around our transit. As someone who regularly uses transit and sometimes has to walk a longer distance across a parking lot to get to my train stop or my bus stop, I like this. I like this conversation being kicked off or continued, I should say, particularly because of the cost that unnecessary parking has on the working class people [10:35:58 AM] added costs that filters down to them in their rent because of some parking that they may not use. I know people who get around the city, through the bus and through biking, and why should they be burdened with costs of paying for a parking garage that they never end up using? So in that, for those reasons, I'm a highly supportive of this conversation. Item 39 is a great item. Thank you. >> Sorry I missed my name being called earlier due to some from district three, and Ben hit a lot of my points, so I'll be short, but I just wanted to speak in particular. I'm in support of the item of item 39 and I hear some of the concerns about parking maximums, and I think it's important that this policy gets crafted correctly. And, you know, this is just a resolution because, you know, there are potential downsides to, you know, a hard mandate. But this isn't this is not a hard mandate. This is these are soft caps that can be, you know, there's provisions for these to be avoided if there's really an [10:37:00 AM] absolute necessity from especially from a financing perspective, because, you know, we talk about the free market, but we don't exactly live in a, you know, the perfect, you know, economics class, utopian free market. I mean, we have there's much bigger factors at play. And in a lot of instances, you'll have projects where this gives a developer something to point to, as you know, a reason that maybe we should have less parking because when they're talking to their finances and you know, we've already seen since we repealed the parking mandates back in 2023, that the amount of parking built in new construction has gone down by, I think around 20%. I don't have the exact number. So I think this is just a natural continuation of that. And I think this is a great idea to be looking into. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Moving to item 40. I have some remote speakers. First is Peter Brenton. Peter are you [10:38:03 AM] there? Okay. We'll try Peter in a minute. Joshua Goldenberg. >> Hello again. Josh Goldenberg, district ten. I'm speaking strongly in support of this item because, again, as a young person, I would really like to stay in Austin whei grow up. But I'm kind of worried that about, you know, housing prices. So I think if we allow more missing middle housing, that would provide a lot of young people with more options, especially working class young people with more options to stay in the city rather than having to move out to a suburb, you know, making sure that there's more smaller units available. Because right now, if we could just keep building single family or expensive apartments, then it's going to be a lot of, you know, more expensive housing, but we're not really going to have the cheaper housing that a lot of people, a lot of young people, [10:39:04 AM] are going to need when they first get into the housing market. So yeah, for those reasons, I strongly support this item. A very, very good way to improve like diversified housing supply we have in our city. Thank you. >> Bruce Greiner. >> Good morning, mayor and members of city council. My name is Bruce Greiner, and I am a resident of district six and have lived in Austin for 34 years. The city is now in the process of proposing several changes to address what has been identified as a declining growth trend. The city's own planning department has identified that one factor is a result of former and many potential new residents of Austin instead elect to move to subdivisions outside city limits. Have you even considered that your recent zoning policies is driving this [10:40:05 AM] shift to jurisdictions, which do support the development and existence of single family subdivisions? The facts are that the city council has acted like a quisling to Austin residents living in single family homes. Your policies are a direct attack on the character and nature of such neighborhoods, which represent over 40% of the housing units in Austin. It raises the question why aren't our elected city council members representing and protecting their interests? Affordable housing can be encouraged without destroying single family neighborhoods. In this latest proposal, you now want to introduce and encourage small businesses in these neighborhoods. Why? While many subdivisions are protected by covenants and deed restrictions, it falls to individual homeowners and or hoa to defend them. Is this fair that we would have to incur costly legals just to protect our neighborhoods? Because of zoning codes which are contrary to them? Many of you have a [10:41:07 AM] significant have a significant number of subdivisions just like mine. Your support of these code changes clearly state where you stand. These policies are contrary to what many of them hold dear. Residing in neighborhoods designed for single family homes with safe streets, yards to play in low traffic, vehicles parked in garages and driveways, and no businesses. I would urge every council member to reconsider your support of these messages. >> Peter Breton. >> Good afternoon, mayor and council members. Hello. >> Yes, please go ahead. >> Thank you. Good afternoon, mayor Watson and council members. I'm Peter Breton and I'm a resident of district eight. I hope that you, all the audience in front of you and everyone listening will agree with me when I say that one of Austin's best qualities is its diversity in its kinds of people artists, engineers, [10:42:07 AM] mechanics, janitors, scientists, cooks, and more. We attract immigrants from across the world and still have families in town that lived here prior to the civil war. This varied set of people helps our city to be vibrant, and we need housing that responds to their needs. We cannot possibly hope that all these different kinds of people can fit into only two different kinds of homes huge apartment complexes with hundreds of units stacked Thi way and that. Your morning walk looking like a scene from severance or single family homes cut like cookies sprawling out into the horizon, only able to get groceries by driving 20 minutes down four different highways. We need abundant housing of all shapes and all sizes. We can't do that with the status quo. We can't make it happen. With our current set of restrictive [10:43:08 AM] Zones. We must make something more nuanced, something that respects the diversity of needs in our city. Let's make it Wright. Let's make it work. Let's do it together. Thank you to council member Ellis for sponsoring this item. Thank you. >> Barbara Epstein. >> Can you hear me? >> Yes, ma'am. >> You hear me? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. Item number four. New proposals that if we just build more units will be more affordable. But that idea was refuted by the city's own demographer in 2018, reporting that no matter what you do to the land development code, it can't control the price of land. His report was censored and he resigned. When you do combine the cost of land construction and increased property taxes, nothing is more affordable unless the government subsidizes it, and we generally do not subsidize more than about 10% of new construction. If if that my neighborhood [10:44:09 AM] association used to be able to negotiate so that an up zoning didn't upend the street in 1975, you could still buy a house there for $16,500, but profit motive skyrocketed. That same house was on the market in 2024 for $697,000. I moved when an absentee owner of five houses on my three block street added an illegal unit on his duplex across the street, and the city excused it, saying that he said it was only used for storage. Sure, storage, not rental one block from the UT campus. That absentee owner now owns a dozen rental properties in the neighborhood, including a house with a landmark commission, the planning commission, and you allowed to be demolished even though it had been recommended for the national register of historic places and 71 neighbors signed preservation letters. If adopted, item number 40 will obliterate Austin's remaining, inviting, [10:45:10 AM] TRE shaded older neighborhoods, and we will all be the poorer for it. Thank you. >> Moving to in-person speakers for item 40. Chloe Wilkinson srikar nellore. Christian Schoepf, Betsy Greenberg. And is Maria morales here? >> Okay. She is. >> Maria donated time to Betsy. So when Mrs. Greenberg's up, she will have four minutes. >> Please go ahead. >> All right. Hello council members. My name is Chloe Wilkinson. I live in district nine. I want to quote a number here, 400,000 400,000 trans people have said that they were displaced from their states because of transphobic policies at the state legislatures across this country. Austin is the last beacon of a place that wants to protect trans people. [10:46:10 AM] In the state of Texas. It was the only place that passed gender affirming policies after the trans bathroom ban. So I support item 40, not just because it's good policy for everyone, but it's good policy for my community. Trans people are shown to be economically disadvantaged across the country, usually some of the poorest individuals, especially in conservative states. I am a proud southerner and I do not plan on leaving the south any time soon. We need affordable housing so that trans people across Texas can afford to live here, so that muslims across Texas can afford to live here. Immigrants across Texas can afford to live here because across this state, there are people trying to attack our communities. The strength of Austin is its diversity. It is not for those who have been here for generations to say who can and cannot afford to live in this city. We all deserve [10:47:12 AM] the right to live here. It is a beautiful community of a mosaic of the many different people that live across this country. So yes, I ask you kindly to vote for item 40 to create an affordable Austin for those who have nowhere else to go. >> Thank you. Miss Greenberg. >> I have slides. >> Okay. >> Thank you. My name is Betsy Greenberg. I live in district nine and I'm opposed to item 40. And I will focus my comments on missing middle housing. The resolution begins by saying that the city is committed to promoting attainable and [10:48:12 AM] diverse housing opportunities for residents of all income levels. A point of view that I support, as I expect expect most anyone would. There is a zoning study provided in the backup. The summary states housing types like townhomes, cottage courts, fourplexes and small multi-unit buildings often called missing middle housing, are indeed missing. In Austin, only 3% of Austin's current housing stock is in the missing middle range of 3 to 16 units. So now we know what the problem this item is intending to fix. I live in the heritage neighborhood. The neighborhood is located between Guadeloupe and Lamar, just north of the university neighborhood overlay known as uno and south of the state land that houses central market in the heart hosl. While I'm speaking about my neighborhood, I am only giving my point of view. Heritage is an older neighborhood with a single family feel, but in reality, less than 30% of the [10:49:13 AM] residences are single family houses, and about half of those are rented. The neighborhood actually has a wide variety of housing types. Exactly like you say you want. There are small multi-unit buildings and even buildings with micro units that are under 400ft S. There are townhomes, and at one time there was even a cottage court on my street, though a developer sadly tore that down with city council permission. Although many of the homes of all types in heritage are from the previous century, not all of them are. For example, these townhomes were built in 2009 without a zoning change. Here's a list of properties with from 4 to 16 units, I.e. Those that fit the definition of missing middle. There are also ones with three units, but it didn't fit on the page. Looking over the list, you may wonder what they have in common. And the answer is that they are zoned [10:50:15 AM] mf3 or below. None of these properties have six or dbp90 zonings. They don't even have mf four or mf five zoning. That's the secret sauce. There are also mf two properties that I didn't list. Having three units I didn't include those as three units are now allowed on single family lots. Unfortunately, every single property in the heritage neighborhood now has db Todd included in its zoning. I fear that this could lead to a loss of missing middle housing, and I hope you will proceed with caution in other locations. If you want. Missing middle. We do not need new missing middle zoning districts. We have the appropriate tools M, f1, f2 and f3 sf5 sf6 all work for missing middle. We don't need this resolution. All that you need to do is quit upzoning. You do [10:51:16 AM] not need to grant every zoning request. Nobody is going to build missing middle. When you zone properties to allow higher heights and density, especially mf six and db 90. This isn't rocket science, it's just common sense. Thank you. >> Good morning mayor members of council. My name is Shryock and I live in district nine and I'm here to speak in support of item 40. I was able to come here and build a life as is a very typical story in Austin. By coming to the university of Texas, I was able to attend in majority part because of housing reforms such as uno, which allowed me to, you know, live in an apartment building there, start to build a life. I currently live in an apartment building in district nine. And what's happened is a lot of my friends that also wanted to build a life as they've started to get married and have [10:52:16 AM] children, have had to move out to either the suburbs or even to other cities like Houston, where there's more options such as townhomes available in new construction, and that hasn't been able to be as much of the case in Austin. There's a lot of like, you know, very expensive $1 million houses being built or there's a lot of apartment buildings, which are, you know, now coming down in price. But that's a little bit harder when you want to have kids and stuff. And so, you know, we see it with aid enrollment going down and stuff like that too. And so I would strongly support, you know, allowing more options for people to stay here, not just start and build a life here, but also stay here without being forced out. And I want the option to stay here without having to push someone else out. Because if there's only so much land in Austin and if if we only allow single family house and I buy one, that means by definition, that one house that can't become more houses, someone has to leave it. So thank you. >> Continuing item 40 Zachary Faddis, Charles Bradberry, Judah rice, Kyle van sice, Ryan [10:53:20 AM] Saunders. >> If your name has been called, please come forward. >> Howdy. Zach Faddis, resident district nine president of aura. I am incredibly excited about these new missing middle districts. In my mind, earlier this year, we passed a single stay reform the true promise in my. In my mind of single stairs. It actually gives us a tool to turn a single family home into four eight units. That's what we really need to do. If we want our neighborhoods to be able to grow up without having to tear down a whole block to to put up a mega complex if we want to, if we really want to open up our neighborhoods to become affordable places. But, but what would you even ask for if you wanted to do it? There's really not an option in the menu for for most single family sized lots to do that. So this begins to give us those tools. I think the Mr. Two needs to go another ten or so feet if we actually want it to work for single stair, but this is definitely the right direction. I'm incredibly excited. However [10:54:23 AM] this is, you know, we actually want these to be built anywhere. This is creating these paper districts is about half the work. We shouldn't expect individual developers to go through the large, the very complicated and expensive rezoning process to, to only to build, you know, eight units. They can do that if they're trying to build 100 units or something. But, but they're just not going to do it for eight. So, you know, by the, by themselves, this gives us the, the options, but these options largely aren't going to be utilized until we actually map them somewhere. We have to save the city. Yes. We want these to be built somewhere. So this is the first step and I'm incredibly excited for this step. And I'm incredibly excited to, to be there for the NEXTP to actually make these, these not only technically possible, but but, but legal and real options. Thank you. >> Thank you. S go down this way. >> Hi, Julia rice, district three and I grew up in district nine. And when I was growing up in Travis heights, I used to see people walking and biking to work at their jobs, at retail on south congress. And [10:55:23 AM] as I grew up, despite the city's record growth and particularly housing construction, as we've been lauded for, we saw Travis heights become a neighborhood go from a neighborhood that was affordable for a middle class family to a neighborhood for wealthy people only. I remember when the house next door to the house that I group in that was sold in, you know, 2005 for $250,000, got sold for $1.5 million in 2021, and it's easy to see why, because the fairview park tract that where Travis heights is saw a net loss in housing units in from 2010 to 2020. So it's no wonder that working people can no longer afford to live near their work. And I think this item is a great step into solving that problem, because if you look at our neighborhoods today that are our most desirable places, the neighborhoods that are the nicest to be in, we already [10:56:24 AM] have. As one speaker has mentioned in her slide deck, there's this type of housing already exists to some extent, but the problem is that we stopped building it once those zoning categories got created. In the 1984 land development code. So I see this as really, we already have this proof that missing middle housing does not destroy neighborhoods because neighborhoods are more than the sum of their buildings. They're a neighborhood is made up of people and of families. And right now, those people and those families cannot afford to live in our neighborhoods, in our single family, exclusive only housing. So I am absolutely in favor of this item, and I would like to see it mapped as well. >> Let me begin, please. Thank you to the mayor and council. My name is Ryan Saunders. I'm in district nine support item 40. It is important to acknowledge that 39, 40 and 42, which we'll talk about later, all stack on each other. To [10:57:24 AM] build better neighborhoods, we need to change the way people live in order to support public transportation and a more walkable city. Missing middle provides opportunities for small scale development. Small scale development provides lower barriers to entry for who can develop. Usually people who live in and have pride in their neighborhood. People who develop own businesses where they live, put more care and build better projects. We need to build hubs of activities where they live and work in a smaller radius. I previously referenced item 40, which I will also speak on later. I bring this up because we need to encourage cross-department collaboration to produce the best results. There should be programs to incentivize the right types of developments to ensure things get built. And don't just live on a page in a rulebook, things like expedited permitting, pre-approved building plans, and city provided utility research. Furthermore, transportation public works still prioritizes vehicle traffic over pedestrians and often opposes Laine width reduction, speed reduction, and crosswalks that [10:58:25 AM] may impede traffic flow. Streets like east Cesar Chavez are labeled high volume pass through corridors rather than neighborhood streets. Missing middle is important, but it needs to include the right strategies around neighborhood, commercial and public transit to be successful. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> John stark. Jeff Dickerson, Ty. Jovan, jordi. Tello, Campbell, mnilsson. Rich Hyman. If your name has been called for 40, please come on down. >> Hi, my name is taiho Vicki from district five. As the city grows, I'm speaking in support of item 40. As the city grows, it has two choices. Er the ical built environment changes or the demographic makeup changes. There's no magical scenario where a rapidly growing city gets to look the same forever, while also avoiding displacement. [10:59:27 AM] Every city in America has tried unsuccessfully, to be honest. Personally, I prefer that we build enough housing for the newcomers and for the people that have B been here their whole lives. The alternative is that we try to preserve the built environment in amber, and we'll just end up seeing the demographics change as newer, richer residents are the only ones who can afford living in the center of the city. I don't want homeownership near the center of the city to be only accessible to millionaires or to people who bought their homes decades ago. We've seen that missing middle housing can be hundreds of thousands of dollars cheaper than newly built single family homes. Both here, like, for example, with new builds on drew Laine selling for about 300 to 400 K, which is much cheaper than they would have been if they were single family homes that were newly built or in Portland. Whereas a report by their city showed that those new missing middle units were 200 to $300,000 cheaper than a newly built new single family homes would have been. And adding to this, each family that's able to live in central Austin [11:00:28 AM] because of these policies is one less family living out in the suburbs, where they would have had longer commutes and less access to some of the best parts of Boston, Texas. If you don't want Austin to keep expanding outward until we're as large as Dallas or la, where people are doing hour long or more commutes, we must pass this. Otherwise we're doomed see the same fate that other cities have seen at scale. Such as, well, la, for example, endless sprawl, insane commutes. So I'd like to thank city council and especially council member Ellis for sponsoring these reforms. Please pass this along with items 42 and 39. Thank you. >> Yes, sir. Thank you. Yes, sir. >> Hello, my name is jordi Tello and I'm a resident of district nine. I live in an apartment with my girlfriend who's a medical assistant. I wanted to say that I think the missing middle housing is a great opportunity to make sure that families can continue to live in the core of the city. When people ask me where I want to raise my kids, I say that I [11:01:29 AM] want to raise them in the city. And I think something like this gives people just like me and people who have different needs, the opportunity to stay. Thank you. >> Mr. Dickerson. >> Hello. My name is Jeff Dickerson, district five council member. Miss mayor, I'm going to specifically focus on mixed use development accessory commercial units and front yard business, introduce commercial activity that is not housing. They don't add a single unit. They do not reduce rent. They do not target affordability. By contrast, home does. This proposal adds jobs without adding housing, worsening jobs to housing imbalance identified in the CEO council policy in regards to traffic and parking, current home occupation rules under 25 to 900 strictly limits impacts, including a cap of [11:02:30 AM] three vehicles per day and prohibits customer facing traffic. Your proposals will remove these caps while simultaneously relaxing parking requirements, which are becoming nonexistent today, allowing commercial activity without triggering any traffic impact analysis. Adding these commercial entitlements to the residential land. Yes, it does increase the value. Yes, it does provide revenue for those homeowners, but it raises taxes, rents and barriers for everybody else. This is not a housing policy. It is a macro commercial deregulation policy with real neighborhood infrastructure, environmental costs, and no measurable path to solving affordability. And last note, thank you for your service. And I still hate that [11:03:34 AM] city logo. Thank you. >> Ryan byzinski, Edgar Handel, felicity Maxwell, Chris Gannon, Patty sprinkle. >> Good morning, mayor and council. I'm Ryan Kiki and I live in district one. I'm speaking in support of item 40 resolution to initiate missing middle zoning. For most of the past 40 years, our code has favored two types of housing large scale apartment complexes and traditional single family homes. Low density forms like townhomes, cottage courts and small scale apartments are the missing link between these two. These are once vital, once common category of housing in our most beloved central neighborhoods. But today they are excluded from most of those low density neighborhoods. As planning staff have noted in their report, the the middle is very much missing. The result is that smaller scale, more affordable options are not within reach of many middle income austinites, including families who can't afford a traditional single family home [11:04:34 AM] but need something more than a two bedroom apartment. Our declining school census is a reflection of the reality that many families have already left the city for more suitable housing. Beyond city limits, today's resolution is an important step toward ensuring that Austin can make good on its promise to be a truly inclusive and complete city for all types of families. So I thank you for supporting this resolution. >> Hello. Good morning. My name is Edgar Handel and I'm a resident of district three, speaking in support of item 40. I appreciated the comments from my council member, Jose Velasquez at the Tuesday's wor session. I echo the need for more housing tools and share the eagerness to map. We're missing. Middle can prevent displacement and add diversity to historically exclusive areas. Too often, discussions around development, displacement and equity focus on reducing housing choice in parts of Austin, but I believe the right approach is to make sure all [11:05:35 AM] parts of Austin are carrying their weight, and even that historically exclusive areas of town have responsibility to go above and beyond to make up for mistakes of the past. More housing across the whole city is how we get this right. I also want to raise something that I think maybe doesn't get discussed enough, and that is that zoning is a budget issue. The state's 3.5% cap is draconian and destructive, but we have our own self-imposed cap. Our zoning, new, denser construction doesn't count against the cap. It raises revenue. It reduces per household costs in the city. As we face painful cuts, we need every budget tool available to us, just like we need our housing tools. In that light, land use efforts like this are just as urgently needed for addressing our shortage of city dollars as they are for our shortage of homes. Thank you. >> Hello, my name is Chris Gannon. I'm a housing advocate. I'm a resident of d1 and I'm excited to see this item being brought forward and I [11:06:35 AM] enthusiastically support it. The the middle housing and mixed use study prepared by our city's planning department did an excellent job of identifying a problem with our zoning code. The exclusion and impediment of smaller, multi-family, and thoughtful mixing of uses within our neighborhoods. These types of developments allow for more folks to use less land and offer amenities within walking distance. A few suggestions to keep in mind as we move forward. There are about 14,000 lots zoned for housing that are below 5750. So let's not forget about those lots. I think there's an excellent opportunity to incorporate smart urban design guidelines that do not hinder innovation, but encourage better utility of space and lush, healthy streets. These could be paired with urban TRE density bonuses or smart stormwater improvements that allow for more site coverage. And for the mixed use portion, I know that we are living in a post sb 840 world, [11:07:37 AM] which sets a floor for what mixed use buildings look like, and that floor may be larger than what we're prepared to bring into our low slung neighborhoods. However, I would encourage that we look into a smaller mixed use typology now while we're all thinking about it, and let that be the model for a future sb 840 carve out, as opposed to letting the state dictate what it is that we'll be building. That's the way that we can be acting proactively, even if we don't allow for those smaller mixed use buildings. And I'm encouraged that the study looks not only at the zoning regulations, but at the broader regulatory environment itself. As a practitioner actively building these typologies, I am acutely aware zoning is only the very first barrier reforms to how we collect trash, deliver utilities, and provide for future management of these properties are just as important. Thank you. >> Miss Maxwell. >> Good morning, full city Maxwell D five residents speaking here as executive director of Texans for housing, [11:08:38 AM] a statewide housing advocacy group, regarding item 440, we at Texans for housing are delighted to see this effort expanding missing middle housing opportunities in Austin. According to the national association of realtors survey of home buyers and home sellers, the median age of first time buyers has now climbed to 40 in 2025, a record high. We also know that statewide, Texas has a shortage of over 300,000 housing units, the increasing cost of housing and the overall shortage of homes has led to statewide crisis in our housing market. Expanding opportunities to build towomes, fourplexes, and other infill homes addresses both of these issues, lowering the cost of each unit and adding additional homes to our cities. And Austin's leadership on housing reforms like item 40 is leading the way for other Texas cities to consider similar items, specifically in Dallas and San Antonio. As many have noted, expanding missing middle housing is a key piece of addressing the statewide shortage of housing, and we appreciate council member Ellis and her staff and their work on this item and the support of this council. Thank you for being leaders on housing reform, [11:09:38 AM] making housing more attainable for austinites and forging a path for the rest of Texas. >> Continuing. Richard easterling, Nikolai tango, hall, anush rasayan and William bunch. >> If your name has been called, please come forward if you plan on testifying. Please go ahead. >> Good morning. My name is chase easterling. I live in district nine. I've been in Austin for about ten years, and I'm here in support of item 40. As a younger millennial, I can speak for myself and my close friends that it feels like the American dream is slipping out of our grasp every day. I can't afford and don't want to live in a three and a half bedroom house in the suburbs, out of the city, and spend my time and money commuting to and, for work, for pleasure, for fun, etc. We crave the freedom to live life on our own terms, to be able to afford a home where [11:10:39 AM] we can paint our walls, and to live a more community centric lifestyle in the neighborhoods where we live and sleep. Missing middle housing affords this opportunity by building more types of housing for more types of people to live how they want to, we would be able to put down roots in the city, spend our money here, raise our families here, etc. Sorry. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. Yes, sir. >> Hello, my name is Nikolai. I live in district nine. I'm in favor of items 39, 40, 42, 44, 45 and 51. I'll be speaking on items 40 and 51. First, I wanted to applaud council for the amazing work done so far with pro housing initiatives from home, removing parking minimums and approving single stair buildings, creating a new missing middle zone is the next step in improving the housing supply so more people can [11:11:39 AM] afford to live in Austin and just keep Austin weird. I particularly excited with the idea of allowing commercial uses in residential areas. The few places in Austin where that does exist exist. It is very well loved. Just look at first light bookstore and the Hyde park neighborhood. I'd also like to talk about agenda item 51 regarding the Austin core transportation plan. For the most part, I'm very much in favor with what's in the plan. I think it's critically important that we add bike lanes to sixth street. Tourists use micro-mobility all the time to move from 36 to west sixth, and a bike Laine offers huge safety improvement for every road user, not just those on bikes and scooters. Right now, the streets in downtown are far too wide and don't justify so many lanes, so this project is moving in the right direction. My only gripe is that this doesn't go far enough. There are still many one way streets that should be converted to two way streets, as two way offers [11:12:40 AM] more accessibility to locations and simplify the transportation system. Please consider these changes and thank you council. >> Thank you, Mr. Bunch. >> Good morning mayor. Council members bill bunch, district five executive director, save our springs alliance, speaking against this item. I think you all know there's really broad consensus in the community for increasing density along our corridors. That's baked into our imagine Austin plan. And then to the extent that y'all have already done some substantial deregulation of development as council member, excuse me, doctor Betsy Greenberg spelled out before the goal here is more missing middle inside neighborhoods, core neighborhoods with narrow streets that were were not designed for high density. You have the tools to do that already in place, and this will simply undermine that. What I'm [11:13:43 AM] specifically opposed to in this resolution specifically, is directing the city manager to move, to get rid of or change other regulations outside the zoning code. So what we're talking about here is impervious cover limits and TRE protections, green space. This is the absolute wrong direction. We can, can and should be increasing density while increasing our green space in the central city at the same time, rather than diminishing it and increasing urban heat island effects to disastrous deadly consequences, increasing flooding to disastrous and deadly consequences. Getting rid of our trees. When y'all, you know, proclaim that you care about trees and that you support more TRE canopy rather than less, this is going in the absolute wrong direction. This [11:14:43 AM] is long ago disproven. Ronald Reagan, Milton Friedman, developer deregulation, hiding behind Progressive language that is false and misleading. >> Please don't do this. >> Aaron farmer, liza Wimberly, naalaya acme sankofa. Jeffrey Bowen. Mr. Bowen, are you here? Okay. Is Megan meisenbach here? Okay. Mr. Bowen will have four minutes. >> Hello, my name is Aaron farmer. I am a 27 year resident of district eight and proud father of two Austin high school graduates who also still reside in district eight. And I am absolutely for this, as someone who my children want to stay in Austin, they're. They're born and raised in Austin. They're austinites. [11:15:44 AM] They. They don't want to have to move to the suburbs. They don't want to have to move to Kyle or Hutto or anywhere else to, to be able to afford a house and absolutely 100% support this measure. Thank you. >> Good morning. Greetings. My name is naila akinyemi sankofa. I moved here in 1989, so and I'm from Chicago. New York has my heart. So while I'm not from Austin, I am of Austin. When I moved here, my daughters were five and a half years old. My twin daughters, they are now in their 40s and they are unable and unwilling to live separately from one another, [11:16:44 AM] not just because they're identical twins two minutes apart, but because they know that they cannot afford to live separately in the city. That used to be a haven for artists and struggling folks and people who didn't have a lot. And by haven, I mean affordability. I am very neutral about item 40 against item 39, and I'm signed up to speak about other items. And being from a city like Chicago and traveling a lot to other and having lived in other major cities, Austin cannot continue to say that it is going to do something like middle housing and affordability, when it will not face the fact that it has to go up. Please stop building apartment complexes or allowing apartment complexes to be built [11:17:45 AM] that are spread all across two and three blocks of a neighborhood. When you can go up, you have all of these new high rise buildings here for commercial purposes. The same thing needs to happen with housing. And by up I mean ten, 12, 15 storeys. >> Thank you, Mr. Bowen. >> Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Mr. Mayor, council members, in regards to item 40, I'm I'm really it just brought about more questions. As many of you know, I have more questions than I have answers. So I look at this and I start looking at the questions I started with with the report. And I noticed that nobody has even mentioned the fact that on page seven of this report, they talk about the the missing middle dropped 20%. But has anybody addressed that? If you think about this, it went from [11:18:46 AM] 23% down to 3%. So that means that 20% of that was eliminated through some process called demolition, because then they ended up doing even in their scale. That's on the that's in the report. It says that the the 100 plus units went from 28% to 58%, while single family housing went from 49 to 38. So as a single family, as a single family owner and also a property rights person, I have to ask the question, why is there so much? Why? Why are single families always being targeted on this entire process? You want to put missing middles in the neighborhoods, but just like Mr. Bunch said, there are unintended consequences. When we start removing trees, we complain about the heat island effect. But when we take out trees to put more in these 5750 lots, then are we not creating another problem? Miss Greenberg [11:19:48 AM] brought up some excellent examples of the entire process of what's going on here. There are unintended consequences. Look at home. Home was supposed to be our savior, correct? It's what a lot of people pushed. Here's some examples. This is over in brentwood area. Here's one at 5507 clay avenue. It's basically two three plexes together, $5,000,390 or yeah, 990, $90,000. Here's another one at 7310 Woodrow, 1.75 million. These are all built under home. So where's the affordability and who are they affordable to? 826 Mario number for $1,075,000 and another one at 1004. Morrow again 1,000,700 or $75,000. So what are we [11:20:48 AM] really doing? You're you're wanting us to get out of single family housing and put us all in these boxes. But there's all kinds of consequences that go with this. So I still ask the question, why is there such a disdain for those of us that live in single family housing? We don't tell you where you should go live or the impacts that if you want to live in an apartment, that's what you need to do. That's that's fine. But coming into neighborhoods and you will not you will not acknowledge deed restrictions. Just look at what's going on right now at rosedale. We're being that area is being up zoned. Even though the lawsuit has not even been settled due to deed restrictions yet, it's a perfect opportunity to maybe take home and put that in that area. Yet it's being pushed for six stories of more apartments. You already heard some of them here talk about, well, we really like the missing middle. Go back and look at your chart and find out why is it that [11:21:48 AM] that went from 20% to 3%? Miss Greenberg was right. Mr. Bunch is right. There are unintended consequences. Every time you look at these, I encourage you to sit back and actually do some actual evaluations versus just running down the road thinking this is going to solve it. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. >> The last group for item 40, Amy Deluna, Michael Rhodes, Ben sotheby, Adam hutnik, Katy. Cam. >> Hello, Ben zohaib, district four. The reason why that percentage has not grown is because we haven't allowed it to grow. If you look at the report, it explains that we basically have been allowing two types single family housing and large apartment complex. What we need to do is allow people to have options. One of my main motivations for speaking in favor of this item [11:22:49 AM] is I know of someone who's looking for a place to rent right now. They have they have outgrown their small apartment, and they're looking for something in this missing middle. And they asked me, you know, hey, you bike around, you walk around, you know, the neighborhood, you know the area. I'm looking for something close to work. I'm looking for something like this. A little more space. And they're having such a difficult time amongst my friends who are renters. These are prized housing forms. They share in text messages when one is available. Hey, my small apartment complex of four six units has an opening. It's word of mouth that people share because it's so prized. We need to have more of these options. The reason why they prize them is, yes, it allows a little more space, but also a little more community. They want to be here for a long time. These are people who have roots in our community, and I don't think that we should look down on our fellow austinites for the housing choices that they have [11:23:52 AM] and and force them to choose between a house that's unaffordable to them, a single family home, or living in a large apartment complex. We need to give them options so that people can make choices based on what works for them. I'm talking about people who are working in service industry, public service, who financially can't afford a large single family house, but probably can afford a townhouse or can afford something that is a little more share of that land. And as we build out our transit, we need to have more of these housing forms so that people can choose to stay in Austin, choose to live and work here, and contribute to our beautiful city. >> Okay. >> Hi, I'm Katy Imam, a member of district nine. I support ongoing evaluation of housing policies and existing code options to ensure we are providing the regulations that support affordable missing middle housing and align with city plans and appropriate for different neighborhood contexts. And the Tuesday work session meeting, there was discussion about the need to understand [11:24:52 AM] the impact of existing code regarding housing before pursuing additional changes. I want to speak to that issue first. I'm a civil engineer on the front line of when code is implemented. I see the cases that highlight when unintended consequences of code happen for one residential unit lot in east Austin, in an effort to build a second unit on the lot, it was discovered that the code has a significant gap that forces a resubdivision of the lot into two lots, which would require the demolition of the existing home on the lot in order to accommodate what we call the flag lot. With a strip of land for the back lot to the street frontage. I do not think the intention of the code is to force demolition of existing affordable housing stock, so thorough evaluation of unintended consequences will need to be done. Second, the ability to add housing often has nothing to do with existing regulations. Public easements with active utilities crossing the rear yards of lots, site constraints and other factors such as the financial resources of the existing residential landowner, impact the addition of housing under the existing code, it is difficult for [11:25:52 AM] existing homeowners to gain a lot because the city, city and professional service fees projects to add housing can stall because the residential landowner does not have enough money to finish the expensive process, and the smart housing incentives do not provide enough relief. At that point, selling it to a developer that has a larger financial resources would be the only option. That action, of course, increases the risk that the resulting housing on the property will not be affordable. Again, I am supportive of affordable housing and a mix of housing types, but any changes to the code should be guided by city goals such as the TRE canopy mentioned earlier, informed by proactive planning that involves neighborhoods and evaluation of the performance and unintended consequences of the existing code and any proposed changes. >> Go ahead sir. >> Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and council. My name is Adam hutnik, district seven, rosedale. I wanted to briefly appear in support of missing middle. I think we all know housing affordability is a problem and housing affordability depends on housing supply. Yet single [11:26:54 AM] family and massive complexes cannot be our only answers. We need innovation in housing. We need thoughtful development that matters. Myself, I helped launch omc, one of the first residential modular housing manufacturers in Austin, and subsequently launched housing growth partners, a company focused on housing innovation and development here and throughout the midwest. Just yesterday, the first modular set of modular townhomes that we delivered were featured as an example of this kind of housing, and I'm proud to be involved in this process and hope to see more. Just want to say, as a resident of rosedale, where we are currently facing one of these massive developments that is inappropriate for the neighborhood, many of us are being treated as though we are nimbys who don't want to see more housing, who don't want to see good development, who don't want to see innovation. And I think there are many of us. I'm [11:27:55 AM] certainly one who would love to see more diversity of missing middle housing like these types that would would fit in a neighborhood like mine. And I look forward to seeing more of it in our city. Thank you. >> Moving on to item 41, Chris Chen Shope, Campbell mnilsson, bill bunch. Jeffrey Bowen. >> Please come forward now if your name has been called. >> In item 41. >> Haam already. Yeah. All right. >> Let me get these notes. Okay. Okay. Okay. It's okay. All right. Thank you, mister mayor. Council. Jeffrey Bowen, district eight. I don't know if I said that last time or not, but we'll we'll make up for it. [11:28:56 AM] >> Say it again. >> Yeah. Jeffrey Bowen, district eight. >> Okay. We're covering. >> Yeah. We're covered. Thank you. Sir. I I'm really kind of differentiating on this item because of the, the issue regarding the school land, because we have different, we have several items all here that all interrelate. The fact that that we're looking at this and we're saying, okay, we want to make sure we're saving this parkland, but I want to know if it's coming from the schools that you're looking at doing. And another one of these issues we want to find out how are you going to pay for all of this? How are you going to do this? We need the green space. Just as my friend Mr. Bunch said, because of our unintended consequences of going in and tearing down all of our trees, removing some of our impervious cover issues. So the, the lack of trying to really get to the bottom of this. I noticed that councilmember alter talked about dealing with this and saying, we need to make sure [11:29:56 AM] that this is very transparent. I totally agree, we need to make sure this is a complete transparent process. If we're trying to make sure that we are dealing with making sure that we're not have have the first option at this land and making sure that it's not being taken away without some due justice. Right now, we've we've got a lot of issues that need to be resolved with how we even treat our parks now. So this is a very complex issue. And I think that the fact that we're looking at it from the standpoint of trying to do the legal and financial, like I said, dedicate park purposes that protects the city's legal and financial interest, will seek to maximize shared community value. And that I agree on. >> Thank you, Mr. Bowen. Mr. Bunch. >> Thank you. Mayor, can I ask what happened to item 40? I missed that. >> Well, we listened to a lot [11:30:58 AM] of testimony on it. Was it excuse. >> Me, is this is 41. >> This is 41. >> Okay. Thank you. That's right. I got the two confused. Okay. Thank you, bill bunch, save our springs alliance speaking in support of this item and want to thank councilmember alter for for bringing it forward. I am concerned that the version two red line suggests that the parks board is going to be cut out of the process, and more of the concerns and reviews specific to protecting our parkland from a range of threats, and also seizing opportunities would just go into the back room with our parks director. I think you all are aware we have some really serious financial malfeasance happening inside our parks department that needs to be surfaced and addressed and [11:31:58 AM] empowering. More of this work in the back room is not the right way to go. This focuses on the school properties, and that's a huge opportunity that we need to seize. It's unfortunate that it's happening at this moment when the city is struggling financially, but it goes beyond dealing wit the opportunities that are there that that need to be seized by hook or by crook to save some open space, save some community gathering spaces in our neighborhoods, and to address other threats to our parkland mopac south expansion. At the top of that list, we need y'all defending zilker park, our Barton creek greenbelt, and the other parks in the mopac corridor and across our whole city. And right now we are giving away way too much for sort of allegedly temporary [11:32:59 AM] takings in some instances, and also on permanent takings of our parkland. So thank you. Please pursue this. Let's have more transparency in their. >> Item 42. I have some remote speakers. We'll start with Peter Britten. >> There. I'm running to my document. I was doing laundry. Okay. Good afternoon, mayor Watson and council members. I'm Peter Breton and I'm a resident of district eight. And the ability for anyone to be enterprise to add to their community and build a better future for their family. This item is a step in the right direction in honoring the spirit of so many of our current and future austinites. Thank you. >> Tracy Whitt. >> Mayor and council. Thank you to councilmember Fuentes and cosigners for the memo demanding accountability for [11:34:00 AM] those ostensibly enforcing immigration laws, but who end up violating civil rights and or physically harming human beings in the course of their activities. Ultimately, it is about demanding that our laws and policies are not suggestions, but fundamental requirements essential to our shared optimism. >> You may please. >> I am, I am. I hope. >> You need to get to item number 42, please. >> I am. I hope you will bring the same demand for accountability to your evaluation of item 42 propagating outdoor commercial activity in acres and residential areas far exceeds what was contemplated in hb 2464. In fact, the bill says non impact businesses are not to increase traffic, street traffic, street parking demand or noise. The resolution author now claims the city is pivoting to quote impact management. You don't manage impact by enabling concentrated propagation of business operations in Guinea pig neighborhoods, with no explicit guardrails for business operator accountability. The resolution is about lowering most expectations for operators and testing the impact testing. [11:35:01 AM] Don't we already know the questions? Where's all the trash going to go? Where our childcare workers, caregivers and other residential visitors going to park our noise, light and odor pollution going to harm human beings living adjacent to businesses that were not allowed when they signed their leases or purchased their properties? Don't we all know what a challenge managing those impacts has been when icocomes to scars? Are we going to hire more code officers? I'm not sure this is really going to lower the financial burden of entrepreneurship so much as passed the cost of business liability onto landlords and adadjacent owners, who have to think about how the potential commercial property next door might have a fire, draw, more people who trespass or get injured. Our property tax is going to change because commercials allowed. Someone has to cover that cost. What if landlords raise rents because they have the option to approve a business and or their taxes go up? It feels so at large. Council to bail on the cap and social justice highway, and then exploit central and east Austin neighborhoods for raising revenues and testing double speak legislation, precisely because their history has been one of making room for commercial zoning all up and down corridors. If you're going [11:36:02 AM] to pass item 42, why not make it applicable citywide behind gated communities? >> Thank you very much indeed. >> Restricted areas. >> Sara Foust. >> Hi, I'm Sarah Foust. I'm asking you to please oppose item 42, allowing retail businesses and neighborhoods and homes. I'm opposed to this item because of the increased car trips that are going to be generated in neighborhoods that don't have sidewalks and adequate pedestrian infrastructure. We know that retail businesses and neighborhoods will increase car traffic. The resolution purports to transform residential blocks into active, pedestrian safe corridors, but it doesn't add any pedestrian safety mechanisms or bike lanes. When we don'te sidewalks, we've got the kids, the bikes, the dogs, the strollers. We're all forced to walk out in the street. Walkability in Austin is often not limited by destinations. It's limited because we're in the street dodging the waymo's, the Amazon [11:37:03 AM] trucks, the construction trucks, and the drivers looking at their phones. When it's nearly a mile to walk to the nearest park, you have to exercise and walk in the bike in the street. We won't survive adding more car trips to our neighborhood streets from the retail businesses. We have commercially zoned areas where the city has already invested in the sidewalks, the crosswalks and traffic signals that allow for pedestrians and cars to mix safely. We should be focusing on creating safe pedestrian corridors to these business areas. Please oppose this item, but if it does pass, the types of businesses need to be limited. It needs to happen only in areas where they're already consistent. Sidewalks throughout the neighborhood and pedestrian safety, and where neighborhood associations believe it's appropriate for their area. Thank you. >> Ava Morton Johnson. >> Hello, mayor Watson and Austin city council. My name is ava Johnson, and I'm speaking today both as a native [11:38:04 AM] austinite and as a city policy coordinator for institute for justice's cities work initiative. Thank you for the opportunity testify in support of item 42. Over the past three years, I've conducted in-depth regulatory research on star small businesses in Austin and interviewed over 30 entrepreneurs about their experiences. This past Friday, we presented a report summarizing our research to the economic opportunity committee. Notably, in comparison to more than 25 other cities we studied, Austin is the most regulatory complex in the third most expensive city to start a small business. We found that an entrepreneur starting a small restaurant in Austin would need to complete 105 steps and pay nearly $9,000 in permanent license fees alone. The cost of navigating the requirements price many entrepreneurs out of the city before they ever get started, which is why today's resolution is so important. Often, once home is their main source O capital, legalizing home businesses and acres will allow entrepreneurs to utilize the capital they have reasonably. Individuals may be [11:39:05 AM] concerned about the impact of home businesses and acres in residential areas often already has strong nuisance regulations on the books, so we do caution against creating new arbitrary restrictions like square footage and zoning limitations because rather, the city should continue enforcing its nuisance and traffic regulations that prohibit excess noise, odors, pollution and improper parking and stopping traffic. We encourage the city to pass a strong local commerce initiative and build upon the momentum to continue reforms that advance regulatory justice. We also strongly recommend the city clarify the resolutions. Land development amendments apply to home based businesses, regardless of whether they operate within an aco or entirely within the principal structure, as well as allow non occupant employees and advertising with an address passing. The strong local commerce initiative is a promising first step in often becoming a leader in regulatory and economic justice. We are excited to support Austin in this effort. We appreciate the council members sponsoring this and thank you for. >> Your time has expired. Barbara Epstein. [11:40:09 AM] >> Hello, I'm Barbara Epstein and I probably didn't say before. I'm in district nine in the Hancock neighborhood. Item number 42nd may be a revision of a resolution from a couple of years ago. The proposed home businesses up to 5000ft S for a medical office, music venues and convenience stores, among other things, or possibly a response to the constitutional amendment passed in November for a home property business exemptions. Either way, it won't improve walkability or enhance neighborhoods. It. The. The proposal doesn't adequately analyze how rezoning will impact housing affordability. I would note that a 640 square foot unit on red river just sold, and it was on the market for $230,000. I don't know how this would change that. We we don't know whether there will be any right to protest a business startup, neighbors, legal right to quiet enjoyment of their property, safety issues for children, the impact [11:41:11 AM] on neighborhood schools, the impact of of the impact of home businesses in existing densely built single family neighborhoods like mine. A decrease in irreparable mature urban TRE canopy. I would note that it was recently reported that Austin is second only to Las Vegas now for abnormally hot nights, and removing that TRE canopy affects that. There are the potential for increased car traffic, disruptive lighting, noise, garbage, rats and flooding, and an increased need and budget for code enforcement staff. Please rethink. Or better yet, just don't do it. Given that the resolution proposes eliminating the current three car trips per day to home businesses and the fundamentally inadequate bus service in neighborhoods right now. And as I say that as someone who depends on on public transit, we don't have access to nearby essential business destinations. Now, this resolution would actually increase car traffic. Thank you. [11:42:12 AM] And do nothing. Thank you. Walkability or enhance 100 year old neighborhood. >> Thank you very much. >> Bruce Greiner. >> Mayor and council. I already addressed this item in my earlier remarks, so I will yield the time back. >> Thank you very much. >> I'll now go to in-person speakers for item 42. Sreekar nalluri Christian Schoepp, Zachary Faddis, Betsy Greenberg. And is Maria morales here? Okay, Mrs. Greenberg, Mrs. Greenberg will have four minutes. >> They're loading it up. Why don't you begin? >> Okay. Thank you. My name is Betsy Greenberg. I live in district nine, and I'm opposed to item 42 that encourages front yard businesses. I'm [11:43:16 AM] having trouble with the. Okay. The first thing to think about is what type of business we are likely to see in front yards. Will it be lemonade stands like this one that my neighbor's grandchildren hosted last weekend? It's pleasant to imagine flowers and handmade crafts being sold, but can we count on this? Or could it be some less appealing businesses like pawn shop, alternative financial services, car repair, unlicensed foods or soda sales, permanent garage sales, used car parts and, for lack of a better word, adult products and will lighted signs be allowed as Austin doesn't require parkin I expect that circular driveways will be needed for customers besides added traffic. I worry about noise. Will this be like mobile food businesses that have no noise regulations because their vehicles without zoning? Is it possible that in fact, the businesses will be set up in trucks or trailers, just like mobile phone, mobile [11:44:16 AM] food venues? The rationale for this is that Austin's home businesses are too restrictive, so the reasonable approach would be to relax those rules. For example, we could increase the trip limit for a home business instead. This proposal goes too far. We really don't need to allow 200 square foot structures to be built on the front yard of homes at that size. They could be built without permits or inspections, along with extra impervious cover. I'm pleased that instead of allowing front yard businesses citywide, the resolution proposes to do tests with so-called pink Zones, where the red tape is relaxed in each city council district. I have a few suggestions. The pink zone should be centered around each council member's residence, especially the sponsors. Extra focus on gated communities or where deed restrictions, pods or condo [11:45:17 AM] rules are. Barriers to vibrancy should be paid attention to. In particular, Mueller is a particularly ideal location as it hasn't been affected by other changes like home and etod. Housing looks different in different parts of the city, so testing in every district does make sense. I take capmetro to city hall and their apartments behind me that can be redeveloped to 100ft. And yet, I know some people will still call me a nimby, so I'm going to own that and say not in my front yard. Of course, I do have control of what happens in my own front yard. What I really mean is not on the front yard next door or across the street. Council members, if you vote for this, which I hope you won't, that pink zone should be centered on your home. >> Thank you. >> Howdy. Zach Faddis, a resident of district nine, [11:46:18 AM] president of aura. I'm speaking in favor of this item. Growing up, my mother had an in-home daycare. It was usually five seven kids, usually younger, between when they got out of school and when when their parents could pick them up. I would often help afterwards. I don't know if she ever asked anyone's permission. Technically legal, I do know that it provided extra income for us. It provided her a sense of purpose and a way to serve her community and lit up her life, and it helped make our community more resilient. When people's life circumstances change, they need to be able to change their space with it and what they do with their space and their property, and it makes communities much stronger. And over time, we've increasingly regulated and said we have to define strictly what what you can and cannot do with your space. And this part of the city, this is only residential, this is only businesses. And it made us a lot weaker as a community. It makes us less resilient to change and less able to adapt as life circumstances change. [11:47:19 AM] We had a huge change a couple years ago with with covid, and suddenly people were working from home much more often. I know many people built, built things like backyard offices and stuff. And. I think thati'm sorry, we've systematically begun to remove sort of the bottom levels of entrepreneurship as a society and home businesses, food trucks, accessory commercial units, these are things that allow us to try out businesses, see if they work for us, allow us to adapt to our circumstances and respond to emergencies and to life changes. That's all I got to say. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Charles Bradbury, Judah rice, Ryan Saunders, Catherine tusek, John stark, Ty jovanka. >> You've heard your name. Please come forward. [11:48:19 AM] >> Judah rice, district three. I'm speaking in favor of this item for many reasons. I mean, because I support small businesses in Austin. And as I mentioned in my previous testimony, I grew up in Travis heights, and I think that neighborhood is particularly instructive here because we talk a lot about supply and demand and about the way that restrictions on new construction of housing have caused the price of new housing, or the price of housing, both new and old, to to rise. And when we allow more housing, the rents fall, the and the home prices fall. That same math applies for commercial spaces. Austin has not been building enough small, affordable commercial spaces, which means that as the city has grown, the existing commercial spaces that used to be affordable, that are smaller for a small business to inhabit, like on south congress, get outbid by these, you know, national chains and these [11:49:20 AM] luxury brands that are not rooted in our communities. And as a result, I, I've seen some of our favorite restaurants close or move out to the suburbs. And I'm not suggesting necessarily that, you know, this is that that's what would be allowed under this, but it makes it so that if someone is trying to create a less intensive business, like a home bakery or a flower shop or whatever, they're not having to compete with the small restaurant owner for the same storefront on south congress or on speedway or in Clarksville, or many of our other neighborhoods that already have some scale of neighborhood, commercial, and the sky has not fallen down. If you go down west linn or south fifth, or you go down speedway and, you know, you could argue that those are technically corridors, but I'd say thatpeedway and west linn are not the same thing as south congress. So this is really just expanding what we already have and allowing more small business owners to thrive in the city. Thank you. >> Thank you, thank you. [11:50:22 AM] >> Thank you to mayor and council. My name is Ryan Saunders, district nine. I'm here to speak in support of item 42. Spoke earlier in regard to item 40, as it's important. The strong local commerce initiative is built into the new missing middle Zones. The concept of live work exists currently, but usually as part of institutional large scale apartment buildings on major thoroughfares. Similar to my points on item 40. Accessory commercial units and front yard businesses help people to afford to live where they want to live by bridging the gap of housing costs with added revenue from their small business. Additionally, most people are limited by their budget as to where they can open a business and you have to get further and further away from central Austin to find affordable real estate. Smaller spaces are naturally more affordable, but also rare. If someone can open a business at their residence, they can build a customer base. Usually, they want to maintain that customer base and will seek a brick and mortar in the same area when they need to grow, perhaps being approved. A being approved for financing or lease for the track record from their [11:51:22 AM] small front yard business or accessory commercialnit. Even better, partnering as part of a small scale mixed use development, this also creates jobs close to home and walking distance from other neighbors that may have transportation struggles. Over the years, I have shared concerns about my experience living next door to bars and entertainment venues, but Dion has been listening to myself and other neighbors on the ground level and built this program at the right scale to be neighborhood friendly. Therefore, I strongly support item 42. This program will create a pipeline of small businesses as they grow and build better neighborhoods in Austin. Thank you. >> Hi, my name is Trejo Vicki from district five speaking in support of item 42. I support this because I want to keep Austin weird. What do I mean by that? When you create space for people to create small businesses in their neighborhoods, you enable the kind of quirky, niche businesses that a lot of th other speakers have mentioned. And these businesses give that [11:52:22 AM] neighborhood a unique quality weirdness, if you will. The small businesseshat could one day occupy these acres could be the eclectic businesses and community spaces that future austinites will wax nostalgic about. Entrepreneurs that would have otherwise been hindered by rents in larger commercial spaces. They'll finally have a chance to build something that provides both utility and joy to the people in their communities. We've seen the effectiveness of lowering barriers to starting businesses. When we made it easier for food to be sold out of trucks. Now, those food trucks are a beloved part of Austin's culture. On a different note, we've also seen how increased supply can lower rents for residents in the housing sector when it comes to retail spaces. That's also true if the only available space is just in a few strip malls or a few designated business districts, that means that the rent will be so high in each of those districts that the only businesses that can afford that will be the national brands. People keep saying unintended [11:53:23 AM] consequences when it comes to these changes, but I think that the unintended consequence of the status quo is exactly this, that that you end up with basically a takeover by the same generic millennial yuppie brands that are present in every city, in every big business district, and then that you end up losing the weirdness that made our city special. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Continuing on, jordi Tello, Campbell Nie, Ryan byzinski, Edgar Handel and felicity Maxwell. >> Please come forward if your name has been called. And I'll note for the record that it's 1154. So in six minutes, thereabouts, what we'll do is we'll take the people that are here, and then we will go to our 12:00 time. Certain. >> All right. Good morning, mayor and council. My name is Ryan and I'm a district one resident speaking in favor of item 42. I want to thank my representative council member, [11:54:23 AM] harper-madison, and the co-sponsors for bringing this item forward. As someone who's run a small business, I know firsthand that the high cost of commercipace and traditional brick and mortar buildings can make or break a business model, and it often puts entrepreneurship simply out of reach. For many, accessory commercial units are the starter home equivalent for local commerce. We often talk about the importance of complete communities and walkability. Small scale home businesses allow people to leave their cars at home for some trips, and to support the economic livelihoods of their neighbors and communities. Legalizing access is a vital step toward a more resilient human scale. Austin, where residents can build wealth and community right where they live. This resolution encourages businesses that are literally home grown. I'd also like to note that if the recommendation to put the pink Zones around council member Holmes is taken seriously, my home would fall within the zone and that sounds pretty good to me. I just hope other austinites can take advantage of this too. So thank you so much for your support. >> Hello, my name is jordi Tello. I'm a resident of district nine. I wanted to speak in support of item 42, [11:55:23 AM] allowing accessory commercial units. I think it's great that we continue to do things to support small businesses and people who want to try small ideas on their home and property, and I can only imagine in the future, this would be something that allows people to be able to buy things like visit places all within walking distance, which would enhance the quality of life for everyone. That's all I have to say. Thank you. >> Hi, I'm Edgar Handel, a resident of district three, speaking in support of item 42. I grew up in a mostly working class immigrant neighborhood where it felt like there were so many families who either owned a small business or aspired to it. My parents, my own parents, ran businesses from home, and I remember most is that they were around. I'd go to my friend's houses to hang out and rarely see their parents. They were off working for someone else or running their own businesses. Having my parents there made a real difference in my life today. My wife runs a business from home, and I'm lucky enough to work from home too. That presence for our kids, for each other, means a lot to me. But I know [11:56:25 AM] that these days this is a privilege many working families don't have. These families have just as much a reason to want to be home with their family. Accessory commercial units restore something that should never have been taken away. The basic right to run a neighborhood scale business where you live. Businesses that can improve your neighborhood and let you be present for your family at the same time. So I'd like to express gratitude for the sponsors for bringing this forward, and I hope we can see more progress on acres and neighborhood retail. Thank you. >> Let's call two more names. >> Chris Gannon and jenn Robichaud. >> Miss Robichaud, are you here? Well, I'm sorry that I did that, Mr. Bowen. Please go ahead. [11:57:28 AM] >> Hi, this is Chris Gannon, aia housing advocate, Dion resident and third place enjoyer. I'm in support of the strong local commerce initiative. This modest step expands what is already allowed as a first step for folks who are looking to start a business. It strengthens our our economic ladder. What do we love about Austin? What keeps it weird? Cheap rent and fun businesses. Let's strengthen that ladder. Our local businesses are struggling to find space and this would help that. I want to emphasize how modest this is. In-house businesses and a max 200 square foot limit for additional commercial units is not that much. This is not a scale that will have a negative impact on our neighborhoods. It will formalize a currently hidden economy while building walkability into our neighborhoods. Historically, pre-war neighborhoods were filled with small local businesses mixed in with the homes. This built resiliency at a neighborhood scale. It also creates some of my favorite building types. The shop front house in Buffalo is a great example and I encourage everyone to look it up. The [11:58:30 AM] area that these buildings still exist is by far the most sought after area in the city. People love their local neighborhood businesses. Here in Austin. We see that as well. Avenue B, grocery and market, or even coffee become the gems of the neighborhood. A place where people can walk to meet their neighbors and participate in a hyper local commerce. And I'm going to. I'll also double down. You can center the pink zone on my house as well. I want to thank council member harper-madison office and all the co- sponsors for bringing this forward, and I'm excited to see how this proposal and our local commerce grows. Thank you. >> Thank you sir. Let's have one more speaker. >> Richard easterling. Richard, are you here? Okay. >> Thank you for this. My name is Richard easterling. I live in district nine and I'm here to support item 42. When I [11:59:30 AM] imagine the future Austin that I live in, I am imagining a place where I can walk down my street to buy flowers from a neighborhood flower shop, get my hair cut at the neighborhood salon, drop my kids off at a neighborhood daycare, and keep the money that I spend in the local economy with my neighbors. And this item affords that Fu to us. And I also just want to take a quick moment to push back a little bit on some earlier testimony that I heard that. This kind of zoning or change to the natural order of housing will suddenly have adult shops pop up on every corner or increase traffic on the streets, when the whole point of these kinds of refmsms is to enable inter neighborhood business and commerce, where you don't have to leave your neighborhood and drive across [12:00:31 PM] town to get goods and services or drive your kids places. So thank you for your time, I appreciate it. >> Thank you. Members, we'll now go to our 12:00 time certain which is the general public communication folks that are signed up to speak. You know, that you signed up to speak. And so you and you kind of know what the order of that sign up is. So if you would make your way, she'll, she'll call the names for the record, but go ahead and get yourself front and be ready to go if you don't mind. So please start calling the names. >> Robert Talley, Susana Almanza, David Calvin Corbin graham, Brandon Davis, Braniff. Davis. >> Mr. Talley, is Mr. Talley here? Robert Talley. All right, miss Almanza, if you'd like to begin. Okay. [12:01:32 PM] >> Yes. Good afternoon, mayor and city council members. I'm Susana Almanza with poder. On Monday, March the 9th. I signed up to speak at today's meeting about the annual Cesar Chavez and Dolores Huerta March. But now I'm here for a different purpose. This is for their statement. It's a painful day when the true nature of those we think as figureheads in our movement is brought to light, but no pain can match that of the survivors, especially survivors of a people's struggle seeking to challenge the harm and oppression Cesar Chavez dealt toward the women who shared their stories last Wednesday. This news has severed served as a reminder that rather than elevate one person to the mantle, we should acknowledge the work achieved byeople every day in our communities. In the wake of the horrific testimonies regarding Cesar Chavez, the board has decided to change the name of it's Cesar Chavez si se puede awards, which recognizes community leaders of all [12:02:32 PM] generations for their achievement and social justice to the social justice leadership award. Since 2007, the annual awards dinner has taken place on March the 31st. However, beginning this year, we will honor our awardees on may 1st, the day that Beaudet was founded 35 years ago, and a day we also commemorate as international workers day. For decades, our Latino communities have centered Chavez. In commemorating the farm workers struggle. We have lionized him for so long, but we must shift our focus toward the women's. He harmed. To all who have carried and continue to carry the movement, we echo what others have observed that this could go unspoken for so long, demonstrates the long standing need for our movement to know how to prevent harm, protect one another from those who abuse their power, and administer proper accountability and healing processes. On behalf of poder, I say today and every day, we [12:03:34 PM] uplift the stories of the women in our movement for justice. In their honor, we continue to challenge the powerful in defense of the powerless for their definitive serve, its ties to Cesar Chavez, and stands firmly behind all survivors of abuse. I leave you with words by the women in last week's article. The story of Chavez's movement is their story, too. Of the women who marched beside the men, worked in the fields, took care of the children. The movement is more than one man. Thank you. >> Thank you. Mr. Kevin. Mr. Kevin, tell you what. Why don't you all tell me who you are so we can figure out what's your. >> Name and graham. Okay. >> Brandon. Davis. >> Okay. Is Mr. Kevin here? Okay, Mr. Graham, why don't you begin? >> I'm here today to ask you to place a tirz proposal for 7900 south congress on the agenda [12:04:34 PM] and to exercise your authority to address known pollutants and add transparency over a growing public cost. In January of 2023, the zoning of this property was unanimously approved on all three readings. But it is totally stuck now. The site right now has a wrecking yard that we are working to relocate to the Travis county landfill, which is the oldest landfill in the state of Texas yet to be developed in an urban area. Engineers will testify that the relocation strengthens the environmental protections, but moreover, the tax revenue that would be added is more than enough to permanently address the landfill's current neglected condition. This should not be a cost to taxpayers. It should be a gain. I'm concerned that Travis county is on a path that could expose your shared constituents to massive and unavoidable costs. All totaled up to nearly [12:05:35 PM] $200 million is at stake. Thus, for far. Thus far, without a single thus far without a single public meeting explaining why, as a taxpayer, I would want to know. And I'm assuming that as a council, you would also want to know. For more than 50 years, neglect has allowed a leachate leak to continue and worsen the water that is being contaminated by the leaks at Travis county is city of Austin water. It's flowing through your watershed and into your nature preserves. This is not a Travis county problem. This is a problem for Austin that Austin cited as a problem way back in 1973, and is now unique in. Now, Austin is uniquely suited to help solve it. So today I'm asking for two things. First, put the tirz on the agenda so that development pays for it. Second, I'm asking you to formally request a joint public hearing with the Travis county commissioners court so that these decisions can be [12:06:36 PM] explained on the record. Is the county incurring these for a legitimate reason? Does it ensure environmental protection at a reasonable cost? Is it backed by engineering or legal authority? What are the pros and cons of the alternatives? My concern, after two years of trying to engage collaborative solutions, is that the seizing of the property from me is to protect political narratives over community welfare and prevent oversight. In the words of a former county staffer to mothball the landfill. This is the leachate that the city cited in 1973. I collected it yesterday. It contains arsenic and lead and is coming out in millions of gallons. It's still here from 1973. I am part of this community. I am proud of everything that this development does. It has identified and solved degradation of our watershed. >> Thank you sir, appreciate your being here. Yes, sir. Thank you. Please state your [12:07:38 PM] name for the record. >> Brandon Davis. >> Okay. Please begin. >> Mayor, mayor pro tem and members of city council. My name is Brandon Davis, and I am the senior geospatial analyst in Austin fire's wildfire division and a resident of district four. I'm speaking today in my personal capacity as an active member with afscme local 1624 stop oats campaign. I was hired as a wildfire specialist with over a decade of experience. I am one of the few civilian employees in AFD who report directly to a fire chief. We do this because in an emergency, to optimize our work and provide valuable support to Austin firefighters quickly, we need to do that so they can do their job saving lives. However, because I have it in my title, the city plans to move me and many other subject matter experts away from our divisions, with no nuance or concern over how these changes will impact austinites. They want to remove me from my chain of command and have me report to an ATS supervisor who knows nothing about how we respond to [12:08:39 PM] disasters. The city manager wants you to think this is happening in the name of optimization. This is an optimization. This is reckless ATS responses to our concern. So far. We understand that change is hard. Quote unquote. My >> Colleagues and I do the hard things every day in a rapidly changing Austin. We can handle hard things. I ask, why didn't the city do hard things? Why did they outsource the work to consultants under the veil of optimization and efficiency? They pushed one ATS without considering the consequences of removing embedded subject matter experts. The discovery phase, in essence, had consultants hit control F find every it position in the city and interview them with no real plan beyond that. This recklessness and the ATS's trite response show a disregard for our work in public safety. Other cities retain subject matter experts in their public safety offices because it saves lives. Because I'm a wildfire scientist embedded in the wildfire division, I know what data firefighters need, and I'm on call nights and weekends for as long as it takes. Because I [12:09:40 PM] am a certified wildland firefighter, I can provide on site support because I report directly to a fire chief and not some supervisor in ATS. I can do my work. It is quick and it is efficient. Well, an ATS supervisor allow me to work a weekend when a disaster strikes. Will they know what an incident commander needs during an evacuation? Will they be able support me and my work without that knowledge? If you move public safety specialists into ATS, red tape will dramatically impact our ability as a city to respond to a disaster. And when this happens, the public will not blame optimization or efficiency. They will blame city hall. Furthermore, there are many members on the dais today who consistently, consistently say public safety and specifically wildfire are a real concern for Austin. Mr. Mayor, council member duchen, I have worked with you on the upcoming C P P and the city's new protective action plan. Council member Velasquez, your most recent newsletter featured several wildfire related products that my staff helped build. I'm 100% sure that one ATS will make our city less prepared for [12:10:41 PM] disasters. Subject matter experts do matter. >> Thank you sir. >> David Cruz, amity Applewhite, Nathan Wilks, David givnish and Sarah lambert. >> Please go ahead. >> Good afternoon. My name is David Cruz. I'm a planner with Austin housing. Today I am here as an aspie member trying to stop one ATS. The city manager will tell you they're listening to our workers. They're only in the discovery phase and they are so many opportunities for employees to provide input on this process. But listening is not the same as responding to feedback or changing course when faced with high risks. All of the testimony you'll hear today has been said many times to city management over the last few months, but at a briefing to the Austin technology commission last Thursday, director Lakey was asked how has input from staff impacted the direction of one [12:11:42 PM] ATS? She struggled to come up with a single example of how our staff has impacted the process. It echoes what she has said to the audit and finance committee earlier this month that no matter what the process tells the city manager, no matter what. Corrections to the Gartner report show the findings are directionally correct in consolidating over 1000 it workers across this city. That's because the goal of consolidating our I T was baked into the process. All public documents suggest that consultants were given consolidation as a goal and work backwards from there. That's bad process. This is an issue where rank and file experts and department leadership are in agreement through public information requests. Acme has obtained memos from Austin water, Austin energy, Austin watershed and Austin transportation and public works. These memos were not sent to you nor the public. These memos were sent to the city manager and director ley in opposition to one ATS. And [12:12:43 PM] this is just the tip of the iceberg of our concerns. I'll be providing the clerk with 12 copies of these memos, one for each of you and one for you, Mr. Manager, to review before next week's consultation meeting. I ask you if department directors believed that they were being listened to, do you think they would have escalated their concerns in opposition to the manager in this way? At next week's consultation meeting, we sincerely hope to get any response to the input of over 600 workers that they've given through questionnaires and interviews to this point. They've been ignored and they're worried what might leadership who won't listen to reason concerns be capable of missing? What have they ignored to reach their goals? If they would hide these memos, what else would they hide? City workers and directors are raising the alarm. But management is directionally correct no matter what they are told. But I ask you, council, given the response of staff and directors and our presence here today, how sure are you that they're directionally correct? [12:13:46 PM] This says one thing stop the one ATS consolidation effective immediately. Thank you. >> Thank you. Miss Applewhite. >> Mayor Watson, mayor pro tem vela, members of city council. My name is amenity Applewhite. I'm an it supervisor senior on the data and technology service team at Austin transportation public works. And I'm speaking today as a member of afscme local 1624 stop oats campaign. The city manager is going to tell you not to worry that they're only in the discovery phase, that nothing is final, no harm will be done. The city manager is going. But what if worse? But what if we're still discovering key risks? Why are transfers starting in may? They have no operating model, no risk assessment, no cost [12:14:46 PM] benefit analysis, no carve out rules, zero accountability structure. And the discovery was never neutral. The scope of the consultant report used to justify all of this states explicitly that they were hired to create an intentional organizational design for citywide technology within ATS. Since we're currently federated, the only design they could deliver was centralization. The reorg wasn't a possible outcome. It was the assignment we have. Our records showing consolidation was being discussed at the cfo level before the report was even finished. Seattle made this mistake. They paid consultants, ignored their staff, and built a centralized I.T. Department that their own employees rated worse than a fast food restaurant. Departments lost embedded experts who knew their [12:15:46 PM] systems and critical work got lost in a queue no one controlled. They said it set them back 15 years when they had to fix it. Austin is about to pay millions of dollars to repeat the same lesson. That's why we are calling on manager Broadnax to end all transfers and reclassifications related to one ATS effective immediately. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you, Mr. Wilkes. >> Mayor, mayor pro tem, city council. My name is Nathan Wilkes. I'm a consulting engineer and transportation public works at the city of Austin. Among my 18 years at the city include overseeing the development of the wishbone bridge from original 311 call through final design, and conducting the planning and build out of the city's now 360 mile plus bicycle. All ages and abilities network. I'm speaking [12:16:47 PM] today in my personal capacity as an active member with asthma stop oats campaign. The city manager is going to tell you that this is going to save the city money. If that were true, he should show his work. After spending millions of dollars on control consultant contracts management should be able to show where the savings will come from, when they will occur, what they depend on and what are the risks of centralization. But the city still has not publicly produced any of the return on investment, cost benefit analysis or transparent savings model for oats, even the benchmarking used to justify oats is described by the city as an initial estimate undergoing refinement, including the removal of our many utilities. Operational technology costs. What I'm not hearing in this conversation is what are we getting for our investment in data services? After years of not being served by centralized ATS for widespread department and workgroup needs, I advocated to build department capacity to. [12:17:47 PM] To save costs and improve services. I sat on the initial hiring panel for our first data team manager in 2016. I've seen firsthand what a capable department embedded data team can do to build trust capacity and deliver results. Solving real day to day problems, problems that are costing the city significant non- tech fte resources year over year. One of the many success stories is the modernization of the city's traffic regulations, a unique responsibility delegated by city code. The system, containing over 30,000 traffic regulations, relied on a paper flow of interoffice mail only two years ago. The workflow and approval process has now been digitized through a low code database web app. The time savings of the system offset the cost of its development in its first year. Also, after years of investing in systems to manage crash and project data, we created an automated dashboard evaluating vision zero outcomes for all projects in under a month. What used to [12:18:48 PM] be one off studies by trained data analysts that took weeks to complete is available at our fingertips at any time. We can now say that our mobility investments over the last ten years are saving the public 300 to $400 million a year in comprehensive crash costs. We have no confidence that the one ATS consolidation proposal will be able to keep these systems running, much less position other departments to address similar day to day business needs. That is why we are calling on manager Broadnax to immediately end all transfers and reclassifications related to one ATS effective immediately. >> Thank you, thank you. Yes sir. >> Good afternoon mayor, mayor pro tem, members of city council. My name is David gymnich and I work for Austin's transportation and public works. I'm speaking today in my personal capacity as an active member of afscme local 1624 in opposition to the one ATS it staff consolidation. For 14 years, I've supported critical emergency services across [12:19:50 PM] Austin as a digital cartographer, building critical emergency response maps. I've worked for Austin water, Austin fire transportation and public works, the geospatial emergency response team, the emergency operations center, and I assisted Austin public health with the city's covid 19 dashboard. I'm also a wildland firefighter. The city manager and his team may try to frame our opposition as an emotional reaction to change, but that's just not true. During the same period, the city has gone through rebranding, department, renaming, website updates, budget process changes, application rationalization, and more. None of those changes have affected public safety. We are not opposed to all change. My opposition to this it staff consolidation is about public safety. As a member of TPD's emergency response team, I am not an it employee serving that team from the outside. I am a part of that team. I am embedded that matters because emergency response depends on trust, shared language and swiftness. During January's [12:20:50 PM] winter weather event on a weekend, we were told to incorporate capmetro butts data into our critical roads network, requiring us to work well into the evening. But because I am integrated in that department, they knew who to call, they knew how to contact me, and I was able to build that map that same night. That kind of response cannot happen through a centralized ticketing process. It cannot happen waiting for a service request, assignment, or waiting for a call the next business day in an emergency. Those extra steps waste time and cost lives. Those emergency requests could be assigned to me directly by my department because I work for that department. We need to remember during that freeze, Austin lost a member of our community. An unhoused person died. And sure, I'm passionate about other consequences of this consolidation, but what I'm really getting emotional about here today is public safety. How our decisions affect lives. The death of that member of our [12:21:52 PM] community was not abstract to me. It was not abstract to the team I work with. Under the current federated system, with it staff embedded in each department, I know that transportation, public works and the city as a whole did the best that we could to clear roads and bridges and get people to warming centers and overnight shelters. But if the one at's it staff consolidation moves forward and embedded subject matter experts like me and the rest of us are removed from our departments, our response will be slower and weaker in the next emergency, and more lives could be lost. That is why I am here, respectfully calling on manager Broadnax to end the 1tsit consolidation. >> Thank you sir. Sarah lambert. >> Hi everyone. My name is Sarah lambert and both my friends, enemies and frenemies all call me Sade. I'm a proud district one voter. I'm here on my vacation time after 14 years working with the city. This is [12:22:52 PM] the first time that I've been afraid enough to come before you guys and talk to you about something. The manager is going to tell you that more staff and more it spending is what we're doing compared to peer cities. The media has bought this line, hook, line and sinker, and this is derived from the math in a single report. This comes from benchmarking done by Gartner on a cherry picked peer cities. Of the nine peer cities selected, only one of them operates in an electric utility and only four operate airports. This is not apples to apples. It's not even apples to apple jacks, y'all. Why didn't they find closer matches like actual peer cities? Because they don't really exist. I don't understand why we're here. Everyone on that dais knows that we're special. We have an electric utility. We have an international airport. We have water trash, watershed utilities. The reason that we have more people is because we [12:23:53 PM] have more services. It's as LE as that. And the math just doesn't. Math. We all know that our city is special. I work at Austin energy and all of our profits go to the parks and libraries fund. In her March 4th, 2026 briefing to audit and finance, cio, Lakey acknowledged that the Gartner analysis involves comparisons that are not fully accurate. It's important to consider that even if they were 100% confident in their analysis, all of this is a structural metric, not a performance metric. None of the Gartner provide any proof that we're underperforming. I and my colleagues can provide irrefutable proof that we're outperforming that we in our power, data and infrastructure is leaps and bounds safer than that of any city department that's managed by ATS. So, and with the disappearance, [12:24:54 PM] mysterious disappearance 48 hours ago of the chief information security officer and two of his cronies. Is this really the time to hand over our electric utility to an outsourced it department? I just don't understand why we're here. We all were there when the power went out. We all know what happens. We power the prison locks. We power the water utility. We power the water treatment plants. We power the hospitals. Why would we hand over that power, that protection of that data, to somebody who is not as competent as the current it staff supporting it? That is just one more reason why we're calling on city manager Broadnax to immediately end this. >> Thank you. Thank you, miss lambert. Members, that concludes the people that have signed up to speak on the general public comment. Our 12:00 time. Certain. So what we will do now, as I indicated [12:25:56 PM] earlier, is we will recess for our live music, returning promptly at 110 members. What I. Unless there's objection, what I would suggest we do so that we can move. The item is when we come back at 110, I will first call to order the board of directors meeting of the Austin housing finance corporation so that we'll be able to take care of that. And then we will go back to speakers on the consent agenda. So without objection, the Austin city council is in recess until 1:10 P.M. It is 12:26 P.M. Thanks, everybody. See you at 110. [1:13:25 PM] I will now call back to order the Austin city council for a regular meeting of the Austin city council at 1:13 P.M. And we will go back to our city clerk. For people that have signed up to speak on the consent agenda. >> Thank you. Mayor. Back to item 42 with Catherine tusek. Nikolaiango anoosh ratzon, William bunch, and Aaron farmer. >> All right. If your name has been called, please come forward. Were you one of the names? Please. Please begin. >> Hello, Mr. Mayor, council members, my name is Catherine Tucek, and I was coming to say that there isn't really a need to pass what you're looking at passing on this congenital consent agenda for number 42. My husband's had a business for 30 years in a neighborhood. He's made sure that he was under the limit for what was allowed. He's also made sure that he was not a nuisance to the neighbors. He's also made sure he didn't publish his address anywhere. And part of [1:14:26 PM] that is because we understand what it means to have a business and someone to have your address, because they will just show up if this passes, which I didn't expect to be back so soon. You all last week voted 5 to 5 with an abstention or two weeks ago for stay Sam Hellman mosque project. You voted against that or voted not to send it on. I didn't expect to be back. Wake up then, you know, on the 16th and find out that now it's going to be commercial businesses that are placed in our homes and just front in front of homes across from homes. And already know of a market that's in my neighborhood that is under the radar, that has about 80 people that'll be between two different houses. It'll be really noisy. The streets will be there's parking. Why? Because it's an Instagram business. So the concern is that what we will have is a loss of private space, a loss of peaceful space, a loss of something that wouldn't be a public nuisance. There are a [1:15:27 PM] lot of questions about what is actually going to happen. There's nothing that anyone can actually tell us in regards to hours, or what kinds of busses, what kind of liability insurance. What about noise and trash and sidewalk blockage, all of those kind of things. This is not a ready and impervious cover covering up impervious cover with 200 square foot. My husband's office is less than that. And I'm going to say for 30 years he's made a living. And so I believe that people can make livings in their homes, and they can make it without being a nuisance to their neighbors. And the answer is, I could go on with asking those questions, but nobody knows. >> Thank you for being here. >> Thank you. >> I don't see any other movement, so I'm going to keep calling names. Liza Wimberley, Jeffrey Bowen and is Megan meisenbach still here? Okay, so just two times. Mr. I mean, two minutes. Mr. Bowen, Amy de Luna, Michael Rhodes. [1:16:30 PM] >> All right. Let me get my notes out here. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Council members, Jeffrey Bowen, district eight. You know, last week or a couple weeks ago, I heard the statement that said, really, we need people that are I guess we need to make sure people are experts. Well, I can say on the business side of it, I probably fit that description. I would assume since I've been doing my construction services for 25 years and my wife has been in business for over 35 years, she runs hers out of the house. And in fact, she's right now setting up for a show in Georgetown. And we typically get the the issue of, oh, when we come to Austin, we'd like to come by your storefront. And she has to tell them, well, I don't have a storefront. And they go, well, why? Well, number one, there's not enough business for her. The taxes, the all of the issues that go along with it, the cost of, of having the building and just the physical burden that goes along in this. I watched the, [1:17:31 PM] the economics opportunity committee the other day, and I want to my hats off to Mr. Siegel and miss Fuentes for asking the questions. But on item three, when they were talking about a lot of the different issues, it seems that we've had an issue for a long time on this entire business development with small businesses. Before we go stepping into this, why don't we fix what we got? Because even under even under the one of the slides that they, they showed, they were talking about just for starting a restaurant, there was a they had 15 agencies involved, 24 person activities. And it goes on and it talks about it was a $9,000 cost. So for those of us that have been in business for a long time, I see this not as a detriment, but I think that people need to understand you're in business because you want to be in business. This is this is a a lifestyle and not [1:18:31 PM] everybody is meant to do that. Thank you. >> Continuing on, Taylor nuclo, Jennifer Murdock, Chris Paige and Ben zohaib. >> Good afternoon. Ben sotheby, district four. I'm speaking in favor of this. And in addition to all the great reasons that we heard before our break, I want to touch on few things that maybe haven't been mentioned today. I know that in my community, and some of y'all who are familiar with the Latino community will attest that a lot of these activities are already happening. I know that in my neighborhood, I am a very I'm on a first name basis with the Palmero, who sells, who sells popsicles. The corn cup truck knows my schedule and. [1:19:32 PM] 845 9:00 on an away game night, he comes to my cul de sac because he knows I'm going to go out there and buy a corn cup. I know that in my neighborhood, I can walk to somebody who sells tortillas out of her house. And when the freeze killed my plants, I know the lady down the street sells sabila sells aloe, and I can I can get some plants from her. What this will allow is for my neighbors to not to have less fear of someone leveraging some obscure laws that they don't know about, to harass them. Maybe somebody who isn't familiar with our community coming in and saying, oh, I'm new here, but I don't like this. You haven't gotten a permit. I don't think this should be allowed and not dealing with the reality of people use this, you know, front porch business, sell, sell some plants, whatever to bridge gaps, to bridge that, that rent gap, to bridge that unexpected bill gap, a car repair. So this is good. Another point for people who are scared about business, big business taking over their neighborhoods. This is the [1:20:32 PM] micro scale that we're talking about. We're talking about our neighbors owning their own means of production, not an employer. This is them using their skills and their wits to make a little bit of extra cash that maybe supplements their retirement income, or let's an artist sell their art and not have to have an expensive studio space. So I think for many reasons mentioned today, but some of these, particularly in my district, I really feel this is a good one. >> Mr. Paige. >> Chris Paige, district one. This is not about popsicles. Everything that I have to say is my opinion. This is an unsustainable version of capitalism and corporate evangelism, dressed in the clothing of the working poor. As far as I can tell, item 42 is a product of a DC area neo libertarian think tank and legal advocacy organization that took in over $50 million last year and has over 140 million in assets, much [1:21:33 PM] contributed by billionaires. This is not for small business item 42. It's a lab rat experiment. Deregulation, efficiencies of scale, anti-competitive market conditions, liabilities often related to health and human safety, product development, managerial experience, market volatility, and the unlimited runway that commercial landlords have paved for deep pocketed speculators. Those are what's killing small businesses, not an unenforceable and frankly, unenforced prohibition and operating out of a shed. I want to point out to the deep irony that today we see so many housing secure, very privileged tech workers here telling you that you need to sacrifice what is currently dedicated as residential space for business sheds. They were screaming for years about how we we need more housing. With this elementary [1:22:34 PM] argument around supply and demand. And here they are saying now to eliminate that supply for business sheds the budgeting issues that the city is running into right now have heavily. They have a lot to do with quality of life and the more you tear up quality of life, the bigger that hole in your budget is going to get. I think as a matter of public responsibility and accountability, you should allow communities to have the neighborhood plans in the Austin comprehensive plan and have input before you impose more pink Zones on people. >> Thank you, Mr. Paige. Yes, ma'am. >> Good afternoon, mayor and council. My name is Taylor nikolao, and I'm here on behalf of the greater Austin chamber of commerce in support of item 42, the strong local commerce initiative. At a high level, we see this proposal as aligned with the chamber's priorities around reducing regulatory barriers, supporting entrepreneurship, and creating more pathways for austinites to start and grow businesses. Austin small business community is one of our greatest economic [1:23:35 PM] assets, but we consistently hear from entrepreneurs that high cost and complex regulations make it difficult to get started. This iative offers a creative approach to lowering these barriers by allowing small scale, neighborhood based businesses to test ideas, build customers, and grow over time. We also appreciate that this resolution is a first step of asking the city manager to explore how these concepts can be implemented thoughtfully. As that work moves forward, we encourage a strong focus on clear, streamlined permitting processes, coordination across departments, and avoiding overly complex requirements that could limit participation with the Wright implementation implementation. This initiative has the potential to support local wealth building, activate neighborhoods, and strengthen Austin's small business pipeline. We appreciate council member harper-madison leadership on Thi effort, and look forward to continuing to partner with the city as this work progresses. Thank you. >> Thank you. [1:24:35 PM] >> I've called allpeakers for 42, so if you're waiting for item 42, please hurry and come down to the podium. Now move on to 43. Kim Wilson, rich Hyman, Nyla akanuma sankofa. That's for item 43. Okay, I'm moving on to item 44. >> Hang on one second. What number are you has your name been called for? >> 42 Carlos Bradberry. >> Okay, well, your name has already been called, but please go ahead. No. Go ahead. >> Hello. My name is Charles Bradbury. I'm from district nine. I'm speaking in favor of item 42. I'm a entrepreneur myself. I own a film production company. I'm from Austin. And being able to run that out of my house has been able to help me stay here. And I think the independent entrepreneurial heritage of the city is important, and I would like to see that privilege extended to more people in the city. I [1:25:35 PM] think it will help the urban fabric and help prosperity for more people, so I'm in favor of it. Thank you for your time. I appreciate all of you. >> Thank you. >> 44 item 44. We don't have anyone remote, so I'm going to start with in-person speakers. Srikar nalluri. Zachary Faddis, Charles Bradbury, judea, Judah Reiss, Eric Carlberg. >> If your name has been called, please come forward. >> I'm going to call a few more Miriam Schoenfeld, Luke weber, and John stark. >> Hello again. I'm Charles Bradbury, district nine. I would like to say that I support this because I would like to see people who don't want to use a car, not have to basically pay for the parking included in their rents. I went to the university of Texas, and when I lived in west campus, it was unbundled and it actually encouraged me not to have a car during that time. And I biked and walked. And I actually [1:26:35 PM] think that improved my experience of going to university. And it also saved me money. So I support it. And overall, I would like to see less unnecessary parking in the center of the city if possible. I think the more dense and walkable city can be, the better it is for its people and the more attractive it will be for people to live in. Thank you. >> Thank you. Please go ahead. Just state your name for the record. >> Okay. My name is Miriam Schoenfeld. I live in district nine. I'm the ethnic representative of the Austin parking reform coalition, and we are very excited abouthis item and want to thank council member qadri and the co-sponsors for bringing it forward today. Unbundling is about charging rent and parking separately. And it's the basic idea is just that tenants should have a choice over how much parking they pay for a household with one car shouldn't have to pay for more than one parking spot. But when parking and rent are bundled, people are often paying for parking that they're not using. That's not just unfair, it's also an equitable car. Ownership per household correlates strongly with income [1:27:36 PM] levels, so when parking and rent are bundled into a single price, that means that it's lower income households that are often subsidizing the parking costs of higher income ones. And those costs aren't insignificant. One study shows that the cost of a bundled parking spot is about adds about 17% to a unit's rent, and another study shows that's about $200 per month. Personally, I've lived in Austin in an apartment that I rented at a time when I didn't have access to a car or a bike. I was relying on transit, and I did not have good access to transit either. Adding insult to injury, I had to pay for a parking spot that I had absolutely no use for, and if the parking were unbundled, that would have provided me with savings of about 4 to 5 Ubers a month. That would have been very helpful in a situation like that. Citywide unbundling has been implemented in many places around the country Seattle, San Francisco, Saint Paul. And there'so a statewide bill for unbundling in California, which applies T ten counties, both rural and [1:28:37 PM] urban. It's time for Austin to join the ranks and continue to lead the nation on parking reform. And I want to also wish you all a very happy parking reform month. Thank you so much. >> Judah rey, district three. I'm in favor of this item, and I'd like to speak to the different people who can benefit from this because, you know, we hear a lot today about, oh, well, this could, you know, really benefit if you don't own a car. Right? And that's true. Where if you if you don't own a car, you shouldn't be paying for parking that you're not using. But there's also, I would argue, probably a larger group of austinites who are one car households. And, and sometimes by necessity economically and sometimes by choice because their lifestyle allows it. And at my old apartment when I was, I lived up north, we were required to pay for two parking spaces, despite only having one car. And part of the reason that I decided to move was because I [1:29:40 PM] didn't want to be paying extra, however much per month in rent for a parking space that I was never going to use. And I biked here today to city hall, and a lot of our apartment complexes don't have any bike parking whatsoever because there's parking is so plentiful. And since it's bundled in and it's being subsidized by drivers and non-drivers alike that these complexes have no incentive to allow other options. You know, if you if you drive, that's totally fine. And this does nothing to to change that. I think, you know, the late, great council member, Chris Riley would remember, would remind us that there's no such thing as free parking, no matter the cost is always hidden. Even, you know, when the sticker price is free. And I think this is a really great step towards towards writing that wrong and allowing us to only pay for the parking that [1:30:41 PM] we use. So I appreciate council for bringing this forward. >> Thank you. >> All right. Hello. My name is Luke Webber. I am a proud resident of district nine. I'm also a senior at UT and I also serve as the vice president of longhorn urbanists. It's oft said that college is the best years of one's life. And as I approach graduation less than two months, I'm told this more and more that I must savor these last few months before everything goes downhill. And sure, I'll concede I'm not jumping at the idea of losing my spring breaks forever. However, core piece of our mission with longhorn urbanists is to show students that yes, college is an incredible experience for many, but this simply isn't just a product of nostalgia or because you're in your 20s. Many of the features that make a college experience so memorable are identifiable. And the best part is we can replicate and scale them up citywide. So if we want to retain the talented minds that we work tirelessly to attract to UT, it's essential that the [1:31:43 PM] lifestyle and the amenities that we promise them in west campus don't have a built in expiration date the minute they graduate and move elsewhere in Austin. We recently asked the candidates running to lead UT student government for their opinion on uno, and the consensus was clear across the board. Every single candidate supported uno. And we hear this all the time. Longhorns love the vibrant and affordable lifestyle granted to them by uno. So I'll ask you, why not allow austinites across the city to enjoy the same benefits like unbundled parking? Let's say I'm living in an apartment and I don't have a dog. I don't pay the pet fees, and we can all agree that that just wouldn't make sense. But let's say I also don't own a car, yet somehow I'm stuck paying for parking that I don't even need. The problem here is silly, but luckily the solution is very simple and I wouldn't be skipping class to speak to you right now if it wasn't important. Thank you. >> Good. You're at the end there. >> Ty Carter Gonzalez, Adam [1:32:47 PM] Greenfield, jordi. Tello, felicity Maxwell, Chris. Gannon. >> Please go ahead. You don't need to wait for everybody. Okay. All right. >> I'll get us kicked off. I'm Carter Gonzalez. I'm a resident of d9. I want to thank you all so much, council staff, for the opportunity to speak on this. I am also the host of urban Austin reads and urban geographer, studying for a phd at Texas state. And I was really excited to come before you because I recently was apartment hunting and came across some things relevant to this exact conversation. What I found in most places I was looking, which were notably in the in d9, mostly I didn't want to lose my councilman, but unbundling parking in walkable areas in Austin is already something that's pretty frequently done. That had not been the case in other places I had looked. And unfortunately, I didn't get an unbundled unit [1:33:47 PM] because my landlord dropped my rent and so I decided to stay. Which thanks to you all as well. But as we were looking around me, my soon to be former roommate and his girlfriend, which is why he's soon to be former roommate, we're looking at these places and as we were discussing, do we want to move into a two bed and split costs and live somewhere downtown or whatever else? The fact that parking was separate from our rent led to discussions about how we could reduce the number of cars we collectively owned. And as I was having these conversations, it wasn't I didn't let it go. Missed that. The fact that these choices, the separation of the costs that we have to bear as renters allowed us or opened up the conversation about car free or car light futures. And that was really critical. And what I want is for everyone in Austin to have that opening, to have that thought to say, oh, wait, maybe I don't need two cars for a22 person household, or maybe I don't need three cars for a three person household, but to have to think through it and make that choice intentionally matters. I study urban [1:34:48 PM] geography, like I said, and those openings are the critical points at which resistance the status quo happens. So thank you S much. >> Good afternoon, mayor and council, Adam Greenfield here with safe streets Austin, we we are a member of the Austin parking reform coalition, and we are very excited and very proud to support unbundling in Austin citywide. Austin is a national leader on parking reform. We are still the largest city in the country to have gotten rid of minimum parking requirements. And we can see already that this THA this policy change two years in is having the effect. Pretty much we expected a significant right sizing in the amount of parking and matching the demand for parking with the supply of parking. Unbundling is another common sense measure that is going to move us even closer in that direction. And it really at its core, it has the same value as removing minimum parking requirements, which is choice that the tenant knows [1:35:49 PM] best, how much parking they they need, and they don't need to have it forced on them if that's not what they need. The data are very clear that unbundled people who live in unbundled buildings are more likely to get around by walking, biking and taking transit. So this is great for our mode shift goals as well. 25 million people in this country live in an unbundled jurisdiction. We have spoken to many of those jurisdictions and really it's it was thumbs up from them that they are they're saying, Austin really should do this. It's it's just a no nonsense. San Francisco told us we haven't had a single complaint about this. More than ten years into the policy. So it is just really exciting that this council continues to move forward with productive. Powerful parking refthat keeps us right at the top of the of the pile of cities in this country that are really [1:36:50 PM] thinking about this, because at the end of the day, it's not really about parking. It's about people. And reforming parking policies is about a er urban fabric for everyone. So thank you so much. >> Thank you. >> Hi, my name is jordi Tello. I'm a resident of district nine. I just wanted to say that I currently benefit from unbundled parking. It's two of us living in an apartment together, but only my girlfriend's job requires her to have a vehicle. I've benefited tremendously from us being able to save the money that I would have paid for parking, and instead using that to take the bus to places, walking to places. Et cetera. I just want to see that policy implemented citywide. Thank you. By. >> Hello. >> I'm Chris Gannon. I'm a housing advocate, but I also enjoy greatly parking reform. And I support this wholeheartedly. I'm going to share a quick anecdote about what parking reform can do. My [1:37:50 PM] office is above a coffee shop, and they found that they don't need as much parking as what they have. So this week they have cut up the parking and they've installed street trees where the parking was. I feel like this is a precedent that should be widely shared. It's beautified our our campus there. And these are the kind of things that we can do with parking reform. So thank you guys very much. I fully support this. >> Thank you. >> Continuing on 44 Richard easterling, Nikolai tangent, liza Wimberly, Amy Deluna, Michael Rhodes, Ben soodabeh, Katie, cam. >> If your name's been called, please come forward. >> Ben said to be district four. Many of the points have already been made, so I'll keep it brief. This is really good. I come to this from maybe a slightly different angle. I'm really focusing on how much a difference that will make for a [1:38:52 PM] working class person. Maybe working in the service industry, maybe a student, somebody who's who's budget's really tight if they don't need to pay for parking because they don't use it, they're using their bike, they're using transit, they're walking to to their work or place of education. Then why make them pay for it? That can make a huge difference. That could supplement their their meal, that can supplement their grocery money, anything we can facilitate to make things cheaper in our city for the working class is a good thing. Thank you for doing this. >> Hi, I'm Katy Imam, resident of district nine. I support the development of parking policies to help with affordability, more efficient use of property, and the creation of neighborhoods and corridors we enjoy. About 12 years ago, I actually lived car free in Austin for about a year while I was a single mom with two school aged kids relying on walking, biking and car sharing as needed and unbundling. Parking policy would have been nice to save money and to reward my supermom juggling [1:39:53 PM] efforts to navigate the sorrows that navigate the city without a car. As mentioned before, the unbundling of parking is something already done in other cities and in Austin, in the west campus area and on the UT campus, with residents in those areas having an option to purchase parking. The city should evaluate the performance of the unbundling policies in Austin to inform extending this policy to ensure they accomplish affordability and equity goals and remain an enforceable, cost effective program. You may have noticed that the theme of my two minute speeches today is to highlight insights to consider as a city explores each proposed policy so that a win win, comprehensive, effective solution is developed. What I said for item 39 regarding maximum parking applies for this item two. If any concerns arise regarding this, this policy. Just a reminder, the city has the means to proactively plan for the unbundng of parking with neighborhood outreach and planning, residential permit parking and parking benefit districts. In addition, we will need to make sure those with limited income and have no choice but to own a car, such [1:40:55 PM] as UT. Students that must work to support themselves through school have access to affordable parking programs. Thank you. >> Moving on to item 45. I have three car. Mallory, Zachary faddis,harles Bradbury, John. Stark, Larissa. Quintana. >> Hi. Charles Bradbury, district nine. I'm in support of item 45 because I think that anything we can do to have more housing in the city for people to live in and raise families is a good thing. I think if this public land can be used in the interest of providing more housing to people, hopefully at affordable rates, I think that's a great thing. I heard recently about the project to keep teachers in the city at affordable housing. I think that's really smart. I think teachers are underpaid, and whatever we can do to keep them in our communities is a good thing, and it's a noble profession. So I'm sad that the schools have had to close down due to budgetary restraints and [1:41:55 PM] lack of people. But if we can bring more people there and we can help give more money to aid, I think we can move towards solving E problem. So thank you for your time, and thank you for proposing this. >> Hi, mayor and council members. It's good to see you all. I'm Larissa quintana. I represent district two on the Austin school board, which is in southeast Austin. My district overlaps a lot with councilwoman Fuentes, and I'm here today to speak on behalf of myself in support of item 45. As you all know, we have had to close campuses due to a number of reasons. And one of those campuses is in councilwoman Fuentes district. It's widening. It's in the heart of dove springs, and it is a very important part of our community in dove springs, especially. And so it is imperative that we keep that land and that building for public use and community benefit. Anything [1:42:58 PM] other than that, I think, could be perceived as private privatization, which I am very much against. And we want to make sure that our public buildings and land are being used to benefit those who live in the neighborhood, especially a neighborhood like dove springs. And I'm very eager to work with the city on transforming our campuses into being real community assets, where we collaborate with our community and talk with them about what they need in the heart of their neighborhoods and make it happen. I'm here to answer any questions, if you have any. >> Thank you very much, and thank you for your service. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. >> Betsy Greenberg. Ty. Jordi Tello, Edgar Handel, felicity. Maxwell, Jen Robichaud. [1:44:07 PM] >> Please. >> My name is Betsy Greenberg and I live in district nine. I usually sign up against items on your agenda, but now I'm going to change it up and say I'm in favor of item 45. The resolution directs the city manager to initiate discussions with all school districts within the city's jurisdiction to explore partnership or acquisition opportunities that would repurpose closed school campuses or unused properties in order to deliver community benefits that align with the city's goals. Community workforce housing. Community benefits that are mentioned in the resolution include affordable housing, workforce housing, parkland acquisition, and even carbon sequestration. This sounds great, but what council says in resolutions or election campaigns and what council does does not always align. So in addition to passing a feel good resolution, I'd like to see the council vote for indefinite postponements on any zoning [1:45:09 PM] change on closed school campuses until strategies are developed and implemented to deliver community benefits, instead of developer profits. In particular, I ask that you demonstrate your commitment to this resolution by denying the request for mf six zoning at the upcoming hearing about former rosedale school site. Please show the community where you really stand. Thank you. >> Cool how you talked about two items. That's great. >> Good afternoon. Mayor. Mayor pro tem council members. Felicity Maxwell, resident and aisd parent in 2024. I had the privilege of serving on the Austin ISD budget stabilization task force. It was clear at the time the district was facing a severe budget crisis, and those financial issues have sadly only continued to grow. The planned closure of additional aisd schools is a sad necessity. Sad necessity, sad but necessary response to these ongoing budgetary challenges. My own kids wonderful [1:46:09 PM] elementary school, Becker will cease operations at the end of this year, but what happens next to campuses like Becker is still very unclear. So I appreciate council member Fuentes and the co-sponsors of this item for drawing attention to the complex issues related to school closures and the change in land use. As someone who cares deeply about the long term financial success of Austin ISD and our other nearby school districts who are also facing facing these challenges, ensuring the highest and best use of former campuses is critical in supporting these districts as they move forward with plans that are aligned with student needs and community needs is essential. So thank you for starting this conversation and for your support of this item. >> Hello, my name is jordi Tello. I'm a resident of district nine. I just wanted to say I'm in support of item 45. I think that the city is doing a good job trying to communicate with the school district, and we need to do everything possible to support aid and finding options to increase their funding and maximize the value of the land. Thank you. [1:47:11 PM] >> Mr. Robichaud. >> Good afternoon. I'm Jen Robichaud, longtime Austin resident. I'm speaking in opposition to item 45, the resolution directing the city manager to pursue partnerships and acquisitions of closed school campuses and other public land. We the taxpayers already paid for these properties once through Austin ISD bonds and taxes. Many of us are still paying the debt service on roughly $2.6 billion in outstanding Austin ISD bonds, and now the city wants to buy or partner on these same sites and potentially issue another bond in 2026 to do it.t is double taxation with zero guarantee that the city will pay fair market value, or that any proceeds will first retire the school district's existing debt. The resolutions talk about transparent community engagement, but the city's track record on rezoning and land use decisions shows that feedback is rarely meaningful. Neighborhood associations, deed restrictions and surrounding residents are routinely steamrolled. Just look at the rosedale school site, approved [1:48:11 PM] to be rezoned for hundreds of apartments. Despite a nearly century old deed restriction and active litigation by the school district against its own neighbors. The real issue here is that the city holds undivided ownership interest in certain school playgrounds and open spaces. Under a 1960 agreement for specific campuses, the school district must already offer to buy out the city's stake a narrow legal process instead of a simple, targeted fix for the specific issue. This resolution creates a sweeping new citywide targeted land policy covering every public entity and every possible community use. This gives the city incredible latitude to impose more socialist style policies that increase financial burdens on voters, without giving us any direct say, relying on yet another bond, timing these decisionsith the budget cycle and right before an election is a recipe for failure. Austin residents are incredibly frustrated with both. The city of Austin and school district were tired of being failed by our leadership. And this is [1:49:11 PM] just one more example of that. Thank you. >> Richard easterling. Nikolai. Tangent. Anush rasayan. Bill bunch, liza Wimberly, Nyla akinyemi. Sankofa. Jeffrey Bowen. I don't see much movement, so I'm going to keep going. >> Mr. Bowen standing up. >> Perfect. Amy Deluna. >> Afternoon council members. Mr. Mayor Jeffrey Bowen, district eight. This is one of those issues that I'm kind of split down the middle on it because after even listening to miss Greenberg and also my friend Jen Robishaw, I also have some concerns. I agree that we need to be looking at this land, but in some regards, where is this some of this [1:50:11 PM] transparency going to come from because we don't have a real good record of that, a track record. We already own parts of these different properties, yet we're also there's also some current about concern about the school district being able to recoup some of their some of their money. How will this whole process take place is one of my concerns. We had we had one earlier that talked about changing this same land into park space based upon a requirement that said, we need to have parks within a certain distance. It's listed in here, but then the same property that you're talking about in that now you're talking of doing, well, we're going to do this or we're going to keep the facility. So how is that priority going to be set up? Who's going to say, well, we're going to do this or we're going to do this. So I see a conflict. Which brings me back to our transparency issue. What is it we're going to do? How much how much communications are we going to allow the neighbors to have the deed restrictions alone? Just for rosedale, it's [1:51:14 PM] in court now. How many more of these are possibly going to be in the line in the pipeline, coming up with the closure of these other schools? Not only that, we don't even know what's going to happen, but we need I. I hope, Mr. Broadnax, when you get to do this, actually look at what is the actual future of some of the other schools so that we're at least not blindsided and saying, oh, we're going to close this many more or in these different areas. This is this is about I mean, it's a valid resolution, but I see all kinds of issues that need to be addressed, and I don't see that being addressed in this resolution. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. The last group for item 45, Michael Rhodes. Ben zohaib, cassie Fitzgerald, Adam hutnik and Katy cam. >> Hello, Ben Sabino, district four. Our our school board [1:52:14 PM] member made all all the great points that I was going to make. So I'm going to cut it short. There've been several mentions of deed restrictions, and I want to remind everyone in the room that some of those century old deed restrictions would have prohibited people who look like me and my neighbors from living in those neighborhoods. So I want austinites today now to be making decisions about what we do in our community. And I want the land that's been paid for through our property taxes to remain in public hands. Now, under the hard restrictions that the state has imposed on local government, that may look like looking for opportunities to shift it between portfolios. But you know what? I pay one tax bill. I really am not so hung up on who owns the land as long as we own the land. So this is good. I really like that. This is starting a conversation. When I read the amendment, I see lots of collaboration opportunities for input, lots of expert voices in this conversation. So thank you for for providing for that. [1:53:14 PM] >> Afternoon. Mayor council. My name is cassie Fitzgerald and I'm here in support of item 45 on behalf of the Austin community college district. As a public entity and partner with many properties across the region. We welcome this conversation and benefit of our community and applaud council member Fuentes and co-sponsors for bringing it forward. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thanks for your service. Yes, sir. >> Hi, Mr. Mayor and council. My name is Adam hutnik. I'm a resident of district seven, rosedale, and it is as a rosedale resident, that this resolution is obviously important to me. It's been very interesting to hear all the commentary that's come up related to the redevelopment of the school in our neighborhood. Admittedly, the resolution doesn't say a ton about how this would work, but it seems to me, given what we've experienced in this process, that the city's involvement would and should provide for greater transparency and a [1:54:16 PM] greater clarity around how the public and and hopefully the neighborhood is to be heard when decisions like these are made in rosedale, it feels like there was an a, I, S D process at one point to engage the neighborhood, and then that went away. My hope is that this resolution provides a bit more certainty and clarity about how that would and should work, ideally for us, but at least hopefully for the other ten school, excuse me, other ten schools. So thank you for considering this and I hope it benefits all of us. Thank you. >> Thank you. Yes. >> Okay. Hi. I'm Katy Kim, a resident of district nine. And this is one where I'm still working on my speech. So I'm going to start reading it, but probably go off. >> And we tried toive you a lot of time today. >> Yeah, yeah. This is new for me to spend so much time. So yeah, I absolutely loved raising my two kids in central Austin. We walked and biked to neighborhood schools, glut elementary and bryker woods. I really enjoyed being a part of [1:55:17 PM] the community the neighborhood school created. Though my kids are grown, I am sad along with many other parents about the closure of our neighborhood schools. I support the city of Austin working with Austin ISD for the campuses. However, I would like to not see us throw in the towel just yet. On seeing the removal of schools. One thing that I wonder, is it possible for us to reverse the trend that there are not enough families to support the neighborhood schools? The city is wanting more affordable housin presumably to attract more families. I'm hoping we can move forward with an optimistic approach, so I would prefer that we give ourselves more time to reverse that trend and perhaps the next 5 to 10 years, and to reuse the campuses as they are as much as possible. So if the school can be revived, is that too much wishful thinking? I don't know, but I at least want to put that thought out there while we're discussing what to do with these campuses. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Item 46 bill bunch. >> I've not seen him come back in then. >> Mayor, that concludes all [1:56:19 PM] speakers for consent. >> Thank you very much, members. As you just heard that consent agenda, what I would propose we do is that I get a motion for passage of the consent agenda. Second, and then we would go to discussion and comments by the council members. I will point out two things on item number. Well, first of all, let me ask is anybody want to pull any other item from the consent agenda? Item 31 has been pulled, but is there any other item that anybody wants to pull? That being the case, then let me call attention to two things. First, on item number 40, on item number to the missing middle. It was provided to you. So it's indicated at the top of the page file id 20 6-1294. City of Austin council meeting back up March 26th, 2026. And then it indicates on the on the actual version of it, version two, item 40 on item number 41 [1:57:23 PM] on item number 41. I think we're up to version three. The I want to make sure of that. Item number 41 is marked the at least the version I'm looking at file id 20 6-1384, version three in red. I want to make sure that everybody is aware of that, because when I call for. The motion on the consent agenda, it will include on item number 40 version two and item number 41 version three. All right. With that I will ask for a motion to approve the consent agenda motion made by council member Fuentes. It is seconded by council member Ellis. I will now open the eyes for discussion. Let me know if you want to be recognized. Council member alter. >> Didn't think I'd get to be first. Thank you very much. I want to first thank council [1:58:24 PM] member Ellis on item number 40. You know, this is something we've heard quite a bit about today and think that being able to promote more housing types in more places is just going to make this a place where more people can live and live affordably. So as staff is working on this, I do want to highlight just a couple things. First, it was brought up here today, but something that we've talked about as it related to other items that look at our zoning, making sure we are considering treanopy and what protections we can put in place to keep those environmental features protected. I also want to have us consider we keep putting more and more layers on, no more new Zones and never taking anything, you know, replacing it. It's always just adding more and more. And so if there are appropriate Zones that this should take the place [1:59:24 PM] of, then let's have that discussion to, to, to try to make it less cumbersome and, and a just more streamlined code. So I appreciate your work on this. And just, I look forward to, to that coming back. I also want to take a quick moment to talk about item number 41, which really is at the heart to try to protect the precious resource that is our public lands. You know, when when we think about those public lands, the two things which I am certain of is, one, we're not making any more of it. And two, it's going to get more and more expensive. And so I want to ensure that we are protecting not only the environmental benefits of these places, but the societal benefits, you know, being places where we can go play with our families or just take a walk and promote physical and mental health. But when our [2:00:26 PM] interest in those lands are taken away, largely because of infrastructure projects, whether that's a road or a pipeline or we've seen it as it relates to school expansions, we just have to make sure that we are protecting thatlic intere and so that's what item 41 really tries to get at the heart of, because we know we're going to have these condemnations occur in the future, and I want to do a better job not only bringing transparency around this process to the public, but working better together with entities like aisd so that we can have earlier conversations and figure out what would be a way to make this mutually beneficial and preserve that access to park space in our neighborhoods. Because too often these are the neighborhood parks at the school, and we want to make sure that families continue to have that opportunity to, to use those and preserve the mental benefits there. So I [2:01:27 PM] just want to take a quick second to for a few thank yous and this a little longer than most, but this really was a collective effort,ou know, on my staff Mikel and on city staff, Mike, other Michael Michael, Michael Mcgill and my staff, Michael Gates, who really helped us. Kim Olivarez, also in the community, Junie plummer, Melba Watley, evergreen, Austin, Matias segura, aid, d5 residents, all of this we work together. But you know, Junie really helped having worked on this before. Bring it to my attention. So I want to thank her very, very much. A then, of course, my co-sponsors, councilmember Fuentes, Velasquez Ellis and duchen. So appreciate it. And with that, yield back. >> Thank you. Councilmember, councilmember Velasquez, councilmember duchen and the mayor pro tem. >> Thank you, mayor. And sorry, [2:02:27 PM] I didn't realize I was going second now. So as I said on item number 42, as I said at Tuesday's work session, I fully support creating new districts to diversify Austin's housing stock and making our city a more inclusive place for people to live, work and learn. We have large single family homes that are beyond the economic reach of young families on one end of the scale and on the other one, we have one and two bedroom rentals that don't meet the needs of of the other. We're losing folks and people. We're losing the folks that keep this city running. They can't afford to raise families here. So they're leaving. The new districts will add to a diverse fabric of the community, to our diverse fabric of the community, helping us efficiently use infill lots, increase the supply of more affordable housing types and historically exclusive areas, and make our neighborhoods more walkable and better for small business. On item number 43. This is my item, and I want to thank everybody that [2:03:28 PM] co-sponsored it. The the city acquir the lot at Saxon and torres in montopolis the same year that the city got Jose Miguel Velasquez. And I'll let you all review the backup to check what year that was, but we acquired it to accommodate a road widening project at torres, and it has been unused ever since. Before we made changes to minimum size and parking minimums in 2024, this would have been another. This would have been another piece of land that was too small to do anything with. But now, because of the deliberate policy changes made by this council, my office has been able to work with the community housing a dpw to convey the land for development, for the development of more affordable housing. This also illustrates the impact that new missing middle districts can have. They can create space to accommodate a duplex, a quadruplex, and potentially offering 2 or 4 more affordable homes where previously only one had been. I want to thank Elias and the CDC [2:04:29 PM] for working with us on this item. Thank you to our district three senior policy advisor Victoria hall for all of her work on this. There is no one size fits all to our affordable housing, but I will continue fighting for creative, community centered ways to get housing on the ground and find solutions to Austin's affordability crisis. Thank you mayor. >> Thank you. Councilmember. Councilmember duchen, mayor pro tem and councilmember Ellis. >> Thank you, mayor and colleagues. This is going to be a little bit longer because I feel really strongly I've got to tell a more cohesive story about what I'm seeing in this agenda. >> Longer for you or for in general. >> For for all of us, I'm afraid, in place. I'm not going to speak as much later on. I don't know if you want some of the things. So trade off. Yeah. Colleagues, I'm concerned about the direction that we're taking here. Many of these items are going to have profound effects on constituent daily lives, their commutes, the neighborhoods they call home, or part of a larger campaign, I think, to make those changes. And in my mind, a lot of those [2:05:31 PM] changes are not in service to the lives they are leading, but rather how this body and narrow interests would prefer that they live. And I understand that a lot of work in these items has begun long before I ever showed up here, and I understand that a of people who live downtown, a lot of this probably makes a lot of sense. I understand with item 40, there's a lot of despair that the next generation can't afford to live here, and that I say that even as we've made very limited real progress on housing prices, despite a lot of tinkering over the last five plus years, I just worried there's a great chance that that item produces a lot more market rate and luxury cottages and townhomes, and that's about it. The nudges that we're talking about are not small changes. Item 39 is part of a drastic change to our street infrastructure that I think will benefit the healthy and the young. And the challenge with downtown's traffic problem, as was explained to me and my staff, is that too many [2:06:32 PM] austinites are choosing to drive downtown rather than use our robust public transportation network challenges. My district has a handful of routes that serve it with item 51. I've also got concerns about that. This is deeply connected to to transit concerns. Our transit policy is taking what is referred to as excessive parking or superfluous capacity to reduce road capacity. And the traffic model we're standardizing is going to pin all down traffic to one of the worst intersections in the entire city, which is Lamar and fifth. So basically, we found the flaw and we decided that's going to be the new standard. Access to downtown isn't a nice to have for the few. It's access to our business center. It's access to our political participation, including this chamber. It's access to the majority of capital spending is allocated, such as our convention center projects, our captain stitch, Waterloo greenway, the overwhelming amount of arts spending that the city participates in. When we looked on ai, it tells me that 2% of [2:07:32 PM] residents live downtown, but upwards of 5 to 10%, sorry, 5 to 10 times as many people might access downtown on any given day. So I fear restricting access to 98% of austinites is going to be profoundly alienating. And I already here, I've heard for the last two years from residents who no longer come downtown for restaurants or arts or other things, because of city decisions that we've made. Let's also be clear that we've got a lot of residents who live in the suburbs with limited or no access to mass transit. Many are older or like me, they've got some mobility challenges. We're not Chicago, we're not Portland, we're not the Netherlands. We're not Boston. We don't live in a temperate area. We live in a place that we profoundly enjoy. And I mean profoundly 105 degree summer weather. And that's going to last six months of every year, and it's only getting worse. So the idea that many omymy constituents are going to embrace biking and scootering alternatives, because we decided to make it [2:08:32 PM] more challenging to park and drive, just seems unrealistic to me. If we are planning to eliminate parking and eliminate lanes for vehicular traffic and other recommendations, we've got to prioritize the non- downtown districts for additional public transit transportation options. Right now, that might mean first mile, last mile, it might mean microtransit. It's got to be other bus routes, it's got to be east west transit options. But there's got to be things we can look at. So I can't support a plan that feels like it's punishing austinites who have no real options other than vehicular usage, to get downtown. I think it's going to make our streets even more congested. There will be even less parking available, and the other 98% of people that live here that pay taxes, who do not live downtown, deserve to be considered when we make these decisions for items 39 and 44, I worry they leverage our glut of multi-family housing to disincentivize car ownership [2:09:34 PM] further by requiring parking fees for people who park at home. Are we going to make it harder for renters who travel around town? Is it going to result in more crowded neighborhood streets? Is it going to complicate our affordable housing regulations? As far as I can tell from the info provided and the conversations we've had about these items, there really hasn't been consideration for what trade offs we might experience if we're going to require additional fees for having parking spots at your apartment, what effect will there be on lower income residents who rely on their cars to go to work, feed their kids, or visit friends from across town? Since we're also going to restrict the maximum number of parking spots an apartment can have, do we fully understand? Have we analyzed how limiting that supply will also increase costs? Do we have expertise to determine how many parking spots are optimal, or are we just sort of carrying water for a philosophy that we just wants fewer cars? My fear is that we just haven't sufficientlytudied this to justify what I fear could be an overreach. So all of these items are meant to lead us to use transit infrastructure, [2:10:36 PM] never mind that that transit infrastructure, a lot of it's not built yet. It's not going to be built for seven plus years. And as I mentioned, has gaps like first mile, last mile, or that the promise of the distributed rail that we're building is going to be downtown and UT and maybe I hope to the airport if we can address that, maybe we don't need the infrastructure. Maybe the carrots we' G got are overrated, but it seems strange that we're just providing ourselves a lot more sticks. The idea, the ideology that we're, is we're alienating potential austinites. We're seeing growth in Round Rock and growth in Kyle and growth in a lot of the suburbs. Austin, however, is struggling to attract working people and their families. I was at a housing, data, information and economic outlook presentation just yesterday presented by zonda, who are data experts in this space. And two things they emphasized was, for many people, the preferred product still continues to be single family housing. And as a result, we've got what they call an inflow [2:11:39 PM] problem, which is that we're relying on international immigration just as our population. So this is, I mean, primarily an affordability issue. The homes in Round Rock are also not cheap, but the issue is that they're building homes in that category that we're not. We're building multi-family. That's great for attracting some folks for particular periods of their lives. But as people want to settle into homes, they're going to leave Austin. And no matter how much up zoning we do, we won't have a community. If we can't make this a place where families can remain. We continue to force families out of our cities. Our school district is also going to continue to struggle more and more. And look, maybe missing middle is a solution. Maybe it's great in the abstract, but I can't find the limiting principles or the guardrails for what we've implemented. I agree that we haven't built enough townhomes and duplexes and small apartments in the last 40 years, but also don't see indication that we're going to go slow down the mixed use and multi-family buildings to fill that need. Last night, we had our northwest Austin civic association annual meeting, and [2:12:40 PM] my design commissioner comes up to me to visit, and he points out the proposed zoning districts that we have, particularly the Mrs. Have no location criteria. They have no operational criteria that the design commission, who is deeply stacked with architectural architects and architectural landscape people have not been involved in the design criteria. He asked why we're pushing on this when the imagine Austin plan is still currently being updated. Given our track record, it seems like this proposal will be making building and preserving single family homes less likely. And maybe that satisfies the needs of a few. In the same period that we saw, the 5% reduction in the amount of missile emitting missile missing middle housing between 1984 and now, we saw an 11% reduction in the single family housing that are in the city. And I see no indication from that regard that loss of single family housing as a problem. I don't [2:13:40 PM] believe we'll get our missing middle housing by limiting the number of sky high apartments. We're going to do this by, I think, cannibalizing more people's homes. So your response is probably going to be Marc. There's an obvious recourse if a neighborhood would like to determine its destiny and preserve its way of life they'll just come downtown if they can find the parking, if they can protest the zoning change to allow a five story, mixed use single stair building popping up in their neighborhood. And I hope they're paying attention, though, because we've changed our notice requirements. You get less time to speak. It does not make me optimistic. At our meeting last night, of 200 people, virtually nobody knew about any of these changes that we're talking about at today's agenda. We ultimately want people to buy into a shared vision of the city, and we need them to invest in the city financially, as every year it's their property taxes and taxes, their fees, utilities, and also their capital. You know, the things that they're funding are also capital projects and our bonds. And I think the central question we've got to ask here [2:14:41 PM] is if these changes inspire the average resident to want to remain in the city and invest in their city, whether they regard us with skepticism or even some hostility, because they are interpreting our actions as hostile to their lives. Whether we're encouraging people to move out of the city or just annex or reject our spending plans. So in summary, I'm voting no on 3940, 44 plan to vote against related items on non-consent like 51 and 53. I do think there's a better way. I do want to highlight councilmember harper-madison item 42. I realize not everybody is as excited about this item, but I think it gets a lot of critical items right. It's a pilot. It's got a limited duration, it's outcome focused. It's going to measure its performance at pitfalls so we can iterate on it. I know when I went back to school 15 years ago, we were trained to implement short, cheap experiments. And this item embodies that. And so I'd offer that it could serve as a model also for how we approach [2:15:43 PM] the big changes that we're thinking about for parking and for housing and for transit. And so finally, I want to just thank councilmember Fuentes for item 45, for including the additional language to listen to residents and asked that I be listed as a co-sponsor. Thank you. >> Co-sponsor on which item? 45 without objection. Councilmember duchen. Without objection, councilmember. Councilmember duchen will be shown as a co-sponsor of item number 45. Thank you. Councilmember mayor pro tem, followed by councilmember Ellis and councilmember Fuentes. >> Thank you. Mayor. I'm going to. >> Comment on on some of the less known items. That's been plenty of conversation around some of the higher profile items. First of all, item nine provides some really needed improvements to the Asian American resource center there on Cameron road, right on the border between district one and district four. These are landscaping improvements and drainage and water quality improvements that are going to [2:16:43 PM] make the the center just a lot better and a lot more pleasant place. Importantly, they're also building a bridge, a pedestrian bridge to connect APD's Rutherford campus to the Asian American resource center. For those of you who've been to the Asian American resource center, everybody parks at the Rutherford campus and then walks along a two narrow sidewalk on Cameron over to the Asian American resource center. This bridge is just going to be a tremendous help and just an improvement to the to the entire area. It's also going to significantly improve water quality along little walnut creek, which is also going to be a big plus. That's a creek that that is significantly impaired and pretty polluted. And but we're working on a number of drainage and water quality improvements to, to, to help the creek out. Item 30 the reuse warehouse thanks to Austin resource recovery for getting that together for the grant that made it possible and for putting everything together. [2:17:44 PM] Excited about that. Again, we want to reduce the amount of waste that goes in our landfill. And this is going to create an option for people to donate furniture to the reuse warehouse to be used by others down the road. That's exactly the the direction that I'm like to see the city moving in. And again, congratulations to Austin resource recovery for getting it done. Really appreciate all the work on this. And then finally, I just want to item 42 from council member harper-madison. I think it's a really good item, and I just wanted to comment from a district four perspective. You know, if you go out to Ramberg and Lamar on a Sunday afternoon, there are a lot of vendors out there, folks selling, I mean, clothes and food and I mean just about everything under the sun. There is a real pent up demand, especially among our our working class communities, our immigrant communities. There's a real entrepreneurial spirit there. They just it [2:18:46 PM] needs to be enabled. It needs to be facilitated. And I think that item 42 is going to do that. Excited to be a co-sponsor on it and excited to to support it. And then finally, mayor, I will be abstaining on items 45 and 41. >> Thank you very much. Mayor pro tem councilmember Ellis, followed by council member Fuentes and councilmember qadri. >> Thank you mayor. I'm really excited to get to speak to item number 40 today. And thank you to all the speakers that came out to show your support for this item. When we launched site plan light about four years ago, the effort was to make sure that we could bring back missing middle housing. So through those conversations, we've been able to identify that there's a couple of zoning categories that need to be created to be able to fulfill the dream that site plan light began. So it's going to bring us a broader mix of options. The aim is to create more walkable, sustainable and friendly communities like we've seen predating the 1984 code. [2:19:46 PM] It responds to a report that staff had sent to us that talks about how there used to be missing middle housing in Austin, Texas, about 40 plus years ago. And all of that housing stock is aging, and none of the new replacements had been built. So what happened was people started coming for over zoning, and you ended up with over half of the new housing stock in Austin being dense apartment buildings like the one that I live in. So I think there's some context sensitivity around having the type of housing that everybody needs, but also making sure that we are looking at what limited space we have available and how many people actually want to be able to try out a car free lifestyle. So this conversation goes back for a very long time, and it does speak to the compact and connected vision that Austin was able to present to us all the way back in 2012, when it was adopted. It's also going to create better mixed use Zones. I keep joking this week, as I have conversations with folks [2:20:47 PM] that one day when I retire, I want to have a flower shop and I want to be able to live upstairs. And right now, we don't have that type of stock available for people who want to own small businesses. We don't have enough starter home spaces. We don't have enough places for folks to downsize within their own community when they retire, or they become empty nesters. So this together over the next year is going to create a really good opportunity for conversation. It's going to help folks be able to catch up with their neighbors by happenstance, instead of having to schedule out a couple of weeks and find babysitters when you can actually go and catch up with your friends, it'll be something that people can just do naturally. And I think the conversation around how we do housing, how we do mixed use, and how our community is able to weave the fabric back together, is something that I'm very passionate about. So we have a chance to fill in the gaps that have been left over the past 40 years. And I really want to thank my co-sponsors on this item, which are mayor [2:21:48 PM] Watson, mayor pro tem vela and council members, Laine and alter, and of course, the speakers and the staff that have followed this and are going to continue to be engaged in this process. >> Thanks. Councilmember. Councilmember Fuentes, followed by councilmember qadri and councilmember Siegel. >> Thank you. Colleagues. Want to chat about item number 45. This is focused on ensuring that we retain public land for community. Good. It asks the city to engage with partners like all of our school districts in the cit Austin, capmetro, central health, acme and others, to find partnership and collaborative opportunities. Many of our governmental entities are in financial constraints. Many of us are going through facility reviews, looking at unused or underused land, or actively working on planning and expansion efforts. So this is a really great time for us to be having these conversations and to develop a framework. I see this as an opportunity for us to create strong partnerships with other public entities, and to see where we can work together that in a way that creates new community benefits at our [2:22:49 PM] unused public sites. And so we're talking about opportunities that include affordable housing, child care, health care, food access, and cultural spaces, the basics that truly allow our families and communities to thrive. I also want to highlight why this item is important to me. In my district, we have an elementary. It's in the heart of dove springs that is closing, and we are all heartbroken about its closure. And so knowing that there is strong community support in dove springs to keep it as a community benefit, I hope that the framework we advanced today really puts us on a pathway to ensure that we are proactively working with our partners and our communities on these opportunities. I want to thank you to my co-sponsors, councilmember harper-madison alter, Siegel and duchen for your support on this item. I also want to acknowledge that we have letters of support from capmetro central health and the backup, and a special thank you to our Austin community college for their support here today, as well as aid trustee Leticia quintana for her personal [2:23:50 PM] support, and I look forward to the work ahead. Thank you. >> Thank you. Councilmember. Councilmember qadri. Councilmember Siegel. Councilmember Laine. >> Great. Thank you, mayor. Well, first and foremost, I'd love to be added as a co-sponsor to item number 40. Councilmember qadri will be shown as a co-sponsor of item number 40. >> Great. And then when I once again wish everyone a very happy Austin parking reform. I mean, those folks want to come back and speak. We can, we can we can have them come back up. But we were able to kick off this morning. The first proc of the of the day was to honor Austin parking for for a month. And just last night, the Austin parking reform network as well as safe streets, Austin had a celebration to honor former councilman Chris Riley. A lot of the work that he did way back when this council still carries. In 2023, we passed an item eliminating parking mandates citywide that would not have been possible without the work of councilmember Riley [2:24:50 PM] that he did a decade before to eliminate parking mandates in our downtown. And today, we have two items that touch on parking. And, you know, myself and councilmember Laine, who I hope she's feeling better, are we're able to get these items through once again due to the work of councilmember Riley. So want to quickly just touch on items 39 and 40 for item 39 being a councilmember. Laine item. Really appreciate her for bringing this forward, her and her team. I think it's very logical and meaningful step forward for our transit corridors, and my office is really looking forward to working with councilmember Laine and her team on next steps. And then item number 44. I want to thank my co-sponsors, mayor pro tem vela council member and councilmember Velasquez, as well as city staff a and folks in the community that are here today, and I assume they won't have enough time to. We don't have the time to have them say a few more words. But, you know, I remember. >> Out of order. >> Yeah. Most of my time in [2:25:51 PM] Austin, I've been a renter and there have been many instances where I've lived in apartments where the parking wasn't decoupled and that, that, that cost. And I know one of the speakers talked about the average cost being about $214 a month. You know, it carries a lot of weight. It carries a lot of weight for young folks, for renters, for folks just getting by. So I'm really thankful we were able to get this item through. And I'm looking forward to addressing more issues like this through, you know, in the months ahead and making sure that we advance both our transportation and housing affordability, housing affordability goals. So thank you all. >> Thank you. Councilmember zo qadri. Councilmember. Councilmember Laine. Councilmember harper-madison. Thank you, mayor. First, I want to thank. Oh yes sir, please. Councilmember Velasquez would also like to be shown as a co-sponsor of item number 40. So without objection, council member Velasquez will be shown as a co-sponsor of item number 40. I just want to get that before I forget it. I'm going to be so mesmerized by what you [2:26:52 PM] say that I'm worried I would have forgotten. >> So what does councilmember Velasquez say? Bucklin. >> I've got yeah. There you go. Councilmember Siegel, you have the floor. >> Now, I did want to recognize mayor pro tem vela. I really want to thank you for the nowruz proclamation this morning. I know it means so much to our Iranian American community here in Texas to provide this this visibility and cultural appreciation. I heard there was a great party yesterday. Sorry to miss it, but I just want to thank you for for showing up for the community in this very tough moment of history. On the consent agenda. I won't say too much, but I first, I did want to thank director Mchale and Austin resource recovery for item 30. I feel like this is a really smart item for furniture reuse warehouse that both advances our zero waste goals as a community and also creates a community resource, especially for folks who are exiting homelessness. I really appreciate the creative and strategic thinking on item 45. I want to thank council member Fuentes for bringing this item that seeks to foster collaboration among local governmental entities regarding [2:27:53 PM] land use, with a special focus on supporting our local school district as we experience school closures. You know, the attacks on public education are deeply felt, and school closures are one of the most painful things a community can experience for our students, their families, teachers, school staff, and also for the neighborhoods that benefited from the vibrancy of a school campus. And another impact we're seeing right now, and I can speak for myself and council member duchen in the rosedale area is the conflict that can occur when redevelopment follows school closure. And so I understand why Austin ISD needs to maximize its resources, including its land portfolio. But what I appreciate about this resolution, it invites a more formal collaboration and planning process that engages the city, other government agencies, and impacted communities when we are looking at redeveloping so-called surplus school property. So thank you, Sam. Finally, I want to comment on an item, items four and five that no one's brought up. And it's not because I'm excited to talk about more city spending on [2:28:55 PM] outside legal contracts, but I do think we do need to have a more formal conversation a city about how we can better spend our scarce legal resources. There's been a lot of public conversation about the shields litigation, which came up at the last meeting, and council's vote to authorize more money for outside counsel. And I just want to say, I do think that case represents a failure by us at the city. The city at one point in time was offered a very reasonable low settlement amount that unfortunately was withdrawn before council could take action, and now we are paying many times more for outside attorneys. Unfortunately, council didn't learn about the settlement offer until it had expired. We didn't get to weigh in on settling for $23,000, as has been reported. Instead, we were only offered a decision on whether to continue to defense attorneys in the case. And for me, as a fiduciary for the city here on council, we do need to defend ourselves in these lawsuits, and I start from a place of trust with the city attorney's office that when they tell council we have to pay a private attorneys [2:29:55 PM] because we don't have internal capacity, I want to trust that. And so that's why I voted yes on the shields contract, and I am voting yes today on these two contracts, because if we don't have internal capacity and the case is already into litigation and there's no settlement offer on the table, we can't cut off funding for legal representation. But that said, I don't think the status quo is acceptable. I don't think council should be authorizing hundreds of thousands of dollars for work that probably could be done internally for less. And if you add up the millions of dollars we spend on outside contracts in the course of a year, you can't tell me that we couldn't invest some of those resources to hire more internal resources that could get that work done for less. So I wanted to signal to my colleagues, I intend to bring a resolution on this item, how to increase internal capacity, how to reduce private attorney spending, and how to improve our evaluation of claims as they come in, because I think we can get more just outcomes and save money and improve, improve public trust in our process. So I would [2:30:56 PM] welcome your collaboration and co-sponsorship in the days ahead. Thank you mayor. >> Thank you. Councilmember. Councilmember Laine, followed by councilmember harper-madison. >> Thank you. Mayor, I want to I want to start with a few comments about number 35, which is lowers the speed limit to 20mph on el cajon mountain trail near Palm Springs elementary school in the area in the in a district six neighborhood. And I would like to explicitly thank the safe routes to schools teams for the work that they've been doing to improve safety of school children, getting to school in Round Rock ISD and in district six and in williamsonounty as constituents across. I also want to share some information where my colleagues can hear it as. As constituents across more than 90% of my district know firsthand, Round Rock ISD parents recently received notice that a significant portion of the district's bus services will be cut at the end of the school year. In some cases, families have been [2:31:58 PM] directed to two mile walking routes that traverse unsafe conditions, including vehicles traveling at high speeds with gaps in sidewalk infrastructure, hilly terrain, inadequate lighting for the before school hours, and the after school hours. When high school students are navigating their way home, all at a time when more. This was the only doorbell ring in the entire meeting. Unfortunately. Still homesick right now, so I just need to find my place again. And also, at the times of day, the high school students are navigating their their ways home from school after they've finished their after school clubs and making up classwork and that sort of thing. With these changes in mind in round Rock ISD, it is even more important to make safe walking and biking infrastructure. Make sure that walking and biking infrastructure to and from schools is safe and accessible to all. As. And I will just say, [2:32:59 PM] I really appreciate the assistance of the Austin transportation and public works department in this effort so far, and I look forward to continue working on them. With respect to item number 45, I would like to be shos abstaining. This is a really important topic and initiative, but I have not had enough time to adequately evaluate. Excuse me. I'm sorry. Give me a minute, please. Yes. Okay. Now the door opened wild. Okay. All right. So I have not had enough time to fully evaluate all of the input that I've received. So I'd like to be shown as abstaining on that item. And then I will turn to items 39 and 44, both of which relate to parking requirements and fees. I'm proud to have helped advance these items. I believe I know that how we allocate and price parking has real consequences for affordability, and these are important steps towards intentional, equitable [2:34:00 PM] parking policies and implementation across our entire city, rather than differences coming up in certain parts rather than others. I would like to make a couple of blanket comments as they relate to items 39, 40, 42, and 44, which cover a variety of topics that I am either a sponsor or co-sponsor on. I would first like to note that when we ask through an item from council for a recommendation from the city manager and the skilled and knowledgeable professional staff that the city of Austin employs, that is not equivalent to scripting a rigid, one size fits all solution. And. And it is actually not an attempt to interfere with how how the markets work, how we make policy. It is an invitation. And to begin the discussion on [2:35:04 PM] topics in which that are related to areas that our city has changed dramatically in the last 40 years, since the 1980s, and also best practices in different tools to address some of the problems have become have changed over time. And so it's incumbent upon us as a city council at a time when we all know that we can't keep doing things the same way we have before, to work in collaboration with our professional staff who have skills and experience in these areas, and for us to step forward to be part of the conversation when we also bring specific skills and experience to that conversation. And so for myself, as I, as I co-sponsor number 39, 40, 42, and 44, I very much appreciate everyone who's Tenen the lead or as a sponsor or, or joined as a co-sponsor so that we could begin these important conversations. I really look forward to seeing what we hear back. And I also appreciate and must note the reality that by [2:36:05 PM] being a lead sponsor, by being a co-sponsor, we are able that guarantees me and all of the others a front seat to the discussions that happen starting tomorrow and the weeks to come and the months to come throughout the development. And so I really appreciate being invited to co-sponsor on the items that I'm co-sponsoring. I appreciate those who came along with me on the items that I'm sponsoring. And I just wanted to know a few of those items. Okay. And then I will conclude with. Just just item number 42, and I am eliminating a number of comments just in the interest of time. But with respect to number 42, which is the home based small business item, I want to thank council member harper-madison and her staff for the work they've done to bring this item along to the co-sponsors who joined me in in sponsorship of this item. I [2:37:06 PM] really appreciate the opportunity to be part of this conversation from the beginning, specifically because my district, district six is full of residential neighborhoods that do not have access to any size of business by through safe walking and biking in many instances, in many instances. Of course, there are some exceptions to that, but I really, really see the value of being more connected with the neighbors inside our neighborhoods and having places I can walk, where I can engage in in ways that relate to commerce and support my neighbors and my neighborhood, and the stability of my neighborhood without having to get in my car. So I appreciate that. But I also come to this as, as you all know, a former real estate appraiser who spent a decade analyzing the Austin housing market, the infrastructure that supports it, I've worked across a very wide range of property types over that decade of work, and I know [2:38:07 PM] that in order to arrive at strong policy, that actually does meet the changing needs of our city. And they've changed a lot since the 1980s. The devil's in the details. I want to be in the details on this in order to help craft effective policy. And I am have been so pleased to be able to collaborate with councilmember harper-madison office on this, and she's got an amazing team working on this item.nd so I wanted to note that. And then for as I come to close, I want to bring up one of the public comments that was made today. I saw a picture of a lemonade stand and. And we've heard, we heard some discussion about whether we're really talking about kids with lemonade stands, or are we talking about all kinds of other things. Now, my neighborhood, I've seen kids put out lemonade stands. I'm so glad the city has a policy that allows them to put a lemonade stand in their front yard, or [2:39:07 PM] to set it up on corner down the block, where there's a little bit more traffic than on their dead end street. What makes me regretful for the city's policies is that in the neighborhood I live in, 54% Asian. Many very strong percentage of immigrants.s not. There are so many families that don't make lemonade at home. What they make is chai, or they make fresh juice or agua fresca or smoothies or all different kinds of things. I want kids to be able to sell the thing that their household makes. I want to be able to enjoy that myself. It is part of the fabric of my neighborhood. I've had the most amazing homemade chai, so many people's homes and school events, not in city facilities because we don't have many of them and never have any of these families been able to actually sell the strength that they make at home all the time, because it's not lemonade. And [2:40:08 PM] so I do think that this has to do with kids, you know, but it's not just about drinks. It's also about could we maybe sell some samosas, some good old Desi street food? That would be delicious. Could we sell my favorite dessert from dim sum, which I've also had in people's homes? Pineapple custard buns. What about baked goods? Brownies? My my grandmother's brownie recipe. My husband's favorite chocolate chip recipe. I just I believe that we can do better than a policy that allows lemonade stands and only lemonade stands to operate without a permit. The leap that has to be made to be able to sell chai at a chai stand is way too big versus what it is for selling lemonade, but I also don't. I agree actually, that this does not have just to do with children, but I do think it has to do with families. I think it has to do with individuals and all the people who are trying to [2:41:09 PM] stay inside the city that they love in the face of very substantial financial challe for many of our households in every single district in this city. I grew up as a latchkey kid. My mom worked full time solo, parents went to night school. I didn't have anyone at home with me and the apartment complex that I ran around in. I did go buy things here and there that were for sale at different little apartment complexes. But one thing that didn't happen for me, and this is just my personal life example, is I never learned how to hem pants. The only stitch I know how to sew. I learned in fifth grade when we did a school project and I learned it from the teacher. I don't know how to hem pants. I am certain there are a lot of adults in my neighborhood who know how. Seniors who are maybe struggling on a fixed income, parents who would need extra income to not he to drive the way downtown and back and be away their families, but just can't afford to [2:42:09 PM] without a little bit of additional income. I want the opportunity for my neighbors to be able to put a sign up that tells me that they didn't do alterations without forcing them to go O expensive hiy real estate, to try to rent a storefront where they can put up a sign. Do I want there to be significant traffic impacts, parking impacts, all of these different types of concerns? No, I don't. And their real concerns, they're meaningful. They're substantive. They need to be worked out. And that's why I'm so appreciative of the opportunity to be part of a sub quorum that will be working directly and in collaboration with our city manager staff as as we craft what we believe to be the best possible policy, and then we decide whether that works. Specifically. I'd also like to thank all of the commenters today and everyone who's reached out to my office on this topic. Small business families and walking and biking. These are all passions of mine, [2:43:10 PM] and so is the connected community that has the stability that we need to set down real roots that last. So thank you again, councilmember harper-madison, for bringing this forward, and I'm pleased to be a co-sponsor and working on it together with you and the others. Thank you so much. I did cut a few things, mayor, but I know it was still long. >> Thank you. Councilmember. Councilmember harper- madison. >> Mister mayor, I'm going to say so much less than I would have otherwise. She said it all good. So all I was saying was I literally, I don't sell it. I just give away lettuce in my front yard. There are people who walk past my house and say, do you know your yard? That's what I call it. Brings me joy. That lemonade stand. Let's talk about it. Michaela Omer, she's a literal millionaire little [2:44:11 PM] black girl who has my same birthday. By the way, council members Velazquez and Fuentes. She's the 28th, just like us. Them having to walk through lemonade stand policy. All we were ultimately saying is, at some point, somebody somewhere said, this don't look pretty for you to sell stuff in front of your house. Always said was. Why not bring back all this artisanal y'all playing records, your vinyl, French press. Driving cars with no ac on purpose. All we. >> Cassie harper-madison you're really badly breaking up, in fact. I hope you don't object, [2:45:13 PM] but I'm going to go ahead and take us to our vote. That concludes all of the council members that all the council members. So the spoken on the consent agenda. So members, we have a motion and a second concluding discussion on abstentions. I I'm calling for abstentions on the vote on the consent agenda. Council member mayor pro tem vela is abstaining on items 41 and 45. Council member Laine is abstaining on item 45. Is there anyone else wishing to be shown abstaining from a vote on the consent agenda? All right. Is there anyone wishing to recuse themselves from a vote on any item on the consent agenda? On no votes? I'm going to now call for anyone voting no on any item on the consent agenda. I would ask that I be shown voting no on item number 45. Council member duchen is being [2:46:14 PM] shown voting no on 39, 40 and 44. Any other no votes. Councilmember Velasquez is being shown voting no on item 45. Are there any other no votes with regard to the consent agenda? All right. That being the case, councilmember Laine, I'm looking at you. Make sure I got everything because I must admit, I stepped off the dice just a moment. Okay. Very good. And councilmember harper-madison, if you can rejoin us, we're happy to have you do that. Okay. Without objection, the consent agenda is adopted with councilmember on item number 39, council member duchen being shown voting no on item number 40. Council member duchen being shown voting no on item number 41. Count of mayor pro tem vela abstaining on item number 45. Councilmember duchen being shown voting no on I say I hope I said 44. Yeah, I meant 44 for let me for clarity purposes for [2:47:15 PM] item 44, council member duchen is voting no on item number 45. The mayor and council member Velasquez are voting no. Council member vela I mean mayor pro tem vela and council member Laine are abstaining. That's the record of the vote. Without objection, the consent agenda is adopted. Members that will take us and to those that are here for different items, the the order we're going to go in right now is we're going to go to item number 31, which is an item that was pled by council member alter, and we will take that item up first and then my. Unless there's objection, what we will then do is we will go to a few of the non-consent items and the public hearing items so that we can move through those and allow city staff that is here waiting on those items to be able to go back to doing other things besides sitting in the council chambers, so on. We are now on item number 31 members. [2:48:19 PM] We have several people that have signed up to speak on item 31. The way I would proceed without objection is hear from those speakers. Then I will seek a motion in a second on item 31, and then I will recognize council member alter as the person that pulled the item. He brought up on Tuesday that he had some proposed amendments. You have in front of you proposed amendments from the council member, and we will take those up. If there's a motion on the main motion. Madam clerk, would you please go to item number 31? >> Thank you, mayor, for 31, I have Chester posey, Jeff Dickerson, Pierre beristain, Claudia Thompson, Julie saccharic. I'm going to call some more speakers. Makani cook, [2:49:19 PM] Jen Robichaud, Jen, I see Jen. Jeffrey Bowen, are you still here? Okay. Mrs. Robichaud will have four minutes. And Scott Johnson. Please go ahead and just state your name. >> Good afternoon. My name is Claudia Thompson. I'm the senior director of housing at the safe alliance. We know that victims of violence are impacted severely with homelessness. Stability requires more than just a roof. It requires a specialized, trauma informed advocacy. Safe serves about 900 victims a year in the various housing programs, who are forced to choose between a dangerous home and the uncertainty of the streets. Because the path to recovery is never linear. We offer a robust collection of housing services, transitional and rapid rehousing programs with strong partnerships with caritas of Austin and lifeworks for immediate, low barrier short term stability, permanent [2:50:20 PM] supportive housing, 90 new units under construction at the Lancaster and the Sasha. For our most vulnerable victims and affordable permanent housing. Long term stability at grove place apartments. But we provide more than just four walls. Our team is uniquely trained in confidential court and entry. In a world of digital tracking, we give survivors the power to remain anonymous, keeping their identity information out of the wrong hands. We're currently at the table helping to redesign the city's court entry system because every survivor deserves a path home. Our staff are more than case managers. We are a crisis response specialist navigating safety planning, victim housing rights and the complexity of public benefits. We don't just house people, we stabilize lives. Bottom line the complexity of abuse requires a sophisticated, multi-tiered response. Continued funding for these programs is not just an investment in real estate. It is a critical investment in a [2:51:21 PM] life saving safety net that breaks the cycle of violence in our community. Thank you. >> Good afternoon. Council. I'm Jen Robichaud, long time Austin resident, and I'm speaking on item 31, the homeless strategic plan. I truly appreciate the hard work that director gray and the homeless strategic office has put into this plan. However, the document makes it very clear that taxpayers were left out of the stakeholder discussions. That single omission has created serious gaps. Over the last weeks, I have spoken with many fellow taxpayers. I've organized their perspectives and shared them directly with the homeless strategies director and my council member, and I'm disappointed to see that none of this taxpayer feedback was incorporated before this version was brought forward. Taxpayers are empathetic towards our unhoused neighbors who face real hardship. At the same time, we believe the current funding heavy approach is driving up costs, eroding public trust, and harming Austin's culture and [2:52:21 PM] environment. We don't want more homeless infrastructure. We want less homelessness. While state and federal rules create expensive barriers we cannot fix overnight, Austin has immediate control over safety, public spaces, costs and accountability. The plan still fails to address the issues taxpayers keep raising. This plan fails to aim at ending homelessness. Taxpayers want solutions tied to self-sufficiency and working people out of the system, not endless support. How do we ensure that services are not indefinite? This plan fails to follow better model, better models. It fails to follow better models because Austin already has effective organizations that emphasize work and self-sufficiency without heavy city funding. Instead of simply giving more grants to providers, we should train nonprofits and business skills so they can become self-sustaining rather than dependent on perpetual taxpayer money. This plan fails to address encampments and protect our environment. Unchecked [2:53:22 PM] camps in greenbelts and trails cause real environmental damage, and they put joggers, hikers, climbers and swimmers at risk. Cleanups are expensive, yet the camps reform quickly. The plan offers no solution for people who refuse shelter. Proposition B allows designated camping Zones, and we should use it with strict no camping rules enforced elsewhere. This plan fails to deliver data transparency. While it promises better data, it still lacks a timely public dashboard, and we're missing metrics that taxpayers actually care about, such as point of origin, length of service, use, reasons for homelessness, drug usage, and true cost per exit to self-sufficiency. This plan fails to vet residency and deter homeless migration. Many taxpayers believe our services are attracting people from outside Austin. We lack basic data on where people come from and why they are here. We must prioritize long time Austin residents and collect clear origin and background [2:54:23 PM] information. Taxpayers do not want Austin to become a destination city for people experiencing homelessness around the country. This plan fails to address public safety and public spaces. Taxpayers are far too accustomed toseeing news reports about homeless people attacking innocent bystanders in our busses, libraries and other public spaces. Austin promotes walkability and transit. Yet many families, residents and visitors no longer feel safe using them, and this plan fails to ensure law enforcement taxpayers should not subsidize antisocial or criminal behavior. We need strong partnerships with law enforcement and the justice system to keep everyone safe, including those living in shelters. I have tremendous faith in humanity, faith in humanity, and I want Austin to address homelessness in a way that is effective, compassionate, and respectful to every resident. I urge council to include taxpayer voices as core stakeholders before final approval and to [2:55:23 PM] fix these gaps, to add shrinkage targets and sunsets, to enforce existing laws. To prioritize longtime Austin residents. >> Thank you, thank you. >> Hello, I'm makani cook and I'm here today as a resident and also as a victim of domestic violence. Thousands of Austin's women and children are forced into homelessness as a direct result of the violent crimes that have been perpetrated against them. We are victims, not slackers and bums, and we deserve better. My child's father tried to silence me by holding a pillow over my face. After years of violent assaults and intense control, it finally escalated to attempted murder, leaving an abusive relationship carries high lethality. If I can't have you, nobody can. I left empty [2:56:25 PM] handed. The long term effects of abuse on my credit, employment and my health were directly responsible for forcing me into homelessness. For six months, I lived in a tent in fear for my life. I had to beg for money to get to the soup kitchen, utilize public parks to safely shower with my daughter. I had to teach her to use the restroom in a trash bag when I couldn't get diapers, I was actively receiving death threats. I fantasized about killing you at night. The women and children that are forced to the streets by violence have to wait months to get a bed in a domestic violence shelter. Then we get 30 days to stabilize. Housing has its own waitlist, so every 30 days, victims have to uproot their L to move to a different shelter across town. New job, new school, new childcare every month. The safe alliance provided me with critical life saving support. They are directly responsible for preventing homicide. They [2:57:26 PM] offer supervised parenting exchanges. They provide shelter, food, basic needs, supportive housing, and hope for a future where the streets are not an option for a victim of assault. Please ensure there's funding and support. Thank you. >> Thank you mayor. >> All speakers for 31 have been called. >> Thank you very much, members. As you've just heard, all of the speakers on item number 31 have been called. So we will now go to item number 31. And I will ask if there's a motion to be made to approve. Councilmember alter makes the motion to adopt item number 31. It is second by councilmember Velasquez. As I indicated, what we will do is we will now go to proposed amendments to item number 31, unless somebody has any questions. I see Mr. Gray volunteered to come down here and make himself available. If anybody has any questions or otherwise, we'll just go to the amendments. Unless you just want to talk. [2:58:27 PM] >> Just make sure I was. >> Here on time. Good, good, good, I appreciate that. Alright, council member alter, you're recognized on on what we will label alter one members, the one that we're looking at for alter number one in the upper right hand corner, says Kim Ryan alter item number 31 March 26th, 2026. Council meeting. At the top of the page it says motion shed it has five items where you have red lines. In each one of those five items. Council member, I'll let you speak to your motion. >> Thank you very much. This is what we talked about on Tuesday and a post on the message board. Once again, just want to thank director gray for working with us on this and really just so that everyone understands these two go hand in hand. We are adding some reporting, taking away the the only numerical target in the plan, but with the idea that we're going to come back in November or in in the fall and have a holistic recommended set of recommendations from director gray on numerical targets, [2:59:29 PM] whether it's shelter, rapid, ps, H, the gamut. Wto just look at that holistically. Once we have a better understanding of the nofo, our budget funding items that we end up funding in the budget and whatnot. So I just felt that was a more appropriate time to set those specific targets holistically. So at first, we will move adoption of alter one. >> Councilmember alter moves adoption of the motion to alter number one, motion to amend item number 31. Councilmember zo qadri, you're sending it. Councilmember qadri seconds the motion to amend. Members. The discussion is on the motion to amend. Is there any discussion with regard to the motion to amend, hearing none without. Yes. Councilmember duchen. >> I just wanted to thank councilmember alter for really thinking through the kpis and how we're going to measure data. I think for me, looking at other strategic plans the city has has worked on in other [3:00:30 PM] departments, looking at some other cities, how they've approached their homelessness strategic plans. I think it does invite a conversation to have, not now, but down the line with the city manager and his team about just general expectations and guidelines for strategic plans, including, you know, how we're going to approach timelines and mandates for subsequent action, you know, future implementation plans. So I'm looking forward to that conversation now that we've gone after we go through this process. Thank you. >> Thank you. Councilmember. Any further discussion? Hearing none without objection, alter amendment number one to item number 31 is adopted with councilmember harper- madison off the dais. Members that will take us to alter amendment proposed amendment number two to item number 31. I recognize councilmember alter. >> And this is just that direction to come back to the public health committee in the fall. So with that, I move. Adoption of alter two. >> Motion made by councilmember alter to provide this direction as alter amendment number two, it is seconded by the mayor pro tem discussion. Hearing none [3:01:31 PM] without objection, alter amendment number two to item number 31 is adopted with councilmember harper-madison off the dais. Members. That will take us back to the main motion, which is the adoption of item number 31, as amended by the T amendments that have been adopted. Is there any discussion on item number 31, as amended? Hearing none without objection, item number 31, as amended, is adopted with councilmember harper-madison off the dais. Members, before we go to the next items, I want to note for the record that when the consent agenda was adopted, councilmember harper- madison was off the dais, and I want to make sure that the record reflects that she was off the dais at the time. I don't know whether I called that out or not. Now let's go to item number 48. Members. Item number 48 is an item from council that comes from the audit and finance committee. Congratulations. Item number 48 is approving bylaws for the [3:02:32 PM] commission on aging to correct outdated reference to city departments, clarify staff support roles, and create the new age friendly advisory committee. This is a recommendation from the audit and finance committee. As chair of the audit finance committee, I move approval of item number 48, seconded by council member Siegel. Is there any discussion with that hearing? None without objection. Item number there. And I know there's nobody signed up, right? Yeah. See, I knew it. I actually did. So sometimes I just act like I know stuff. Item number 48 without objection, item number 48 is adopted with council member harper-madison off the dais. That will take us to item number 4949, which comes to us from the public health committee. I will recognize the chair of the public health committee for a motion, and that is council member Fuentes. >> Yes. So moved. >> Motion is to approve item number 49, made by the chair of the committee, seconded by council member Velasquez. Is [3:03:33 PM] there any discussion? Hearing none without objection, item number 49 is adopted with council member harper-madison off the dais and council member Laine off the dais. That will take us to item number 74, which also comes to us from the audit and finance committee. And that is an ordinance dissolving the south. Yes. >> I apologize, I was on the dais. >> Well, if you'reot on camera, you're not on the dais. So. Councilmember Laine. >> Okay, I apologize. >> That's all right. Council member Laine would like to be shown voting in favor of item number 49. It will not change the outcome of the vote. Council member Fuentes moves that she be shown voting in favor of item number 49. It is second by council member Velasquez. Any discussion? Without objection, council member Laine will be voting in favor of item number 49 with councilmember harper-madison off the dais. Item number 74 is to approve an ordinance dissolving the south central waterfront advisory board and repealing city code section number 21172. This is a [3:04:34 PM] recommendation from the audit and finance committee. As chair of the audit and finance committee, I will move approval of item number 74, seconded by council member duchen. Is there any discussion? Hearing none without objection, mayor. Yes. >> I do have aaker on this item. >> Oh I'm sorry. Please call that speaker. >> William bunch. >> I don't think he really do. Mr. Bunch, Mr. Bunch, William bunch. All right. >> Thank you. >> That's all. But thanks for calling me out. There being no, no other speakers on this item, the motion been made and seconded with there being no further discussion without objection, item number 74 adopted members. Without objection, I'm going to run through some of these public hearings so that we will be able to let staff that may be sitting here waiting to go back to work on other items to be able to do that. So the first item we'll take up is item number 52. Item number 52 is a [3:05:34 PM] public hearing. So without objection, we will open the public hearing on item number 52. The public hearing is now open. And I'll turn to the city clerk. >> Bill bunch. >> Mr. Bunch, bill bunch, William bunch, he's not here. >> That's all. >> Those are all the speakers on item number 52. So without objection, we will close the public hearing on item number 52. The public hearing is now closed, and that is we have a resolution on this. I will call for a motion with regard to the resolution. Motion is made to approve the resolution by council member duchen. It is conded by council member Siegel. Is there any discussion? Hearing none without objection, item number 52 is adopted with council member harper-madison off the dais. Item number 53 is also a public hearing and I will. Without objection, we will open the public hearing on item number 53. The public hearing is now open. I'll turn to the city clerk. >> One speaker bill bunch. >> Mr. Bunch, Mr. Bunch is not [3:06:34 PM] here, and that's the only speaker. So without objection, we will close the public hearing on item number 53. The public hearing is now closed. I'll entertain a motion for approval of the ordinance under item number 53. It's made by council member Siegel. Is there a second? Second by council member Velasquez? Any discussion you have? Discussion. Okay. Without objection, item number 53 is adopted with council member duchen being shown voting no and council member harper-madison off the dais. We will go now to item number 54, which is which is also a public hearing item number. Without objection, the public hearing is now open and I'll turn to the city clerk. >> No speakers. >> There are no speakers on item number 54. So without objection, we will close the public hearing on item number 54. The public hearinisis now closed. I will entertain a motion to approve the ordinance. Is there a motion? Motion made by council member Siegel, seconded by council member Ellis. Is there a discussion? Hearing none without objection, item number 54 is adopted with council member harper-madison off the dais. Item number 55 is also a public hearing and we [3:07:35 PM] will Kahn. Without objection, we'll open the public hearing on item number 55. The public hearing is now open. I'll turn to the city clerk. >> No speakers. >> There are no speakers on item number 55. So without objection, we will close the public hearing on item number 55. I'll entertain a motion motion made by council member Velasquez to approve the ordinance. It is seconded by council member Fuentes. Is there discussion without the hearing? None. Without objection. Item number 55 is adopted with council member harper-madison being off the dais. Item number 56 is a public hearing. Without objection, we will open the public hearing on item number 56. The public hearing is now open and I'll turn to the city clerk. >> One remote speaker, Courtney Mcwhirter. >> Hi, this is Courtney Mcwhirter, attorney. On behalf of the petitioner in favor of item 56, and I'm available to answer any >> Questions. >> Thank you very much. Are there any questions, miss Mcwhirter? There don't appear to be. That is the only speaker. Is that correct? Correct. The only speaker on item number 56 has been heard. So, without objection, we will close the [3:08:36 PM] public hearing on item number 56. The public hearing is now closed, and I'll entertain a motion with regard to the ordinance. Motion is made by councilmember seconded by councilmember duchen. Any discussion? Hearing none without objection, item number 56 is adopted with councilmember harper- madison off the dais. Item number 57 is a public hearing. Without objection, we will open the public hearing on item number 57 and is now open. And I'll turn to the city clerk. >> One remote speaker, Courtney Mcwhirter. >> Miss Mcwhirter. >> Hi. Courtney Mcwhirter, attorney on behalf of the petitioner in favor of item 57, available to answer any questions. >> Are there any questions for misshirter? Seeing none, we will close the public hearing. Without objection, the public hearing will be closed. It is now closed and I'll entertain a motion with regard to the ordinance on item number 57. Councilmember duchen moves approval. It is second by councilmember alter. Is there any discussion? Hearing none without objection, item number 57 is adopted with councilmember harper-madison being off the dais. Item number 58 is also a public hearing. [3:09:37 PM] Without objection, we will open the public hearing on item number 58. I'll turn to the city clerk. >> Courtney Mcwhirter. >> Miss Mcwhirter, you've done pretty well so far. >> Yes. On behalf of the petitioner in favor of item 58, available to answer any questions. >> You know, you can mix it up and say you're against one of these. All right. Any questions? Any any questions of miss Mcwhirter? All right. Those are okay. Without objection, we will close the public hearing on item number 58. The public hearing is now closed. Councilmember Fuentes moves approval of the ordinance. It's seconded by councilmember Ellis. Is there any discussion? Hearing none without objection, item number 58 is aed. With councilmember harper-madison being off the dais. Item number 60, item number 60 is a public hearing. We will open the public hearing on item number 60. The public hearing is now open and I'll turn to the city clerk. >> One speaker, Nyla akinyemi sankofa. [3:10:39 PM] >> I she's not been here previously. I don't I don't see her. All right. >> That's the all members. >> That's the only speaker we have signed up on item number 60. So without objection, we will close the public hearing on item number 60. The chair will entertain a motion with regard to the resolution. Is there a motion? Motion is made by councilmember alter, seconded by councilmember Velasquez. Is there any discussion? Hearing none without objection, item number 60 is adopted. With councilmember harper- madison being off the dais. Item number 61 is a public hearing. Without objection, we will open the public hearing on item number 61. The public hearing is now open. I'll call on city clerk. >> No speakers. >> There are no speakers on item number 61. So without objection, we will close the public hearing on item 61. Public hearing is now closed. Councilmember Siegel moves approval of the ordinance on item number 61. It's seconded by councilmember Ellis. Is there any discussion? Hearing none without objection, item number 61 is adopted with councilmember harper-madison being off the dais. Item number 62 is a public hearing and we [3:11:41 PM] will. Without objection, we will open the public hearing on item number 62. I'll turn to the city clerk. >> No speakers. >> There are no speakers on item number 62. So without objection, we will close the public hearing on item number 62. The public hearing is now closed. I'll entertain a motion with regard to the ordinance. The motion is made by councilmember Siegel. It is seconded by councilmember duchen to approve the ordinance. Is there any discussion? Hearing none without objection, item number 62 is adopted with councilmember harper-madison being off the dais. Item number 63 is also a public hearing. Without objection, we will open the public hearing on item number 63 and I'll turn to the city clerk. >> No speakers. >> There are no speakers on item number 63. So without objection, we will close the public hearing. Public hearing is now closed and I'll entertain a motion with regard to the ordinance. A motion is made by councilmember duchen, seconded by councilman Velasquez to approve the ordinance. Is there any discussion? Hearing none without objection, item number 63 is approved. With councilmember harper-madison being off the dais. Item number 64 is a public heari. . Without objection, we will open the public hearing on item number 64. The public hearing is open [3:12:42 PM] and I'll turn to the city clerk. >> No speakers. >> There are no speakers on item number 64. So without objection, we will close the public hearing on item number 64. The public hearing is now closed. I'll entertain a motion with regard to the ordinance. It is made by councilmember duchen to approve the ordinance. Second by councilmember Velasquez. Is there discussion? Hearing none without objection, item number 64 is approved with. With councilmember harper-madison being off the dais. All right, members, that is going to take us back to item number 51. Item number 51. Hang on one second. Item number 51 is also a public hearing. So without objection, we will open the public hearing on item number 51. The public hearing [3:13:42 PM] is now open, and I will turn to the city clerk. >> Thank you mayor. Srikar. Nalluri. Zachary Faddis, Charles Bradbury, John stark. Trejo. Venky. I'm going to keep going. Adam. Greenfield, jordi. Tello, felicity. Max.well. Alex flores. Haydn. Black walker. >> Okay. >> Hello city council, my name is jordi Tello and I live in district nine. I'm really excited and want to share my support for item 51. I especially like the points around prioritizing pedestrians, bicyclists, and other multi-modal transit downtown. I'm most excited about, though, is the development of the idea of doing two way conversions on all the streets downtown. I think something like that will make things safer. It's proven that cars moving in both [3:14:43 PM] directions slow themselves down as well. That's all I have to say. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thanks. >> Good morning, mayor and members of the city council. >> I'm sorry it's not morning anymore. >> You're right. Good afternoon. >> Your credibility is shot. >> Good afternoon. My name is Shryock and I live in district nine. And I would like to support item 51. I live in district nine in downtown. And the as it's termed, you know, the core transportation plan. A lot of times around rush hour, everything's gridlocked getting in and out. Recently, you know, during big festivals like south by southwest, you know, it can get gridlocked a lot. I think having these new options considered holistically, like still having room for cars, but also having bike lanes and bus lanes will be very important. The new bike lanes that have been added have helped with getting around. I can speak personally during like this March with all the concerts going on, you know, living here [3:15:43 PM] and still needing T get around the bike lanes, help me go around all the traffic. So I'd really like to see us go above and beyond on expanding those and as well as more bus priority measures. Thank you. >> Alexander flores. I'm a traffic engineer and transportation planner. I live and run my business out of district four. First and foremost, the plan is objectively good credit to tp its staff and consultants and its processes. They set out and delivered what they were aiming to do. My issue isn't with the plan. My issue is in how the plan is being used specifically, and how it is perpetuating a problem that city council has had for decades, and the reason why city council exists as a ten plus one system. The issue is the funneling of city wide resources to specific geographic, generally affluent locations. Now, what am I talking about? The act plan, which hasn't been approved yet, already has earmarks for the [3:16:43 PM] November bond. So what we're saying is that there is a pool of money that every district, including downtown, is competing for, and then there is a second pool of money that is raised at the city level, and that is going directly to downtown. Now, when I ask people why this is, I generally get the response of economic development. And frankly, there's no evidence that that is true, that a dollar of public transportation spending downtown leads to better economic output than if it was sent in any of the other districts. And the secondary question to that is, even if that statement is true, who asked for that? Looking at the public involvement processes for imagine Austin for the S&P and the act plan, no one is getting up and saying spend my tax dollars to make downtown more economically viable. What people are overwhelmingly saying is affordability and infrastructure spending and underserved communities. It's a concept that many of you campaigned on, and this idea of [3:17:46 PM] using the act plans to raise citywide taxes to then funnel it to downtown specifically as an earmarked item, I think violates some of those campaign promises. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. >> Good afternoon, mayor and council. Adam Greenfield, interim executive director of streets Austin. Here we are in support of the act plan. Downtown is for everybody. People from every district come downtown to to work and play. Many live here too. And the quality of its streets and how they function directly impacts everyone. The truth is, is that the act plan will move more people than downtown streets can today by prioritizing high capacity transit lanes, sidewalks, and bikeways. We really appreciate council engaging with the issue of 1 to 2 way street reversions. These reversions have worked every time in Austin and in every other city. They've been tried both on high traffic streets [3:18:47 PM] and low traffic streets. Their benefits are broad. They do not only include helping more people to walk and bike, but they also include local businesses, crime and, frankly, a more resilient grid. And as we have I-35 construction, we should be making our grid as porous and flexible as possible so people can pursue alternative routes when congestion occurs. So Jeff speck, many of you know, recently visited town. He has been voted one of the top ten urbanists of all time, and he urged the city to consider revisions of every one way street downtown and to really take seriously that possibility. So we hope that council will keep that conversation going forward. That will bring in some of that expertise from from our wonderful staff here, some of our national experts who can bring that perspective to. Thank you to council member [3:19:48 PM] qadri for so many of his great questions around this treatment. We think this could really help revitalize so many of our downtown streets, as will the overall act plan, which is a wonderful plan. So thank you very much. >> Thank you. Yes, ma'am. >> Good afternoon, mayor and council. I'm Hayden black walker W black and metal architecture and design. I'm the chair of the board for safe streets Austin, and I'm speaking on behalf of that organization today. I also serve on the aia Austin mobility advocacy committee and the city of Austin's great streets advisory group. I am speaking in favor of the act plan and encouraging you to further consider the versions of one way streets back to two way streets. Given the predominant success of Austin and other cities of one way to two way reversions on both heavy traffic and light traffic. Streets and plans for further conversions of such types on streets in downtown Austin. We urge council to commit to an ongoing exploration of the reversion of all one way streets downtown to two way. [3:20:48 PM] There are many factors in considering these decisions, including the economic benefits of two way streets. Earlier today, I emailed each of you a copy of a report called the second street and Seaholm district return on investment analysis that the city of Austin commissioned in 2020. That report shows a tremendous roi concentrated in those areas where we have done reversions back to two way streets at this. In this time of fiscally constrained benefits budgets. Excuse me. I would encourage you to consider not only the traffic impact of these reversions, but also the potential roi to the city, the ongoing great streets update and the central city district plan should advance the plan's vision for articulating customized and dimensioned cross-sections and design standards for the plan's proposed projects. These schematics need to reference and integrate the updated street design and TRE design standards developed in 2025 for the Austin transit partnership and the city's technical [3:21:49 PM] advisory review panel. Once approved those planning efforts, we urge the council to include those updated standards within the city's transportation criteria manual. Thank you very much for your time. >> Thank you. >> Continuing on. Richard. Richard easterling. Nikolai tango, bill bunch, liza Wimberly, Amy. Deluna. Michael. Rhodes, Ben. Zohaib, Daniel. Coleman. Katy. Cam. Matip. Barnstone. >> Good afternoon, mayor and council. My name is Daniel Coleman. I'm here on behalf of shoal creek conservancy. We would like to support the adoption of the Austin core transportation plan. This plan will help coordinate the many generational transportation [3:22:50 PM] projects occurring in the core of the city on Austin streets, sidewalks, bike lanes, and urban trails. The shoal creek trail is an essential active transportation facility through western downtown that serves as a critical link between many downtown transportation hubs and beyond. The shoal creek trail is Austin's oldest hike and bike trail. While some improvements to the aging shoal creek trail are currently underway, we hope to see the upgrade of the entire length of the shoal creek trail within the boundaries of this. To the urban trail standard in the future. For the community led priorities of the 2018 shoal creek trail plan, we appreciate the inclusion of the critical improvements to the Seaholm district, which will bring us closer to the vision set forth in the cypress and shoal creek public space strategy, which was co-created with the community by shoal creek conservancy and the downtown Austin alliance. I want to emphasize the need for high quality, separated bikeway on fourth street, and that it needs to come before the light rail goes in and the one on third street is removed, and that it can safely connect to [3:23:50 PM] the shoal creek trail. Lighting is another critical element of a safe, active transportation system, and we urge the adoption of the plan and hope to see high quality, dark skies compliant lighting improvements on the shoal creek trail, especially under bridges. The success of new lighting under the historic west sixth bridge should be a model for other bridges downtown, especially including west fifth and west 10th street. This is a high quality plan that will allow for the coordination of transportation infrastructure improvements in the downtown area. We appreciate the highlighting of the shoal creek trail, along with other active transportation facilities in the area, and we look forward to the implementation of the priority projects, along with the essential upgrades to the shoal creek trail and connecting corridors. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Hi, Ben Sabino, resident of district four who uses multimodal transportation to get downtown. I, you know, wanted to appreciate the work that that staff has done on all of this. Many of the comments made today stole my best points. So I'm just going to focus on, [3:24:51 PM] you know, the folks that I see who work downtown, maybe in restaurant kitchens, just judging by the uniform they're wearing on the bus together. You know, when I travel between this building and where I work, either on my personal bike or one of the capmetro bikes, having bike lanes that keep us safe, having a way to get around this is good. This is both safety, this is healthy. This is saving time. As we look forward to a time when the state is tearing up some of the main thoroughfares through here and traffic is getting harder, providing ways for people to move in both directions on the street can save unnecessary turns and added trips and extra lights, and giving people more options on how to move around through our city. So thank you for doing this. I appreciate all the work that's gone into it. >> Okay. Hi, I'm Katy Kim, a resident of district nine. I ride my bike through downtown [3:25:51 PM] almost every day. I first want to express appreciation for initiating and following through on a transportation plan for the area. Proactive planning to guide infrastructure infrastructure decisions is the way to go. I also appreciate that consideration was given to two way multimodal streets. However, I would like to highlight something about the plan to improve any updates to the act plan now or in the future. First, I did a keyword search for low-speed vehicle, golf cart, and pedicab. Those terms do not appear in the plan, and yet those mobility options are a very visible, fun and critical part of the downtown transportation system. I like to call those the missing middle mobility options, but they should not be missing in the plan. A future plan update should explicitly consider those because they have unique needs compared to the other mobility options. It is also worth noting that scooters were only mentioned six times, whereas bike is present 47 times in the plan. Scooter parking and safety is an issue worthy of more discussion in the plan. Second, red river red river street should be a [3:26:52 PM] designated bike route, not just because I ride up and down it all the time, but it is a heavily biked corridor. Third, please continue the ongoing conversation about expanding the two way, two way street network, as previous speakers have encouraged all to do. I would also encourage an openness to roundabouts in the downtown area to help with speed management and operational efficiency of the downtown great street grid network. That's all I've got. Thank you. >> Thank you mayor. >> All speakers have been called for 51 members. >> As you heard all of the speakers on item number 51. The public hearing on item number 51 have been called. So without objection, we will close the public hearing on item number 51 and the public hearing is now closed. Councilmember qadri, you're recogd for a motion. >> Yes, sir. I moved to adopt item 51, which is the act plan. >> Members. Councilmember qadri has moved approval of item number 51. Is there a second? Second by councilmember Velasquez. Councilmember qadri also has a proposed amendment to item number 51 U. It's been [3:27:54 PM] put in front of you and it's in the backup. It says C M qadri item 51 March 26th, 2026 council meeting motion sheet number two, version two. >> Yeah, there was a there was a motion number one that went online, I believe yesterday. So that's why it's on a yellow copy. I can I can pass you the motion number one if you need it. >> Yeah. I don't have a copy. >> Of that. I I'll, I'll come. >> And do that. So councilmember qadri has two proposed amendments. The first one. So let let's go to one that is labeled motion sheet. Number one. You say it's in the backup. >> Yes, sir. >> All right. So he he moved. And so that there's clarity for the record, it's the one that reads that he moves to the to add following language to the Austin core transportation plan.and he's going to make that the [3:28:54 PM] addition that's delineated there to page 45. And then there's an additional addition to pages seven and 11 under major outcomes. And he has delineated those. So council member, I will recognize you on your motion to amend item number 51. Number one, this is qadri one. Motion to amend item 51. You're recognized to discuss the motion to amend. >> Thank you mayor. So folks might have it in front of them. If they don't, it is online. But motion sheet number one by by Sam qadri. It makes some text changes in the plan itself to ensure all, all can see our commitment to exploring the furthest extent possible as it relates to that plan. So we're going to look to continue to explore two way streets downtown, which can help reduce confusion. Staff has already recommended several two way conversions in the plan, and there's economic development and potential public safety and vibrancy opportunities with two way streets. So so I want to make sure that we continue to explore that. So that's that's [3:29:56 PM] what it is. >> Councilmember qadri moves approval of qadri motion to amend number one to item number 51. Is there a second to that motion seconded by council member Siegel? Is there discussion on the motion to amend number one? Hearing none without objection. Motion qadri motion to amend item number 51. Motion to amend number one is adopted. With councilmember harper-madison being off the dais. That will take us now to qadri motion to amend number two. And that's what I was talking about a minute ago when I said motion. Motion to amend number two. Version two is the one that he wants to speak to. Councilmember qadri, you're recognized on your motion to amend item number 51 two, version two. >> Great. Thank you. Mayor. Yeah, that's the yellow sheet everyone should have in front of them. And this motion sheet provides further direction on the implementation of the plan toto kick start implementation. >> Council member qadri moves adoption of his motion to amend item number 51 two. Version two [3:30:58 PM] is there. Is there a second second by council member Fuentes? Is there discussion? >> Yeah, I just want to just quickly thank I believe Adam Greenfield and haydn haydn walker were here. And I just want to thank them and safe streets for all their work on this. >> Good. Thank you. All right. The vote is on motion to amend number two by qadri to item number 51. Is there a discussion? Hearing none without objection. Motion to amend number two by qadri to item number 51 is adopted with councilmember harper-madison being off the dais. Members, that will take us back to item number as amended. Item number 51, as amended. The motion has been made and seconded. We've adopted two amendments to item number 51. Council member qadri. >> Is this the time to make a quick. It is one one last comment. I also just want to thank city staff with working with our team on this on this [3:31:58 PM] item. >> Thank you very much, council member. The vote will be on item number 51 as amended. Is there further discussion? Hearing none without objection, item number 51, as amended, is adopted with council member harper-madison being off the dais. Yes. Councilmember. Councilmember duchen will be shown as voting no on item number 51. So it is item number 51, as amended, is adopted with councilmember duchen voting no and council member harper-madison off the dais. Members that will now take us to item number 59, which is also alic hearing. So without objection, we will open the public hearing on item number 59. The public hearing is now open and I will turn to the city. We have staff. Yes. >> Good afternoon, mayor and council. Apologies, George. Ruslan with urban design Austin planning. Before we begin. I'm sorry. >> No apology necessary. Thank you sir. Glad to hear from you. [3:33:00 PM] >> Before we begin this item, I just wanted to address that. We have received three postponement requests on this item, one from the university of Texas at Austin to your April 9th city council meeting, one from the judge's hill neighborhood to the west of the subject property. Also to your April 9th meeting and another from the university area partners per city code section 25 2283 of the land development code. The council should address these postponement requests as this is the first time the item has appeared on the council agenda, and these are the first requests by the parties. If you decide to move forward, staff is prepared to present the reasons why you should should consider and support the staff recommendation. Thank you mayor. >> Thank you. So members, as has been pointed out, city code requires that they're on a first request like this, that there be a discussion of whether or not there will be a postponement. We've had three requests for postponement, and that's what he has just laid out for us. What I would [3:34:04 PM] suggest we do, unless somebody tells me that this violates city code and I'm looking at a few faces, but I don't think it does, is we go ahead and conduct the public hearing. We allow people to speak, and as they speak, they will be speaking to whether or not the merits of the matter, but they will also be telling us whether or not they think it ought to be postponed, at which point we can make a determination about whether or not it ought to be postponed. And that can be done as part of the discussion about moving forward, unless there's objection. That's the way I would recommend we go forward. All right. With that being said, thank you very much, and I appreciate you reminding me of that. So, members, as I've indicated, this is a public hearing on item number 59. I don't remember opening the public hearing, but let's make let's make sure we have. Without objection, the public hearing is now open, and I will turn to the city clerk's office to call for speakers for the public hearing on item number 59. >> Thank you. Mayor. I have Leah boho, Megan meisenbach, [3:35:05 PM] Philip Wylie, sue Howard. Josue, are you here? Yes. What about William Schmidt? Okay. Miss hord will have four minutes. >> You've been called on. Please go ahead and address us. >> Hello, mayor and council. I'm here on behalf of the applicant. I will first just speak to the postponement request. This is the fifth public hearing that we've had on this item. You all may remember that it came before you about a month ago. We have had several conversations with folks in and around the UT about this, and we understand that they would like another meeting, and we said we would be happy to have that later. You know, we we offered yesterday and they weren't available. So we'll be having that later on. And that seemed to be fine. I'm happy to go into the merits of the case if I should do that. Now. >> This is the public hearing. If you want to be heard, this is the time to do it. >> Got it. So this is the I'm [3:36:08 PM] going to go through it pretty quickly. This is the location you can see here. It's just south of west campus in the and just adjacent to judge's hill. This is obviously a pretty, pretty fantastic part of Austin to live in and walk in and bike in and, and bus in and all of that. We have been through an extensive process. Like I said, rezoning. And now here with you for the density bonus application, the density bonus you may have read in your backup would actually only go on the eastern part of the site. They're on the two sides that aren't shaded. That's where the height that you're approving would go. Even though the entire project is a density bonus project. We did that for one reason being to sort of have it be stepping down to the judges hill neighborhood, even though we'll be doing density bonus things on both sides of the site, including like great streets, for example, on all four sides. I'm going to skip through some of this stuff. You can see here that on the north track, it's going to be a mix of hotel and condo units. On the south track will be rental [3:37:08 PM] multifamily. This is what the building looks like from the north. This is a stacking elevation. If you're interested in having any questions about that. This is some of the height nearby. You can see that there is a variety of height, height options, taller height available in the site near here. This is an uno map just to show you that the height, there's 300ft. It's not maybe not exactly across the street, but it's pretty dang close. And this is uno today without any changes. This is community benefits. This is closing curb cuts. I'm almost done. You're done. I'm done. >> Thank you. Yeah. >> Good afternoon, city council mayor. >> I'm Megan eisenbach, district ten. Sorry, district nine. And in the judge's hill neighborhood would like to ask for postponement. This is the site of 50 years of dry cleaning with cancer causing chemicals near near the [3:38:09 PM] university campus on martin Luther king Jr boulevard. Judges hill supports the staff recommendation of a Lim of 200ft. But today we ask for a postponement of this item 59 so that more information and study of the migration of these cancer causing chemicals, which also cause birth defects across nueces street, where the little shoal creek. Is vaulted and runs down to fifth street. And it's there's a concern that the chemicals have breached the vault. Thank you for your service. >> Thank you. If your name has been called, just feel free to step up and identify yourself and utilize the microphone. >> My name is Brad snow. I reside in district seven. I'm [3:39:10 PM] here to testify in in favor of Mr. >> Mr. Mr. Snow I'm sorry I haven't called your name, but I noticed that you have time donated to you. So let me check on that. Okay. Betsy Greenberg. >> She's still here. >> And Jeffrey Bowen. >> He's here too. >> So, Mr. Snow, you're going to get six minutes. >> Okay. Thank you. So my backnd is I'm a self-employed environmental consultant with 44 years of experience investigating and cleaning up contaminated soil and groundwater sites, including surface water sites from a wide variety of chemicals. And I am very involved in evalug the exposure of chemicals in the subsurface to humans and to ecological receptors. And so I've spoken to you before about this particular property, about the risks associated with dry cleaning chemicals, specifically tetrachloroethylene and its [3:40:12 PM] biegradation byproducts over time. And the focus previously was on the the potential for vapors to enter into buildings and contaminate indoor air with these cancer causing substances. And so the risk is that. Vapors would come up from the ground, from the soil and groundwater, enter into the breathing space and affect people. But this morning I found out about a different issue that Megan meisenbach had just mentioned, and that it happens that there is tunnels, basical vaults that submerge a creek beneath nueces street. And the problem with that is that at the jack.brown cleaner site, the groundwater is very shallow in that vicinity, as in sometimes in some places as shallow as less than two feet below the [3:41:12 PM] ground surface. And so this underground structure very likely intercepts groundwater. And it's very likely, in my opn, at least preliminarily, that groundwater that'scontaminated is discharging into that tunnel. Now, where it goes from there is it would then go downstream within that tunnel D to fifth street and potentially beyond, while contaminating groundwater, contaminating surface water within that tunnel system. And so the, the potential is that could affect downstream users and wherever it daylights and discharges to the surface water. So the concern here is that there could be exposures that are not even accounted for yet. And so this is new information I learned this morning. And for that reason I'm I'm asking for a postponement. One thing that I didn't really cover when I spoke to you previously, when I was addressing the vapor intrusion risks into indoor air quality was just how much these [3:42:15 PM] groundwater concentrations exceed the us EPA's vapor intrusion screening levels. And so to give you some context for it, these concentrations in groundwater are three orders of magnitude, actually by a factor of 2100 times higher than that vapor intrusion screening level. And so this isn't some small deviation from a potential standard, and it certainly merits further investigation. I would urge you to have city staff do further investigation into this issue, and I'm happy to assist in that in any way possible. And so and that was based on maximum concentrations. Historically, the most recent data shows concentrations that exceed it by a factor of about 500. And you can expect these concentrations to continue to be high into the indefinite future because there was such high concentrations of these dry, cleaner chemicals in the groundwater that it suggests [3:43:16 PM] that that the material is present in the subsurface as a free product is actually the separate phase dry cleaning chemical pce, not just dissolved in groundwater, but actually that it's present as smears is that particular product and is in globules and that kind of thing in the soil. So that poses an additional risk. >> Thank you sir. >> You're welcome. >> Good afternoon. Philip Wylie speaking on behalf of the downtown Austin neighborhood association. We oppose any further postponements in this case. It seems at times like it's been going on forever, like a groundhog day rehash. This is not in the borders, the united or university area partners. It is not within the borders of the judge'sl neighborhood association. It is not within the borders of the [3:44:18 PM] university of Texas. It is within the borders of the downtown Austin neighborhood association. The chart that's up on the screen shows the borders for bryker woods school during code. Next, we had a very important objective to try to allow more housing to be built in areas that were zoned to high opportunity schools. This is a very it's an exceptionally good school that's at risk of closing. We need more people. And if you go to the next chart, I don't know of a better place to put them than here. I've lived in the area for going on 34 years. Bryker woods is split between district ten and the left of Lamar, the west of Lamar, and district nine on the east. This looks to me like the place to put them. It's on the left of [3:45:18 PM] the screen here. You'll see what I W consider to be the nicest children's park in the city of Austin. Next chart please. This chart shows on the the right. The Cambridge tower above that the dobie tower in blue is the subject site and right above that. And these were all. Game changing buildings. When they went up the purple site on the top was the first and only building allowed over 175ft in the uno. Thank you very much for your service. >> My name is Joseph Howard. I'd like to just clarify something. You're wanting us to give you our reasons why we want a postponement. [3:46:19 PM] >> That would be helpful too. >> As well as our statement of opposition. Yes, because I believe some of the previous speakers have been a bit confused. Confused, and they have not given you their presentation. They've merely spoken like Mr. Snow just spoke to the the postponement. >> Well, I don't know what to tell you. Why don't you tell us what you want us to hear? >> All right. What about the people who have already. >> Well, they've already spoken, so why don't you tell us what you want us to. >> All right. Okay. My name is Josue Howard, and I'm here this afternoon to express my concerns about this project's drastic height and its resulting incompatibility in this area of Austin. I wish to reiterate that the city staff agrees and recommends a maximum of 200ft that then we haven't heard the city staff report yet. I live in a state and city landmarked historic house, [3:47:19 PM] which is a mere 200ft from the requested change. There are at least 14 other such landmark structures surrounding this project as well. I fear two buildings, each over 400ft tall, will overwhelm and minimize the importance of some of Austin's most historic assets. Next slide. These historical sites are shown in green on this map surrounding the proposed skyscrs in red. These sites include such structures as an Abner cook home on west avenue and the Goodall Wooten home on martin Luther king Jr boulevard. Next slide. The next slide contains photographs of these outstanding historic properties. These proposed twin towers above the historic judge's hill district, which was expected to be protected under the downtown [3:48:19 PM] Austin plan. That is a compromise reached after months and months of work by the city and the community. The downtown Austin plan vision and its regulation is to decrease building heights as one moves further away from the central core and closer to the judges held district. But these twin towers will leap up out of nowhere to over 400ft tall, dwarfing everything around them, including the new courthouse, all buildings in uno, and especially the beloved university of Texas tower. Next slide please. The. This slide shows the height of this requested construction, which is blue on the left in relation to the height of the existing buildings, which are even further away from judges hill district in all substantially less tall. As you can see, the [3:49:19 PM] heights stated there. Next slide. This slide shows the same buildings but on an area map. The proposed building is the one in red 445ft. The existing buildings are blue and the area of uno, which is directly uno, which is directly across mlk from the jack brown site, is capped at 175ft. You can see that the shorter buildings are all to the east of this project, away from the judges hill district, just as the dap envisioned. The developer is essentially asking the city to grant center city heights while enjoying suburban priced dirt, two items stipulated in the urban design guidelines checklist, which are mandated to be considered in granting such density. Bonuses, [3:50:21 PM] are, quote, respected adjacent historic buildings, end quote, end Q. Protect important public views, end quote. By overshadowing Austin's history and the university of Texas tower, this project has complied with neither. Thank you for your time and your service to the city. >> Thank you very much. >> Mary Selig Maddox. Are you here? I'm here. Oh, is atlas Mueller here? Okay, you will have four minutes. And miss Maddox followed by Scott sayers, Richard suttle and Judah rice. Thank you. >> Mayor, mayor pro tem and council members, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I'm Maricela Maddox, a resident of judges hill for over 23 years and the president of the judges hill neighborhood association. The neighborhood and the developer reached an impasse on a restrictive [3:51:23 PM] covenant intended to address the toxic chemicals known to be in the ground for over 50 years at the jack.brown cleaner site. We worked hard in good faith, but the developer would not incorporate several essential protections into the final draft and also expected the neighborhood to support the project and its requested entitlements, including the height that take it or leave it approach was not something our neighborhood could support. Today, I want to focus primarily on compatibility and scale. The developer's agent has described this project as an experience. We too have a vision for this corridor along mlk boulevard. It is the gateway to the university of Texas west campus and the museum district. A proposal for two 445 foot tall towers at this location is simply incompatible with the setting. There is nothing of that height north of 11th street. These towers would be dramatic outliers, overshadowing the UT tower at 307ft. Nearby west campus buildings around 300ft. [3:52:24 PM] The Travis county family court at 200ft, and the many historic landmarks that my neighbor Josue just told you about, I ask you to consider what it means to place two 445 foot buildings at the edge of judges hill district, the historic district, an area that is currently in the process of becoming a national register historic district. The district boundaries are shown on this slide, and we have a determination of eligibility from the Texas historical commission. Judges. Hill has a distinct and valuable character. It is not just a collection of older homes and landmar it is part of the story of Austin and west campus, and part of what gives this corridor its identity and sense of place. People are drawn to areas that feel authentic and layered and connected. This gateway corridor is valuable to the broader community and to visitors of Austin who come to experience this part of the city. These skyscrapers would not complement that character, [3:53:24 PM] nor would they fit in with the UT campus, west campus, or the pedestrian oriented cultural spaces near the Blanton ransom center and the Bob bullock Texas state history museum. We do support the more appropriate height recommended by city staff 200ft and ask that you vote with the staff's city staff's recommendation, and we hope that should the developer move forward with any project on this property, they do so with integrity and responsibility for the toxic chemicals in the dirt that we know to be there, according to public data. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Hi. Judah rice, district three. I'd just like to say a few words about this project. I think this is an absolute slam dunk of a project that delivers 435 units of housing, including more than 43 bedroom apartments. As a previous speaker mentioned in an area that's zoned to bryker woods elementary, which has been badly needing enrollment. And those are family sized apartments, which [3:54:24 PM] are few and far between downtown. It also brings in $3.3 million into the city's affordable housing trust fund. That's a little under 3% of the entire budget. Ask under the last tax rate election coming just from this project, just from its affordable housing trust fund dedication. When you factor in the future property tax revenue from this, it makes great fiscal sense to approve this project to allow more funding for essential city services without having to raise taxes further on other people. I'd also like to say that, you know, the character of a neighborhood is made up of the people in the neighborhood, and not just of the buildings. I love the historic homes and judges hill, and sometimes I feel like as a young person and as a renter, I'm not even welcome to walk around in that neighborhood. Just speaking from a personal level, I'm not accusing anyone, but I just I it feels hostile sometimes. And I, I, I don't know, I think we need more people to be around to create more community and [3:55:27 PM] everyone can be coexisting together. Tall buildings are not scary to me. It sounds like there's just more neighbors who get to enjoy living in beautiful downtown Austin in one of, you know, one of the great cities that we have. So delay is not a neutral option here. There's costs to not just to the project, but to city staff and everyone who has to deal with this. And I don't think there's a strong reason for it. The remediation, if this project isn't approved, I don't know who woulde doing it at all. So I'm running out of time. But that's all I have to say there. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Mr. Sara, before you begin, is Julie sayers here? Okay. You have four minutes. >> Thank you, mayor, and thank you, council members. I'm Scotty sayers, own 1800 nueces and president of the west downtown alliance. My wife, Julie and I have owned our property since 1985. We've watched the many changes in the neighborhood over the years and [3:56:28 PM] seen the transformation of houses that were residences originally. Over the last five decades, they've become various commercial and service businesses. We run two businesses from our 90 year old building, Corinne crenshaw, our golf course architecture firm, with my friend Ben crenshaw, and Texas state directory press, which my wife owns. So I'm here both as a property owner and as a 42 year occupant of abusiness space in this neighborhood. Our west downtown alliance neighborhood association board of directors is fully in support of this project and believe it is a natural progression, natural progression of the council's desire for growth in the downtown area. Our neighborhood from the east side of Rio grande down to San Antonio street is not historic in nature, especially the properties that are part of this application. Our office building is an old structure, probably built from a sears and [3:57:29 PM] roebuck design plan. Apartments nearby are old and have undergone significant. 25 years ago, the jack brown cleaners abandoned their plant about 25 years ago, and it's now just a pickup location. And frankly, it's an eyesore. Just as the old 7-eleven building next door is. And mayor, I think you and I are probably the oldest ones here. Remember using that 7-eleven? >> You're losing ground when you start. >> Regarding the claims about any fluid issues, I can only tell you that my wife and I are still here and healthy after 42 years occupying our property full time, and there have been thousands of occupants in the apartments next door through the years, and I've never heard of any lawsuits testing on the block and in fact, on surrounding blocks took place for at least 15 years from 2006 until 2020, the state released [3:58:32 PM] the property. There were no remarkable findings, and I've got 150 of these reports that were sent to my office monthly, and I was really interested observer of this personally. As a longtime austinite, I am concerned with the history and future development of our city. As chairman of the Texas state cemetery for 12 years and co-chair of the muni conservancy with my friend Ben crenshaw, I do realize the importance of historic sites in our city. This block is not of historic importance, and our neighborhood is not a part of judges hill. Judges hill is residential and our west downtown area is principally commercial and office. And I do have respect for judges hill because of their history with the city of Austin, but we're just not a part of it. Our neighborhood needs new visionary development, and it makes sense and aligns with the council's desire for walkability and connectivity near the downtown area. We're [3:59:34 PM] not in the capitol view corridor, and with the west campus height limitations having been raised over the year, this project is consistent with heights just one block away north of mlk and with the new county courthouse at San Antonio in 18th, and with the planned graduate hotel at Guadalupe and 18th, the 120 foot height of this project along Rio grande. Graduating to taller heights as a topography slopes makes perfect sense and will be an attractive and important part of the future of the neighborhood. The time is right for this now, with no postponementand we respectfully ask for your support. >> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. >> All speakers for 59 have been called. >> Are you still got one? And come forward. >> How much time do I have? >> You have two minutes. Two minutes. Mayor. >> Members of the council. My name is Richard suttle. I'm [4:00:36 PM] here on behalf of the university of Texas at Austin. I'm not sure who miojo's been talking to, but not the people that I report to. If you act on this today and pass it, you will be doing something different. And maybe we're in a different world, but UT stands with the two neighborhood associations that are asking for the postponement for the first time, for a little more time. Uts issue is a little different. T just want more time. They actually were supportive of the zoning case at 120ft. When they found out that a density bonus was being asked for 200ft, that was okay, because that's a scale of basically the Hyatt across the river, the Catherine and the river south buildings. And that's probably okay because that's that's about what's going on in that neighborhood. To hear talk that 445ft is compatible or is the same as the 300ft across the street or the 175 actually right across thetrtreet? It's just it's just not true. So UT asked, first of all, for postponement of the [4:01:36 PM] case for two weeks to to see what the infrastructure can carry and what this this plan will actually mean. And then two, if it's if you don't postpone it, they ask that it be denied and UT supports your city staff. That would be the next interesting thing that will happen today. If you don't postpone and you do support the 445, you will be basically rolling two neighborhood groups, the university of Texas and your city staff on two different issues, which is if this is how our we're going to do it, that's fine. The other thing is different is you're granting you would be granting height to a building that is basically like a pod. And as you as we all know, we've been through several pods together without the commensurate concessions being made. So with that, UT asks postponement, if not postponement. UT does not support the 445 but does support your city staff's 200. Thank you. >> Thank you. I'm members. I'm [4:02:37 PM] assuming that you went a minute ago. You said everybody had that signed up to speak, because this is the public hearing. Before we close the public hearing, I want to make sure we follow the code provisions and turn to the city staff and make sure that we hear from city staff on postponement and on the issue of posement and on your position with regard to the item members, what I'm going to do is in order to make sure we follow code, is I want to ask for a motion either to postpone or to deny postponement. The motion can go either way. And then what I'll do after that, depending upon the results of that, we will go to what would be the main motion on approval or denial of of the item itself. Of course, we'll have to close the public hearing, but before we close the public hearing, I want to turn to city staff. >> Thank you, mayor and council. [4:03:38 PM] It's great to be back. I appreciate it. So just. >> In time. No see. >> Thank you sir. Just to summarize that, the project has met the gatekeeper requirements of the downtown density bonus program, and they are asking for an increase in maximum building height as well as floor area ratio from 5 to 1 to 20 to 1, and from 120ft to 445ft. The staff recommends approval of the request with conditions that the approval be granted up to 200ft, maximum building height and corresponding F a R, and the rationale is to ensure better consistency and balance with surrounding entitlement patterns. We've looked at the zoning and development patterns along mlk, and we feel that this also aligns. The staff recommendation aligns with the evolving policy direction given under the E, D overlays and density bonus program updates that you have launched under phase one and phase two that are coming to you later this year. The staff recommendation also maintains better alignment with recent council zoning [4:04:39 PM] actions in the university area and direction to initiate the central city plan. The requested height and F.A.R is out of scale and proportion with the surrounding development that you find along mlk with with the analysis that staff made that, you know, heights generally range between 120 and 175ft directly across from the subject property, up to 300ft in the inner west campus uno district. The etod and D B etod overlays establish a height of 60 to 120ft of maximum height that are stationed near transit. Furthermore, ongoing updates to the central city plan, as well as the density bonus program, phase one and phase two options that are coming to you back later this year also reinforce the staff recommendation. The planning commission has recommended unanimous approval of the applicant request for 20 to 1 F, a R and 445 maximum [4:05:41 PM] building height, and staff feels quite confident that the recommendation put forward by staff is in accordance with recent council action. Thank you mayor. >> Thank you. Members, any questions of staff? Yes. Councilmember alter. >> Can you just refresh our memory and I may have some of these. Incorrect, but we are updating and you mentioned the core district as well as uno. I guess. Let me start with uno. We have talked about updating uno. Where is that from the planning department. >> That is if I may mayor. >> Yeah. Please answer his questions. >> Thank you. That is on pause at the at the moment that's not proceeding. What is proceeding is the central city plan, which is essentially an update to the downtown Austin plan with adding additional areas as well as the updates to the downtown density bonus program under phase one and phase two. Phase one is slated to come sometime [4:06:42 PM] in may, phase two later in the year. >> And under that core plan, do you have heights in mind that you're working on or of able to share? I'm trying to figure out where this fits in to where we're going. It may not be consistent with all the rules exactly as they are today, but if those rules are going to change in three months, and this all of a sudden is consistent with those rules, I think that's something we need to know. >> Sure. Council member, we're not at that point yet where we have identified specific heights. That's something that we're bringing along with your phase one and phase two density bonus that will address this specific area for F, a, R, and maximum building height. But that also has to tie in with the work that's being done and correlate with the central city plan that will come much later. Okay. >> And there was mention about infrastructure when y'all are making your recommendations, or is that something you're analyzing or are you looking just at what's kind of the footprint in that specific area? [4:07:42 PM] >> We do talk about those issues from a staff point of view, but we also look at the physical impact of the scale and the form around this area. So we've seen with the recent zoning changes as well as the policy direction from the council, nothing near this height. We're seeing around 200ft or so, 175 up to 300 in the uno district. But in this particular area, nothing near that height. And so we have not done an in-depth analysis on infrastructure elements to answer your question, but it is something we do consider at a high level. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Very much. >> Thank you. Councilmember. Any other council members have questions? Councilmember qadri. >> Is this also the time to ask the applicant any questions? >> Well, I'm going to give the applicant a moment to rebut here in just a moment, two minutes worth of moments to rebut here in just a second. And that might be the better time. Is that okay? Any other questions of our staff right now? Okay. Very good. >> Thank you. >> Mayor. Applicant would like to come forward after all of this. Before we close the public hearing, I will offer [4:08:43 PM] you two minutes as an opportunity to rebut or close. >> Thank you mayor, I will I will keep it quick. I would just want to point out a few things. First of all, I want to point out that there are some judges hill neighborhood transitions that I was getting to in my presentation, in addition to the height stepping down to 120ft on the western side, we also put all of our more intense commercial uses facing away from the neighborhood. We put our pocket park on their side. There have been a variety of design considerations that have been made through the process. Excuse me. I also want to P out that we did deliver a restrictive covenant to the neighbors that would commit to additional testing of the site. While they did decide not to sign that, as you heard, we are still committed to that, and I'm happy to talk more about that. If you'd like to hear more about it, I want to point out that the process that we're using here to increase the height from using the downtown density bonus is a process that will remain in, in, in process and remain in in effect. So this was just created last fall when y'all changed the height limit in downtown. So other property owners will have the ability to come forward on a [4:09:44 PM] case by case basis, regardless of what the entitled heights are through the core plan, this will remain in place. This project takes a ton of city boxes. It has art space in it. It has residential. It has a huge affordable housing fee in lieu. Our timeline has been clear since the beginning. Like I said, this is our fifth public hearing that we've had. This has been very, very public case, and we have made our timeline set in January and we have gone forward with it. So this is not a surprise and we don't have the time to postpone. And that's why I'm here asking you to support this case today. Thank you. >> Councilmember qadri, do you have questions? >> Yes, sir. I have a few questions for the applicant. The first one, you touched on it a bit, judges hill's main concern that we heard today were environmental issues stemming from the dry cleaner side, especially as it related to vapor. Is the applicant committing to studying and remediating these issues on the site? >> Yes. >> And then my second question had to do with benefits. You talked about the great streets on on all the sides. I know, I know seeing it ground floor [4:10:46 PM] activation, retail and all that. Could you talk a little bit more about some other benefits? Could you talk about what the funding for affordable housing? I know one of the speakers, I don't see them anymore here, but they had mentioned 3.3 million for the affordable housing fund. And then also around septet, if you could also which is which is crime prevention as it relates to the way we kind of design our city. >> Absolutely. So I'll start with that one. So we are designing this building to be not only safer than of course, the situation is today, which is not hard, but to also be safer than a lot of other new buildings that are going in. For example, it has a 20 foot alley between it, which we're of course keeping. We're designing it in such a way that it can be activated and used for like farmers markets, events and things like that with lighting. And even on a daily basis, we're going to have we have the design so that the facade wraps around the corners to signal to pedestrians that they can actually cross through that alley. It will be wider than usual. It's a 20 foot alley, [4:11:47 PM] but we've actually set the building back about eight feet so that it's so that if trucks are in there loading, it can serve the function that an alley would traditionally serve, but can also serve as a safe pedestrian path through the building. We I'm trying to remember the other questions. >> Well, the one the second question has to do with benefits, benefits. And is it related to affordable housing grade streets? Yes, safety, public safety. And the first question had to do with the environmental concerns that were brought forward by sof the folks in judge's hill. >> That's right. So the other you know, the other benefits, it is about a $3.3 million affordable housing trust fund fee. We are probably going to put some units on site. That's the plan. But then, you know, on site units downtown is not common. So the plan is to put to do a mix of on site units, ideally targeting artists, ideally targeting the same artists that are going to be able to use the art space on the first floor. I think that outer space is a huge community benefit as well. And, and then from a safety perspective, in addition to the alley that I [4:12:48 PM] just outlined, we are closing 11 curb cuts. This will have one curb cut. And right now it has 120 foot curb cut along west mlk just as a starting point. So there's no question that this is going to be a much safer environment. If anyone's walked by there, you'll see that. And then, and yeah, as I touched on, on the environmental remediation, we actually have hired the top vapor intrusion engineer in the state of Texas. You know, we have hired him. We have a contract with him. Even though the restrictive covenant wasn't signed, we will be working with him to do any study anywhere on the site that's required. And of course, remediating it, even though we're not expecting any additional things to be found, we will be taking that action. >> Great. >> Thank you, thank you. >> All right. Anything else you want to say before the public hearing? Thank you very much, members. We've now had the presentation from staff. We've heard from both parties and we've had a rebuttal by the applicant. So without objection, [4:13:49 PM] we will close the public hearing on item number 59. Hearing none, the public hearing on item number 59 is closed. With that being said, in order to make sure we comply, I would like to do is take up first a motion with regard to the request for postponement, the first request for postponement. Mayor pro tem. >> I move we deny the postponement. >> Motion has been made to deny the postponement by the mayor pro tem. It is seconded by council member Velasquez. Discussion with regard to the motion. And again, if you vote in favor of this motion, you are voting to deny a postponement. I just want to be clear. Do you want to say something? >> No, I just wanted this was multiple public hearings. I think all our offices have have been, you know, thinking about talking about this. I want to say this is the third time I've seen a presentation on this. [4:14:49 PM] Again, just very well discussed, very well vetted, very strongly debated issue. I think we're ready to go ahead and move and vote. >> All right. The motion is to deny postponement. A vote in favor of the motion is a vote to deny the postponement. If that motion carries, I will then ask if there is a motion item 59 itself, which in essence be the main motion or the substantive motion. So all those in favor, let me ask this without objection. Without objection, the motion to deny. Is there any further discussion? Let me do that. The motion to deny the postponement is granted. Anybody want to be voting to to allow postponement, mayor? Yes. >> I would, but I realize I'm outnumbered. >> Well, that's that's why that's why I'm asking this. So we can get a record vote. [4:15:50 PM] Council member Ellis and council member duchen will be shown voting no on the motion to deny the postponement. That being the case, and I want to make sure I've recorded everybody's vote appropriately. The motion to deny the postponement is granted. Now I'll entertain a motion on item number 59. Council member qadri, you're recognized. >> I motion to approve the applicants request. >> Second, the motion is made by council member qadri to approve the applicants request. It is seconded by the mayor. Pro tem. Is there discussion on that motion? Councilmember qadri. >> Yeah, I mean, I'm just really excited about about this item. I was talking to council member Ellis about Jimmy John's and tiff streets and and the dry cleaning. I actually have closed at the dry cleaners right now. But, you know, the, the vision of, you know, what we say here on the Dyas about the city that we're going to become. That's this item. It touches on affordability, it touches on walkability. UT [4:16:51 PM] often says they care about an improved student experience. I think that's what this is. I know the city cares about that. I deeply care about that. So I'm excited for this item. >> Mayor pro tem. >> Thank you, mayor. Just a couple of thoughts on on the height. You know, they're asking for what, 400 415ft. And the recommendation is that 200ft, if we cut that to 200ft, that's going to significantly cut into the $3.3 million of affordable housing density bonus fee that we're getting at a time when we're struggling to find money that for that deeply affordable housing that we need to to provide the homeless services that we need. So this is the kind of project that we really need to approve so we can get the, the resources to provide for those that have less. So I just wanted to, to start out with that, you know, unprecedented. I've heard that a few times. I mean, the Cambridge tower, they're just [4:17:54 PM] west of the Bob bullock museum. I'm sure in the 1967 that was an unprecedented, I think what 15 story building, you know, dhobi dorm was, is about 30 storeys, a little less than 30 stories. I think that was completely unprecedented at its time. I mean, we have built a water line today is as the tallest building in Texas is unprecedented. So I don't think that's a real barrier. We want to go high on these buildings, big buildings like the one that is being proposed. Not only do they pay big density bonus fees to the city, they also Wright big property tax checks to the city. So when I look forward and I think of the, you know, sustaining our public safety, providing funds for our libraries and our parks, I just think it's absolutely critical that we move forward with these types of projects. 12 zero vote from planning commission, three blocks from our proposed light [4:18:56 PM] rail system just to the east, about five blocks, six blocks from P's park, one of the best parks in the city of Austin and just a gorgeous park just to the the west. And just to put it in context, there was a great report that staff put together on on uno about a year or so ago where they. The analysis showed that on an inflation adjusted basis, apartments in west campus today are cheaper than they were 20 years ago. And that's because of the quantity of apartments that we have built right next to the university THAs 50,000, 50,000 plus students. I think there were 55,000 enrolled this year, 20,000 employees. To me, this is just a an obvious site for a great building as proposed. I wholeheartedly support it. >> Thank you. Any further discussion? The motion is to [4:19:57 PM] approve the applicant the applicant's request. It is seconded by the mayor pro tem. There being no further discussion. Without objection, the item number 59 is adopted with councilmember duchen being shown voting no. >> I'll abstain. >> Councilmember Ellis being shown abstaining. The motion. >> Mr. Mayor, with all due respect, can you say council member? Duchen. >> No, no. Council member Ellis abstain and me virtual. >> Well, I'm you're if you're on here now, you're getting to vote virtual or otherwise. Are you voting in favor? >> You are sending me text messages right now wondering whether or not I'm present. >> Well, you have not been present, but your present now because I can see you. So you you vote yes. Or do you vote no? Or do you abstain? >> I vote yes. >> Okay, so I'll call the vote again with the vote is the we adopt motion. The motion on [4:20:57 PM] item number 59 with council member duchen being shown voting no and council member Ellis being shown abstaining. >> And council member harper-madison shown virtual. But yes. >> I don't think anybody's lost the fact that you're being shown virtually. I'm not sure that's not a vote. You are voting yes in favor of it, is that right? >> Correct. >> Okay. We got your vote. Thank you, thank you. That being said, that takes care. I think of item number 59 that will now take us to item number 65. I'm sorry. Item number 65 is also a public hearing. We will open the public hearing on item number 65. The public hearing is now open. And I'll turn to the city clerk. >> Thank you. Mayor. I have a couple remote speakers for 65 Mary Russ. >> Hello, my name is Mary Ross and I live in district nine. I [4:22:00 PM] saw the note that this is being postponed. I hope that it still is being postponed. When I heard that it was coming back, I was really disheartening to hear. That just felt like I was being rushed through. And I don't think anybody wants more billboards anywhere, and I'm really glad that you guys are pausing on it to see what the real implications on all of your constituents are. I appreciate your time. Thank you. >> Kevin Corke. >> Yes, this is Kevin cook. I serve on the landmark commission, but I'm speaking Lang capacity. I also understand that there is going to be a vote to postpone. There are a number of other people who wohave would have stuck around to speak on this if it were otherwise. And I'm very glad it's being postponed and hope that when it comes back April 23rd, that it's very much changed. And, you know, we the citizens that live along the expressways that are going to be impacted by these billboards, would very much like to be engaged on the issues and to know the the the real public [4:23:01 PM] interest in doing this, however it happens. And yes, thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Margaret Lloyd. >> Good afternoon. Thank you, mayor Watson. And mayor pro tem vela and council members. My name is Margaret Lloyd and I'm the scenic Texas on the scenic Texas advisory board. But today I'm representing our scenic Austin members who oppose agenda item 65. We are in favor of the postponement and hope that they'll be further engagement, which there has been a very has been a lack of till now. I remember, Mr. Mayor, and probably you do too, about 20 years ago, when the Austin city council granted billboard relocations from scenic to scenic R. If two billboards were removed, the president of [4:24:03 PM] scenic Austin, Gerard Kinney, who some of you may know, simultaneously asked that council adopt a resolution stating that ultimately Austin become billboard free because the city council was convinced that the relocations would ultimately meet both requests. Thus, that city council agreed to allowing newly relocated billboards, but also resolved to ultimately become billboard free. Like many other American cities and for states Maine, Vermont, Alaska, and Hawaii. Now, let's fast forward to today, 20 years plus later, the city has allowed some 80 to 100 newly constructed billboards, but it seems to be no closer to a billboard free city than it was back then. Even so, today the billboard companies are asking for more. So we ask that [4:25:05 PM] you say enough is enough. We ask that you take back your city from billboard companies by denying their current request for more. But we also request that you repeal the previously allowed sections that allow relocations. >> Thank you very much. >> I'm going to switch to in-person speakers. I have Betsy Greenberg, Maria morales, Robert Schmidt, rich Heyman. >> If your name's been called, please come forward and take a seat. >> My name is Betsy Greenberg and I live in district nine, one block west of Guadalupe, giving me the privilege of convenient transit access as well as easy viewing to numerous billboards. Council member vela posted that he was moving for a postponement. I support that postponement, he [4:26:05 PM] said. There's many unanswered questions. I'd lto go over as many of those as I can. How many off site signs, I.e. Billboards, need to be relocated for I-35 or for project connect? And of these in each category, how many can't be relocated near their current location? How many can't be relocated under the current regulations? What is the cost of condemning a sign? Well, the answer depends on the gross revenue of each sign. Has there been a study to determine for the signs the cost of those relocations or condemnations? As with costs for eminent domain for the I-35 project? Why isn't this just part of the project cost for which txdot is responsible? While not txdot responsibility, aren't signs removed for project connect as part of the project cost like land acquisition that's needed? Austin has a long standing goal to eliminate off premise [4:27:05 PM] billboards. Has that goal changed? Isn't it easier to relocate a billboard? Why counter to this goal? Why is 150ft from a residence the right distance? The planning commission came up with that number. It seemed like in the spur of the moment, without any site study. Why is this more important than all the other negative impacts of transportation projects like the loss of wheatville, my neighborhood grocery store, not to mention the condemnation of so many properties along I-35? And why do we want to allow billboards in more locations? And how do you possibly claim that this term has no fiscal impact? Thank you. >> Good afternoon, mayor and council members. My name is Maria morales. I live in district nine. I'm here to oppose item 65. Austin has worked hard to reduce billboards and protect our scenic character, allowing them to be relocated closer to [4:28:05 PM] neighborhoods and built taller moves in the wrong direction. This is about quality of life. Billboards near homes bring light pollution, visual clutter and disruption for residents, while also impacting property values, wildlife and the environment that makes Austin special. I stand with neighbors who care deeply about this city and want the opportunity to be fully heard. I ask that you work with Austin on this issue and not just the billboard companies. Austin's beauty and character are worth protecting. Please vote no on item 65. I thank you for your time. >> Thank you. Yes, sir. >> My name is rich Hartman. I live in district nine. I'm also under the impression that this item is going to be postponed, but I want to urge you to vote no. Anyway, there's really no justification for this. Carve out for condemned land. When the land is condemned, the property owner is compensated. That's what eminent domain is. [4:29:07 PM] That's what land acquisition costs are for. This would be twice dipping, and it flies in the face of the city's commitment to doing away with billboards. Vote no. There's no reason to do this. Carve out other than to line the pockets of these companies. >> Jim walker, William bunch, Peter Kim. >> I've not seen them today. I've seen them a bunch, but I haven't seen the other two. >> That's all speakers for item 65, then members. >> Those are all the speakers on item number 65. So without objection, we will close the public hearing on item number 65. The public hearing is now closed. Members, I will entertain a motion with regard to item number 65. Mayor pro tem, you're recognized. >> Thank you. Mayor. As I posted on the message board, I would move to postpone this item the April 23rd meeting. >> Mayor pro tem has moved that this item be postponed to April [4:30:08 PM] 23rd. It is second by council member Velasquez. Is there discussion on the item? Without any further discussion and without objection, the motion to postpone to April 23rd is granted with council member harper-madison and councilmember Fuentes off the dais. Members, we will now go to item number 66, which is also a public hearing. And without notion, we will open the public hearing on item number 66. The public hearing is now open, and I will ask the city clerk to help us. >> I have two remote speakers, Jaime Puente. >> Thank you for having me. My name is Jaime Puente. I'm the director of economic opportunity for every Texan, a statewide, nonpartisan public research and advocacy organization. I'm speaking on behalf of myself as a resident of district ten and advocate for economic opportunity in our city. I strongly support item [4:31:10 PM] 66 and the smart city kiosk program. While I understand their concerns, I'm glad to see this project moving forward because it is one more tool in Austin's economic opportunity toolbox. The Austin metropolitan region has a workforce that is three years younger than the us median average in 2023. And while we are number one in college education compared to the other major Texas metro areas, we still have seven, five, 7.5% of our younger workforce without a college degree. As much has been done to modernize opportunity. There is still young austinites being left behind because of their economic circumstances mean, among other things, that they lack access to reliable internet. This program has been has the potential to make real difference for people in Austin by providing them access to connect with information during a busy commute from one job to another. I see how these kiosks kiosks can make it easier for folks to find things like local events, resources, and what's happening in their neighborhoods. But I see the most benefit to Texans needing one more spot to check their [4:32:11 PM] child online homework, access to a doctor's visit, or simply make a free whatsapp call home. I appreciate that programs like this can highlight local culture, give more visibility to people and organizations doing important work in our city. More importantly, I support the additional access to high speed internet and places where austinites already might need it. Overall, I see this as a positive investment in making Austin more connected, more informed, and more supportive of our community's economic opportunity needs. I encourage the council to support item 66. Thank you. >> Gabriela bird. >> Hi. Good afternoon, council members. My name is gabby bird and I'm speaking on behalf of latinita we strongly support item 66 and the smart city kiosk program. I'm excited that we have reached this point. Nearly a year after first learning that the kiosks could come to Austin. This initiative will enhance connectivity, access, and cultural engagement across Austin's diverse [4:33:13 PM] neighborhoods. It creates a platform to showcase the creativity and achievements of our educational and cultural organization. Austin is nationally recognized for innovation and thriving creative tech community. This program further strengthens that reputation. I like smart city, also has a strong track record of partnering with organizations to integrate creative programing into their kiosks. Latinitas look forward to collaborating with the city and the ict team to help maximize the impact of this initiative. This program will enrich neighborhoods with public art while highlighting the unique spirit of Austin. We respectfully urge the council to approve item 66 and support the smart city interactive kiosk program. Thank you for your time. >> Moving to in-person speakers. Betsy Greenberg, Hans maverick, Maria morales, rich Heyman, Mary Sanger. [4:34:21 PM] >> My name is Betsy Greenberg and I live in district nine. I am opposed to the changes to the sign regulations proposed today. You are considering the sign regulation changes, allowing large signs with off premise digital advertising, along with waiving city code sections related to initiating code amendments, public hearing notice and planning commission review requirements. As the planning commission already reviewed the amendments, the waiver is about bypassing the public hearing notice. This is in sharp contrast to the process ten years ago, when the changes to the sign ordinance were considered, the council directed the manager at that time to conduct public engagement. The engagement clearly identified participants with a financial interest in billboards. Ultimately, the staff did not recommend the sign ordinance changes in 2016, and Austin fought all the way to the us supreme court to defend our sign regulations. [4:35:22 PM] Now, you've heard about other cities that have smart kiosks. Council member Laine even mentioned that New York City has had digital signs for a long time. I say we are not Houston or Dallas, and we are certainly not New York City. We are Austin. And I think it is high time that you start listening to the public and not just stakelders with a financial interest, direct the manager to conduct the public engagement as was done in 2016. Find out what your constituents want before you take this action. Thank you. >> Good afternoon again. My name is Maria morales. I live in district nine and I'm here to oppose item 66 expanding larger, brighter digital signs in the public right of way, especially for off premises advertising adds unnecessary visual clutter to our city. Austin is not a city of [4:36:23 PM] flashing intrusive signage. We value our views, our green spaces, and a sense of place that feels intentional, not overwhelming. These signs don't just change how Austin looks. They change how it feels. They can distract drivers, disrupt residents, and even become targets for vandalism, further detracting from our public spaces. I stand with neighbors asking for a more thoughtful, transparent approach. This is not the Austin way. Please vote no on item 66. Thank you. >> I'm Mary Sanger. I'm in district nine. I think you are fundamentally changing our community's values, which were behind Austin's supreme court case against digital billboards. And you're doing it in a very undisclosed process. Please postpone this item until there has been a public engagement process. That is what we need. [4:37:25 PM] Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Yes. >> I'm rich Heyman. I live in district nine. This is a sale of our public spaces to a billionaire who is from Columbus, Ohio. He owns Orange barrel media, which owns Ike smart cities. We are selling our public realm to algorithmic billionaires who are going to capture our attention. We are selling the attention of austinites to billionaires. This is a terrible, terrible idea. We need to keep our streets safe from these giant digital billboards in our faces 24 over seven. There are also serious surveillance issues with these kiosks that other cities have brought up. This Orange barrel media is not a partner. They are a predator. They are coming to our city to extract wealth. They are [4:38:26 PM] aggressively targeting cities across the country to expand. I urge everybody to look up Orange barrel media, look up Ike smart cities. Look at what these things look like. Look at the kind of advertisements that are going to be in our faces 24 over this is terrible selling of our public to a billionaire. Pete Scanlon of Columbus, Ohio. Thank you. >> Felicity Maxwell, William bunch, Peter Kim, Daniel Kalman, liza Wimberly, Jeffrey Bowen. >> If your name has been called, please come forward. >> Good afternoon. Felicity Maxwell, d5 resident or board member speaking in favor of item 66. I know you've heard a great deal about digital kiosks, so I'd like to focus on an issue that actually just came up about whether our cities and how our cities can responsibly monetize public assets to [4:39:26 PM] generate community value. Here in Austin, we already do that. We have decade long agreements to parkland concessions like the Texas rowing center. We rent out recreation centers, athletic fields and event spaces, and we thankfully charge for parking along busy streets and in city facilities. And we're not alone. All cities monetize their resources in various ways to bring in revenue to support city services. This program aligns with that existing and widespread practice, leveraging a public asset to provide a service and generate new ongoing revenue streams in the process. In terms of process, the city has already released an rfp, received multiple responses, and selected the most qualified vendor. And importantly, this is not a subsidy. The kiosks are fully funded, installed and maintained by Ike, and the city still received a guaranteed minimum payout of 2 million per year at full buildout. And unlike many other uses of public space, this one is additive. It improves wayfinding and access to city services, supports local cultural institutions and small businesses, and creates a [4:40:26 PM] platform for city communications and community information. These kiosks are popular, and this contract is exactly how public private partnerships should work. Low risk to the city with a strong public upside. Cities across the city are already. Cities across the country are already doing this successfully. The only question for Austin is whether we want to use our public assets as effectively as our peer cities do. We would appreciate your support on this item. Thank you. >> Hello, mayor and council. My name is Daniel Coleman. I'm an tive transportation advocate. I serve on the urban transportation commission in favor of item 66 today. I'm only speaking on behalf of myself. These digital kiosks will improve how people interact with the downtown built environment. I'm someone that for a long time has just advocated over and over and over again for additional and better wayfinding through our active transportation network. And I think that these can be a really exciting and very interactive way to do that. We [4:41:28 PM] need to invest in all sorts of different amenities that are supportive of our active transportation networks. And, and wayfinding is obviously the most exciting of this, but also at the destination, getting you around to small businesses, public art and local culture, and making a really easy way to interact with the amenities that are throughout downtown. What's great is that with a lot of wayfinding, we find that the city installed it and it becomes an operations and maintenance difficulty with a limited budget, especially as resources and budgeting becomes tighter, especially out of the transportationser fee. So to have a private company come in here and install, operate and maintain these and also generate revenue for the city is a cool fix for that problem in downtown. This is an exciting opportunity to deliver public infrastructure that is accessible, revenue generating and aligned with Austin values without cost to taxpayers. [4:42:29 PM] Thank you very much. >> Good afternoon. Yes, sir. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Mr. Mayor, council members first, I've been following this since it went to the planning commission, and. >> It feels weird, but I need to ask you to state your name. >> Did I do that again? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Yeah. Okay. So I've been following this whole process ever since the planning commission. >> You need to state your name. >> Oh, hell yeah. Jeffrey Bowen, district eight. I feel like a regularture anymore. >> You know, as long as you haven't moved out of district eight today. >> No. >> Not today. Okay. You time. >> So I've been following this since the planning commission and the planning commission kicked this to the curb and didn't want to talk about the digital signs because of different concerns. I also voiced my concerns about the privacy issues along with the data collection on that, which I don't see anything in here addressing that I do want to compliment council member Siegel on his additions on the [4:43:30 PM] right of ways, on not being in those areas around single family, but I do question the fact that we have a signed contract, yet we didn't have an ordinance. So isn't this kind of bass ackwards in some regards that we now have? We have a contract since September of 25, and now we're writing the ordinance. I have some confusion there, but then again, I can't speak my name at city council and my district. So but I am concerned about why is the data collection not being addressed. It was at one point we also went or y'all went into executive session. Don't know what happened there, but I assumed it had to do with some of that, those options. And I'm also just really wondering because we are looking at $26,620 per sign or 40% of the revenue as part of the contract, as it is stated. But I would like to really have some of those questions answered before this is ever addressed or voted [4:44:33 PM] on. Thank you very much. Signing off. Jeffrey Bowen. >> From district. >> Well done sir. >> Amy de Luna. Philip Wylie, Jasmine vargas, Kevin Welch, Carl settles, Skye downing, Devon. Barber. Michael Whelan and Ben zohaib. >> If your name's been called, please go ahead and come forward. Mr. Barber, why don't you step up there? >> Thank you. Mayor. Council members Davon barber, president and CEO of the downtown Austin alliance, thank you for the opportunity to address you today and speak in support of item 66, downtown Austin alliance mission is essentially to create, preserve and enhance the vibe, the value and vitality of downtown. We believe that interactive kiosks will significantly advance this mission by providing residents [4:45:34 PM] and visitors with wayfinding services, traffic weather alerts, hyperlocal business directories, and curated civic content. Now, recognizing the importance of a welcoming and navigable downtown city council called for comprehensive wayfinding strategy, including electronic signage and the 2011 downtown Austin plan, which led to the creation of the wayfinding master plan that specifically contemplated the installation of interactive kiosks. Now, as Austin continues to grow rapidly, these kiosks are even more important now than ever. They will enhance the pedestrian experience, making it easier and more enjoyable to engage with our downtown businesses, residents, events and attractions for all residents, new as well as old. Additionally, as construction begins on multiple fronts downtown, the ability for wayfinding and advertising local businesses becomes vital. Interactive kiosks presents a new revenue source for public initiatives through their customizable digital content [4:46:35 PM] featuring civic information, local artwork and commercial messaging. This is a time when any new revenue is desperately needed. The funds generated could support essential services for our unhoused neighbors, park maintenance and improvements, enriching civic events and entertainment. Moreover, the deployment of these kiosks reinforces Austin's stature as a tech savvy community. Now, in closing, I have personally seen the value of digital kiosks and what they can bring to a downtown environment. Thank you. >> Hello, I'm Ben suddaby, resident of district four. I have the opportunity to have an item here that I agree with Mr. Bowen on. I registered neutral on this because I do see the upside, the potential of this digital signage wayfinding. I use it when I am on our rapid 801. You know, when's the bus coming? I like this, there is good potential here, but I also have to give voice to the concerns that I'm hearing across our city from people who [4:47:36 PM] have serious concerns about some of the technology that that might be in this in these signs. Other cities have had it and have had problems with facial recognition in these cameras that are built into them. I think it would be a good opportunity for the council to let people know how this will be subject to protections that you've recently enacted and how their fears, legitimate fears in our current climate about fourth amendment, unlawful searches and seizures of where they're going around, and first amendment rights being trampled on, how those concerns are heard and felt. And I don't know if that action is through a delay or through adding language that says explicitly that this is subject to that as part of a third party agreement. But I would urge you all to address those concerns. There are many people who have have concerns about the benefits of this because of those specific [4:48:38 PM] sensitivities, and I think it's an opportunity to, yes, find revenue sources. I'm also in support of the limitations or the amendments put forth by council member Siegel. I appreciate sensitivity to neighborhoods and stuff like that. In the whole in our urban environment, I can see some potential, but please make sure that we do this the right way. That addresses the concerns that people have about being tracked cameras, ai, all of that stuff. Thank you. >> Thank you. Michael Whalen on behalf of the contracted vendor, Ike, to summarize many of the things you've heard this morning, I wanted and at our last hearing, I just wanted to do that quickly. We're here as a result of a 2024 council resolution, I believe that council member vela initiated that, then initiated a request for proposal for wayfinding kiosks in the public right of way. The city issued a public rfp. Rfp evaluated several [4:49:40 PM] respondents selected the most qualified vendor, I smart city, and executed a contract with them. Since the last time you heard this item, Ike and the city have amended the contract to remove any surveillance or selfie cameras, so there are no cameras to further ensure privacy and added a litigation protection provision ensuring that if the program is ultimately struck down in court, the kiosks are removed and the city bears no financial liability. The kiosks are Ada accessible. Developed in partnership with the national federation of the blind and designed to comply with the public rights of way accessibility guidelines program. They enhance the public realm by providing real time transit and wayfinding tools, amplifying small local businesses. You can't pay for placement and serving as a platform for public services, city resources and critical civic messaging, messaging, and importantly, the kiosk program provides a new ongoing revenue revenue stream to support public services expected to [4:50:41 PM] deliver more than $6 million annually on average, with a guaranteed floor of $2 million per year at full build out. This is a council directed program used by 25 peer cities across the country, with added privacy protections, no city financial risk and clear public benefits. With that, we respectfully request approval of this code change. In addition to myself and several people from Ike, there's also Anna Bierman, who's available online as well to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Mayor, all speakers for this item have been called. >> Thank you very much, members. As you heard, all the speakers on this item have been called. This is a public hearing. So without objection, we will now close the public hearing. The public hearing is closed. That will take us to the merits of item number 66. Members. We have. What I would suggest we do is get a main motion out on the table, at which point we [4:51:42 PM] will then take up two potential motions to amend that I'm aware of. There may be others, but I know of two that council member Siegel laid out at our work session on Tuesday. The mayor pro tem moves approval of item number 66. It is seconded by council member Ellis. We have a motion and a second. So council member Siegel, I will turn to you. The first item. I don't know which one you want to take up first, so I'll ask you to let us know that. >> Thank you mayor. And I just want to thank the applicant's representative for clarifying that there will not be cameras in these devices. The two amendments I'm bringing relate to the other top two concerns. My office has been hearing about item 66, and so I'll present the first one. The first amendment addresses the concern that passing this ordinance today will mean that big electric signs will be popping up in residential neighborhoods, and that concern is justified because there are a lot of bus stops in residential neighborhoods in my district and others. And so my [4:52:44 PM] first amendment would prevent the kiosks from being built adjacent to single family one, single family two and single family three districts. And I move passage. >> Thank you, council member members, for clarity. And for the record, council member Siegel moves in Siegel motion to amend number one for item number 66. And for the record, it is the document that shows in in item C where it says a sign installed on a right of way installation may not. And then he has added. It currently says it may not exceed 86in. Measured diagonally. He has added a section two related to the public right of way. And then, as he is described his amendment, it goes forward in that way. So the motion by council member Siegel has been made to amend item number 66. Is there a second? Second by council member duchen? Any discussion with regard to Siegel motion to amend? Mayor pro tem. [4:53:45 PM] >> Thank you, mayor. A couple of comments on it. Capital metro unlike the city, capital metro does not have any pending contract, has not made any final decisions about location. And similarly to ihc. Ihc is putting these in the downtown area because there's a lot of people in the downtown area that are going to see them and use them, and that makes them useful. Capital metro, in the very similar vein, is going to put these at their most used bus stops, which are largely in the downtown area in the university of Texas area and on major thoroughfares such as Lamar, Barnett, Cameron, many other Riverside, other major streets. So as a practical matter, I think few of these will be going next to any single family homes. My concern [4:54:45 PM] with the amendment is that a lot of these major streets thinking about, you know, Cameron airport boulevard as well, you have a lot of single family residences that their backyards face the street, and that is adjacent to a single family home. So right away it's going to take a bunch of potential sign locations off of what could be very useful places for them. And again, this would really affect the bus stop kiosks more. And again, I support the the downtown kiosks. I think they're a good idea. The bus kiosks are absolutely critical. The real time information on when the next bus arrives is such important element for your bus rider. You're able to see it, you're able to know if you can go and, you know, do something real quick before the bus comes or whatever the case may be. But it's really bringing [4:55:45 PM] advantage to the rider. It's really bringing convenience to the rider. So I don't want to get out right away and start limiting locations before capital metro has even vetted this, has even looked at it. Finally, I would say that capital metro and there's three council members that serve on the board of capital metro is well aware of the concerns. I don't think capital metro wants to put these in front of someone's single family home on those kind of residential streets that some of the busses do go through. So moving forward, I want to be very sensitive to that. I know my fellow council members also want to be very sensitive to that, and we will make sure that in their rfp process and in talking with capital metro, that we're going to avoid placing them, you know, right next to somebody's front yard in a in a residential neighborhood, that's not where capital met wants to put them. I'm sure that's not where the vendor is going to want to put them. And that's definitely not [4:56:46 PM] where I want them to go. But again, I would urge the, my, my colleagues to, to vote no on council member Siegel's amendment. >> Further discussion? Yes. Councilmember duchen. >> Thank you, mayor one I want to thank councilmember Siegel for bringing forward these amendments. I think they. They make a project that I'm worried about less concerning. I think that this is a case where, at least as far as I understand, the vendor is going to indicate where they want the signs to go, and city staff will have to sign off on those locations. I think this amendment gives staff the guidance that they need to make sure that right out of the gate, we're not doing something that I think will cause some heartburn or controversy down the line. It just takes something off the table. And is really not that restrictive, in my view, because it's only three zoning categories. That's that's still [4:57:48 PM] going to give plenty of opportunities to find the right locations for these signs. >> Thank you, council member. You got a lot of support there. No I'm teasing. That's that's appreciate that. Further further discussion. All right. Then the motion the vote. >> Mr. Mayor, I don't think you saw my hand. And that's fair. I'm not on camera. Yeah. And councilmember duchen, pardon M just said. >> Councilmember harper-madison, you're recognized. >> So sorry. >> In fairness, you probably thought he was going to talk longer. >> I did, but he said what I was about to say. So we're good. Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay. >> I just wanted to be recognized. Thank you. >> Okay, well, if you're off camera, I cannot see your hand go up, so. >> I know, I. [4:58:49 PM] >> Know, just for the future. >> Future reference. >> You chair. >> Okay, I got it. >> Alright. Further discussion? The vote will be on the motion to amend number one by Siegel to item number 66. All tho in favor of the motion, please raise your hand. All those opposed? Raise your hand. All right. There being two votes in favor and. Oh, okay. They're they're still only two in favor. At least that's the way I'm counting it. Two votes in favor. Eight votes opposed and one abstention. The two in favor are Siegel and duchen. The one abstention is qadri. And councilmember harper-madison, I'm recognizing you because I do see your hand up. What do [4:59:51 PM] you. What do you got? I can't hear you, though. >> No. You can't see. No, no. >> Okay. I had you as a no. I'm counting eight votes. No. So the two in favor are Siegel and duchen and the abstention is qadri. And everybody else is voting no. Motion Siegel motion to amend. Number one fails. We will now go to Siegel. Motion to amend number two. And this is a motion to amend item number 66. Councilmember Siegel, you're recognized. >> Thank you. Mayor. The second amendment addresses the other major concern. We heard that once we amend the code and allow these kiosks, it will kind of open the floodgates. And there could be thousands of these kiosks all over the city. So this amendment essentially proposes a pilot that we cap the initial allotment of kiosks around the city at 200 units. That would allow for the [5:00:52 PM] economic development contract to be fulfilled, and would allow capmetro to build at least 100 of these digital kiosks. But would it not allow more than that? And I move passage of the amendment. >> Members council member Siegel has moved passage of Siegel amendment number tw to item number 66, which for the record is the document where there is an added subsection E that says the maximum number of signs that can be installed under this section is 200. Is there a second second by cil member duchen discussion. Mayor pro tem. >> Again. Mayor that would leave 100 for capital metro. And if I remember correctly from yesterday, 2500 stops. I mean just between the bike share program, your metro rapid and your kind of high frequency routes, we could easily do 300, 400 of these signs again, just on major stops. A lot of the stops, I think about republic square. You could probably put [5:01:52 PM] two of these at republic square because it's such a major bus route. I think about Ramberg and Lamar. So 100 is is not going to give capital metro the capacity to really use these effectively and inform the public of when their bus is getting there and when they're how long they have to wait. Again, these are going to provide wi-fi potentially. Also, again, I don't know who's going to get them or what the final features are, but that would be another additional huge benefit for bus riders that can log to a wi-fi system and use that to, to do whatever they need to do at the bus stop. And then finally, similar to the conversation we were having about the jack.brown cleaners rezoning, this is going to bring revenue to capital metro at a at a time when sales taxes may be floundering. And we're going to need every penny. Every dollar we can to keep services at the current levels to to maintenance and put new shelters out and all that kind [5:02:54 PM] of stuff like that. So I think this really would handicap any potential program, would not serve our working class people who use capital metro. And again, I would urge my colleagues to vote no. >> Thank you. Mayor pro tem council member duchen. >> Thank you, mayor. All right. Last, last speech for the day. I would hope that having a pilot and the value of it would be self-evident, right? That we have a process where we say we're going to roll out X amount of whatever we're talking about, and then collect the feedback and go through a real process where we understand, did it work? Did it not work? Who likes it, who didn't, and make a new decision based on that, especially with something that we've heard mixed feedback around even today? I want to speak to the broader issue that I see, which I think others have touched on. I think we're missing, as I said on Tuesday, an important conversation around what city resources are appropriate to [5:03:55 PM] monetize for advertising and marking up to and including putting signage on this building, on having advertisements here in the council chamber. I'm I mean, I brought all my branded hats today, which I was going to wear, but was told it was a bit too tacky. I'm I'm asking you to imagine. >> That somebody gets some advice. What's that? I said, I'm glad somebody gave some advice. >> Yes, well, I've got a great team. >> Thank you. >> I'm asking you to imagine the pepsico Austin city hall and the atx network brought to you by H-E-B, or who here is particularly eager to see a donation. And the Elon Musk 11th and 12th street cap? If this problem is hard to visualize, I've. I've. I've asked the av team to prepare a brief, one minute archival footage from a 1992 award winning film that I think very succinctly demonstrates the challenge with monetizing city assets via marketing and advertising. So I'm going to ask them and your patience for [5:04:57 PM] one minute to play that video. >> Listen, we need to have a talk about Vanderhoff. The fact is, he's the sponsor and you signed a contract guaranteeing him certain concessions, one of them being a spot on the show. Well. >> That's where I see things just a little differently. Contractor. No, I will not bow to any sponsor. >> I'm sorry you feel that way, but basically, it's the nature of the beast. >> Maybe I'm wrong on this one, but for me, the beast doesn't include selling out. Garth, you know what I'm talking about, right? >> It's like people only do things because they get paid. And that's just really sad. >> I can't talk about it anymore. It's giving me a headache. >> Here, take two of these. >> We're doing this. Is this [5:05:57 PM] happening right now? >> Nuprin little yellow. Different. >> And city council chambers. >> You can stay here in the big leagues and play by the rules. Or you can go back to the farm club in Aurora. It's your choice. Yes, and it's the choice of a new generation. >> All right. Thanks for your patience on that. >> Is that the first time a movie's been played in chambers? >> Sir, what just happened? >> I just want to say this is an important conversation we should be having. And I think, further, we ought to have a clear policy in place. Otherwise, I worry that our new strategy, whenever we do need money, is going to go to, you know, a lobbyist to dispense candy or corporation in place of a real policy with real guidelines. If money is the reason you're tempted to support this, the reality is we've got multiple concurrent processes in place right now an audit, a shared services consolidation, a social services contracts review, a [5:06:57 PM] consult, a. >> Council member. >> Council member harper-madison, you're out of order. >> We've got the fourth one being the consulting contracts we just heard about, to identify what I suspect will be orders of magnitude more potential savings or dollars than monetizing our sidewalks. And then also spare us from having to go to these corporations or whoever else next time they want to enshrine some advertising on city property. I also want to remind council that back in January, we heard from planning commission on this. Several members expressed concern, including the chair, that one of the quotes was this is a massive change and D be difficult to put the rabbit back in the hat. So I just want to acknowledge that this is a fairly dramatic departure from my position of where the city is about how we approach this, and the fact that we're pushing forward without some kind of definition seems very problematic to me. On Tuesday, [5:07:58 PM] I also raised a number of other concerns. They're a little bit outside the scope of this particular amendment, but I do worry that we're creating a bit of a double standard where private operators have one thing, and then we've now become both regulator as well as an operator in this space. And what potential liability that might expose us to. So per council member Segal's amendments, I really thought that if there was a way to either pilot this in some capacity or restrict the geography, we could still deploy the technology, but gather some feedback and make sure it was something that worked for this community. Thank you. >> If the rabbit is supposed to be back in the hatch, the energizer bunny, I guess we could. I'm sorry, I won't go. I won't go down that rabbit hole. Further discussion or are we all beat down? Alright. The motion is to amend its Siegel motion to number two on item number 66. That's what the vote is on. All those in favor of [5:08:58 PM] the motion raise their hand. All those voting? No. Raise your hand. All those abstaining. Raise your hand. There being two votes in favor of the motion to amend. Eight votes opposed, one vote in abstention. The motion to amend fails. The two vote. For the record. The two votes in favor were Siegel and duchen, and the abstention was council member qadri. All right, members, that takes us back to the main motion on item number 66, item number 66. The motion was made and seconded. There are no amendments to item number 66 that have been passed by the council. So any further discussion on item number 66? Without objection, item number 66 is adopted, but I will call for a vote. There's a no vote by council member Siegel and a no vote by council member duchen and council member qadri [5:09:59 PM] voting no or abstaining? No. All right. So there are three votes in in opposition council member Siegel. Council member zo qadri and council member duchen. So the motion carries. That takes us now to our 510 time certain of zoning. Oh I'm sorry, did I say that wrong? Anyway, that takes us to our next item on the agenda, which is our our zoning items. And I will recognize our city staff joy Hardon to walk us through. >> Thank you mayor and council. I'm joy harden with Austin. Planning your zoning agenda begins with item 67 c814040187 .03. S H. This item is offered for consent on all three readings with the following motion which reads amend part for the draft ordinance to include the attached exhibit J parking regulations and ratio. [5:11:01 PM] And that exhibit has been passed out to you. So with that, we are offering this item for consent on all three readings. Item 68 is c14 2024 0160. This is offered as a postponement by council member qadri to your April 9th council meeting. Item 69 is c814060175 .07. This item is offered as an applicant postponement to your April 9th council meeting. Item 70 is c14 2025 0121. This item is offered as an applicant postponement to your April 23rd council meeting. Item 71 is c14 2025 0126. This item is offered for consent on all three readings. Item 72 is c14 2025 0106. This item is offered for consent on all three readings with the following motion, which reads little long amid part two a of the draft ordinance to add business support services, [5:12:01 PM] business or trade school. Community recreation. Private community recreation. Public consumer convenience services. Medical office exceeding 5000ft S of gross floor area and medical offices not exceeding 5000ft S of gross floor area. Amend part two B of the draft dinance to add commercial off street parking and amend the draft ordinance to add a new part to C S follows development of the property shall comply with the following regulations. One maximum building coverage of 60%. Two maximum impervious coverage cover is 85%. Three maximum height is 50ft for maximum floor area ratio is 1.25 to 1 and five. A commercial use shall not exceed 30,000ft S of gross building coverage, excluding underground parking structure. Square footage. And with that I again, item 72 is offered for consent on all three readings. And lastly, we have item 73 c14 [5:13:02 PM] 2025 0080. And this item is offered as an applicant postponement to your April 9th council meeting. This concludes the reading of the zoning agenda. And as always, this is at your discretion. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Does anyone have questions of miss harden? Yes. Council member Fuentes. >> Yes, colleagues, I had submitted a motion sheet on item number 67. That's a good night. Wright ranch pad. There's a motion sheet on that item as well. >> Different than the one she read into the record. >> Yes. >> Okay. When did you submit that? >> It was submitted earlier this morning. It's been emailed out as well. Posted on the message board? >> Yes. Mayor and council. It was direction that council member Fuentes was going to give to staff. So it was not something it's been posted, but it was not something that was submitted. It was direction that the council member was going to give to, specifically transportation. [5:14:09 PM] >> What I'm going to do is have council member Fuentes read that into the record as direction to staff, so that when we take a motion on the consent agenda, the council will have heard it in case something. We didn't get it, you know, first thing this morning, because I didn't. And so that way we will all hear it, be able to absorb it and if need be, ask any questions about it. So I'm going to ask you to read that in the record. And then if if we want, we'll make that a part of the consent agenda motion. So could you please do that? >> Yes. Motion number one, the city manager is directed to urgently pursue safety improvements at and near the intersection of old Lockhart road and slaughter Laine, including the installation of a traffic of a temporary traffic signal. Given the proximity of the city's corporate limits, improvements should be coordinated in partnership with Travis county. The goodnight ranch transportation impact analysis final memo, revised January 20th, 2022, includes several improvements required of the developer, including the installation of a traffic signal and construction of eastbound and westbound turn [5:15:09 PM] lanes, as well as a sidewalk on the north side of slaughter Laine. City manager shall continue to pursue these obligations as the development progresses. Any interim safety improvements shall not in any way relieve the developer of their obligations. As part of the agreement, T I, a city manager, is directed to report updates to council on safety improvements within 60 days. >> Thank. Thank you. Anybody have questions of councilmember Fuentes with regard to the direction that she's giving here? Do you want to say something? >> No, I'm here with transportation. If there was a question directed. >> Fair enough. All right, members, I'm going to call for a motion on the agenda. Consent agenda. And that will tell you what motion I'm looking for. But and I'll say this a second time here in just a third or fourth time, how many times I said it, the motion, the direction that council member Fuentes has read will be part of item number 67 as well, if [5:16:09 PM] there's a motion on the consent agenda. So let me read through this item number 67 on all three readings. There is a motion sheet that you have put had put in front of you that miss Hardin read. It has an exhibit. She read it as amending part four, the draft ordinance, to include the attached exhibit J parking regulations and ratio, and it includes the direction that council member Fuentes has read. Item number 68 would be a postponement to April 9th. Item 69 would be a postponement to April 9th. Item 70 a postponement to April 23rd 71 on all three readings, 72 on all three readings. Again with the motion sheet that was that was read into the record by miss Hardin. And item number 73 is a postponement to April 9th. Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda? As I've read it, council member Fuentes, seconded by council member duchen. All right. I'll turn to [5:17:10 PM] the city clerk for people to give us comments on item on the consent agenda. >> For item 67. Myra, go. Terry. Mitchell. Terry, are you here? >> He is. >> Is Jake Gillespie. >> Here he is. >> Terry will haveour minutes. >> Mr. Mitchell, you have four minutes. Yes. Are you are you wanting to testify because you've been called to. You have two minutes and you've been. Yeah. That's right. I just want to make sure because I. Because he took that microphone off. That's Terry. I know, I know I've known him a long time. So please, please proceed. >> Council members, thank you for your service. My name is Myra and I'm with benchmark Austin. We are the developers of good knight ranch. I am [5:18:11 PM] grateful to be in partnership with the good knight family and the city of Austin in delivering this affordable and attainable community. With so many public assets public schools, public housing, public parks and emergency services, and transportation assets. In early 2000, the good knight family convinced me that we could build an attainable and affordable community that keeps it weird. Code for authentically Austin, which protects taxpayers, binds community, encourages education, and creates public park space while being fiscally prudent. I thought to myself, if we can do that, I'm in. The key to our partnership is has been the zoning and the creation of the onion creek metro park district, first of its kind partnership between the city, the developer and the district. The pod allows for the a variety of housing types, and the district is the underpinning to attainability. Allowing lot [5:19:12 PM] development without charging the park costs up front. To date, we have completed over $17 million of public park and trail improvements, and we carry that cost on behalf of the city and the district. The cost defers that cost deferral allows home prices wellow the median price point. Unfortunately, those unique elements and new city policies have created unintended consequences in delivering the community, in turn reducing the general fund and the district revenue projected to be over $19 million lost for the delays. Many of those changes you might approve today will help mitigate those consequences. Thank you. There's still work to do. Several items, most mostly pertaining to the district, are hampering the development. We asked that you at least consider this to be our first read, so that we can come back and get the district items addressed. >> Thank you. [5:20:13 PM] >> Mr. Mitchl. >> Thank you. Thank you, mayor and council members. I'll be brief. I I'm coming as a citizen. I have no presently have no interest in. Good night, although is intimately involved in the beginning of it. As a developer. Good night to me is a unique community in all of Austin in the sense you may not be aware of this, but the centracore of our city is a, as you know, a very healthy economy. And there is a statistic that a uti planning professor gave me a few years ago. And it really explains so much in my mind. And he said that if you take the center of the city and do a five mile radius around that center, sixth in congress, second in congress, take your pick that 36% of all jobs in our metro area exist in that area. To say it another way, 36% of all of our jobs exist in 1.8% of our metro area. That's the highest concentration of urban jobs of almost any city in the united States. What that means, what [5:21:14 PM] it explained for me is so many things, because that's one of the reasons that our urban housing prices have gone up so much, is that there's 500,000 people on that corner trying to find a job. I find trying to find housing and it gets driven up. Good night is nine miles from that center, and it provides a reliever to provide a housing, the missing middle. Everything in that sort of in that context to thoseple who work in the core of our city. And so I just wanted to emphasize that it's it's critical to us. I'm very proud of the partnership that the, that that goodnight has with the city and our initial calculations. And I don't know where it is today. The good night landowners, the homeowners are going to contribute over the next hundred years to the park, over $100 million. And to me, that's a very strong partnership. And I just encourage you to work forward to resolve these issues and keep that project moving forward for our city. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Mitchell. [5:22:14 PM] >> Item 68. Rebecca Trent, on the merits of the postponement. >> Good afternoon, mayor and council. I appreciate your time. My name is Rebecca Trent. I'm the owner and operator of the creek in the cave. And I'm here representing the red river cultural district as a board member. We're here today regarding the rezoning of 1000 red river. The red river cultural district is in the heart of Austin's. Is the heart of Austin's identity, but its future depends on intentional development. Despite our repeated attempts to collaborate, the representatives for 1000 red river have declined, have declined to sign a letter of intent. This project must strengthen our district. It cannot exist in a vacuum or. It has to be a part of it. We urge council to make approval of this rezoning contingent only upon the following ground floor activation. Ongoing stakeholder [5:23:15 PM] engagement with the cultural district, commitment to a high quality pedestrian environment and ground floor activation. Protection of the German Texan heritage society, uninterrupted venue and business operations during construction and venue compatibility compliance. Austin is the live music capital of the world. Because of this specific ecosystem, this cultural district is not asking to stop project progress. We are asking you to ensure this investment sustains our cultural economy rather than displacing it. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Speaking on the merits of the postponement for 69, I have rich Heyman and Charles de Harcourt. >> Good afternoon. My name is Charles darcourt. I'm from district nine and I represent [5:24:16 PM] the Hancock neighborhood association, also from district nine. We're in general in opposition to this project, but we are talking to the developers and would encourage you to postpone it. But we also need your help. During this postponement. The developers obviously is working on an expenses versus income model. So anything we ask for, which we're asking for on behalf of the neighborhood, but also the city because it's it would be beneficial to the city will be an expense. And so they need, we need your support to make that expense worth it for them. Ultimately, their benefit from the additional entitlement is way bigger than any expenses they have. And most of what we're asking for impacts the design rather than expenses. Specifically, earlier today I was heartened to see the discussion around missing middle and mixed use because this area has entirely the potential for that. The street [5:25:17 PM] on which this development is is composed of townhouses on the north and houses on the south that are have the form of live work so they could. Over time, this street could become activated. And so we want to make sure we're not so much opposed to the development as it is. We just want to make sure that what will happen will not get in the way of of that street. The street is concordia street. We're now down to five points that we're asking the developer right now. They've conceded one and a half, including one which was initially a recommendation or an ask from planning commissioner Skidmore and Barrera Ramirez. And thank you to them for that, those ideas. But we have a few others, so we'd like your help in this right now. We've talked to mayor Watson's office, and of course, we're in constant contact with district nine. We'd love to talk to the relevant people in your offices. [5:26:18 PM] Thank you. Thank you mayor. >> For item 71. Richard. Subtle. >> He he's waving. >> Waving. >> Yes. >> And for the merits of the postponement on 73, David Ruddick. >> David Ruddick. >> That's all for consent. >> Thank you very much, members. As you've heard, that's all the people that have signed up to speak on the consent agenda. We have a motion a second, but I want to ask miss mcdeere if you'll please come down. Just a second. I want to ask her a question about item number 68. And while you're coming down, I want to say something. Some of us have spent a lot of time working to try to do economic development in this town, and including in the area of life sciences, as you know. I mean, you and I have had specific comments, and so we welcome [5:27:18 PM] this sort of opportunity in our city. But it it bothers some of us if what happens is we invite people, we work to make it easier for them to develop in our city to do those kinds of things. And then they appear to ignore the basics and the foundations of our city, or strong arm or stiff arm, whatever is the right word to say that they're not they're not being a part of the city. There's going to be a post. My guess is there's going to be a postponement of this item and what I want to do is I want to say publicly that I really hope that the applicant figures out a way to work with what what is part of what brings them to Austin to begin with? Do you want to comment on that? >> Yeah. Pam Madeira here on [5:28:18 PM] behalf of the applicant. Yes. Thank you for your comments, mayor. I know those have been echoed, echoed by others on the council. I do know that this property owner does care about the community. They own a multiple properties in Austin. They have been they've had in-person meetings with ten or more of the red river cultural district. They've had other communications with the red river cultural district. They have allowed the red river cultural district members to use their property for events and things of that nature. They've been very active in discussions with the universities here in the community, with the downtown Austin alliance. They are helping to try to reiigorate the innovation district in this area. And and community is very important to them. And, and I understand, I understand the mayor and the council's position in their projects. It is very important to them to have ground level activation in some respect, and sometimes more than that, because that's [5:29:18 PM] what makes their projects successful. This is a very important site to them. It has the one of the moon towers on it, and it's right by UT. And that's that's not lost on them. Those are important considerations for them as well. Luckily, with this particular project also, they have the great streets requirements and they have the urban design standards that will also enhance, you know, what needs to be done with the property. But I hear what you're saying, mayor. And and I will convey that. >> Thank you very much. >> Yes, sir. >> All right, members, we have a motion and a second on the consent agenda. Is there anyone wishing to to abstain from voting on an item on the consent agenda? Is there anyone wishing to recuse theves from a vote on any item on the consent agenda? Anyone wishing to be shown voting no on any item on the consent agenda, there being no further discussion. Without objection, [5:30:19 PM] the consent agenda is adopted with council member harper-madison off the dais. All right, members, I think that concludes a robust agenda. And that's that's a different word than I was really going to use. But that concludes the agenda. There's no further business to come before the Austin city council at this regular meeting of the Austin city counc so without objection, the Austin city council is adjourned at 5:30 P.M. Thanks, everybody.