Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[00:00:04]

UH, AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL MEETING OUTWEIGHED.

ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND CONVENE.

[Call to Order]

TODAY'S AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL MEETING.

TODAY'S THURSDAY, JUNE 9TH, 2022.

UH, WE ARE IN, UM, CITY COUNCIL, CHAMBERS, AND, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER LS IS WITH US VIRTUALLY, UH, WE WILL BE HOLDING EXECUTIVE SESSION TODAY, VIRTUALLY NOT IN PERSON.

UH, IT TIME IS, UH, 12 MINUTES AFTER 10.

WE HAVE A LOT OF SPEAKERS TODAY AND WE'LL GET TO THEM IN JUST A MOMENT.

UH, WE'RE GOING TO, UM, I THINK WE HAVE OVER A HUNDRED SPEAKERS TODAY.

UH, WE'RE GOING TO GO IN THE MORNING.

UH, WE'RE GOING ON THE, ON THE COMPATIBILITY AND THE VMU, WE'RE GOING TO GIVE EVERYONE TWO MINUTES.

EVERYONE ELSE IS GOING TO GET ONE MINUTE ON THE MORNING CALL.

UH, AND THAT IT'S ONE MINUTE ON THE AFTERNOON, UH, CALL IT TO, I THINK THERE ARE 60 SPEAKERS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT SET.

UM, MOST OF THE SPEAKERS TODAY ARE ON THOSE TWO, UH, LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ITEMS. UH, I'M GONNA READ THE CHANGES IN CORRECTION INTO THE RECORD, UH, ITEM NUMBER 37, POSTPONED INDEFINITELY ITEM NUMBER 42 RECOMMENDED BY THE WATER AND WASTEWATER COMMISSION ON JUNE 8TH, 2022 ON A SEVEN O VOTE WITH A COMMISSIONERS NAVARRO FISHER, UH, AND, AND TERRY ETTA, UH, ABSENT ITEM NUMBER 59 HAS ADDED MAYOR PRO TEM, UH, ALTAR AS A SPONSOR ITEM NUMBER 67 HAS ADDED, UH, MAYOR PRO TEM ALTAR AS A CO-SPONSOR.

THE, UH, PUBLIC SUGGESTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE ON ITEM 73 IS JULY 28TH, 2022.

THAT'S A CHANGE ITEM.

NUMBER 78 WHEN PUBLIC HEARINGS ARE TAKEN UP, THIS ITEM'S GOING TO BE POSTPONED TO JULY 28TH, 2022.

I REMEMBER 82, WHEN THAT PUBLIC HEARING, WHEN PUBLIC HEARINGS ARE TAKING UP, THAT ITEM WILL BE POSTPONED TO JUNE 16TH, 2022.

IT'S NEXT WEEK ITEM NUMBER 83, WHEN PUBLIC HEARINGS ARE TAKEN UP, THIS ITEM WILL BE POSTPONED TO JULY 28TH, UH, 2022 ITEM NUMBER 1 0 8 HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED WITH ITEM 1 25.

ITEM NUMBER 1 22 IS BEING POSTPONED TO JUNE 16TH, 2022.

WE HAVE SOME ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN PULLED, UH, ITEM NUMBER, UH, TAN, UH, RELATES TO A PUBLIC HEARING.

SO ITEM NUMBER 10 WILL BE, UH, PULLED, UH, THAT BE TAKEN UP AFTER ITEM 81 TAKES, IT TAKES UP WITH THAT, WHICH IS THE PUBLIC HEARING.

UM, ITEM NUMBER 61 HAS BEEN PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KELLY.

UH, AND WE'RE GOING TO CONSIDER, UH, 61, UH, IN, UH, UH, EXECUTIVE SESSION.

UH, ITEM NUMBER 65 HAS BEEN PULLED FOR, UH, EXECUTIVE SESSION.

YES, I'M SO SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU.

BUT 61, I DID NOT PULL FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION.

IT WAS, UM, 65 61 IS JUST TO BE DISCUSSED IN PERSON.

OKAY.

SO LET'S PULL, LET'S PULL 61 JUST TO BE DISCUSSED.

AND 65 IS EXECUTIVE SESSION.

65 IS AN EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEM NUMBER, UH, 80.

UH, WE'LL ALSO NOT BE TAKEN UP UNTIL WE HAVE THE CHANCE TO DISCUSS THAT IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.

SO IN EXECUTIVE SESSION TODAY, LET'S TALK ABOUT THIS, UH, UM, HOW MS. MORGAN, THE WE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, WE HAVE NUMBER 65, WE HAVE NUMBER 80, AND I THINK WE SHOULD ALSO PULL THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ITEMS SO WE CAN DISCUSS THOSE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.

UM, AND I'M THINKING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT, UH, ITEM 60, UM, SIX IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.

AND THEN THE, UH,

[00:05:02]

IS, IS, UH, WHAT'S, WHAT'S THE VMU ITEM, HAITI BAY.

AND WE ALREADY HAVE THAT ONE.

OKAY.

SO THOSE TWO WILL BE DISCUSSED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, 80 AND 66, AS WELL AS 65.

OKAY.

YES, COUNCIL, MAYOR PRO TEM.

I WOULD RATHER NOT PULL IT, BUT, UM, FOR, I KNOW, ITEM 10 IS GOING TO BE TAKEN UP LATER, BUT WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO GET A COPY OF THE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE DUSTIN DOWNTOWN AUSTIN ALLIANCE.

THAT'S PART OF ITEM 10, AND WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO, TO SEE THAT.

SO IF WE COULD TRY AND GET THAT SO THAT MY OFFICE CAN REVIEW THAT BEFORE WE VOTE ON THAT LATER, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT.

OTHERWISE I WILL BE ASKING TO WAIT A WEEK UNTIL WE CAN ACTUALLY REVIEW THE PLAN THAT WE WERE PROVING.

OKAY.

YOUR STAFF COULD POST THAT INTO BACKUP ON THIS ITEM.

THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.

AND MAYBE WE EMAIL IT OUT TO THE COUNCIL OFFICES.

OKAY.

YES.

PROPOSED ITEMS. YOU SAID 62, BUT I WONDER IF YOU MEANT 66 WHEN YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE LANDFILL.

YES.

IF I SAID, YEAH, IT ITEM 66.

I THINK THERE ARE SOME AMENDMENTS TO 62 THAT PEOPLE SEEM TO BE OFFERING, BUT I THINK WE COULD PROBABLY LEAVE IT ON CONSENT.

UH, LET'S SEE IF THEY'RE GOING TO BE DISCUSSED A LOT.

IF THEY ARE THEN WE'LL PULL 2 62.

I DON'T KNOW IF THE AMENDMENTS ARE GOING TO BE AGREED TO OR NOT, OR IF THERE'S SOME AMENDMENTS ON ADU.

NO.

ALRIGHT.

WE'RE JUST GOING TO LEAVE.

YES.

62 IS STAYING ON CONSENT.

I WON'T GUESS WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN, ACTUALLY, MAYOR, I BELIEVE A MAYOR PRO TEM HAS AN AMENDMENT THAT SHE'D LIKE TO BRING FORWARD, BUT I HAVE NOT SEEN IT YET.

OKAY.

BUT IT WAS, WE THOUGHT IT WAS, UM, DISTRIBUTED, BUT WE'LL FIGURE THAT OUT.

OKAY.

I THINK THAT THERE ARE SOME DIRECTION THAT COUNCIL MEMBER WENT.

THIS HAS PULLED OUT AS INTENDED ON ITEM 56 AND 57.

AND THAT'S SHORT.

WE'RE GOING TO LEAVE THAT ON CONSENT CATHOLIC KITCHEN.

I HAVE A VERY SHORT QUESTION ON THAT SAME ONE.

I THINK IT CAN STAY ON CONSENT.

56 AND 57.

YEAH.

OKAY.

AND THAT SOUNDS GOOD.

UM, ALL RIGHT.

SO THE POLL, THE CONSENT AGENDA IS ITEMS ONE THROUGH 74 AND 1 21 THROUGH 1 24 ITEMS I'M SHOWING, BEING PULLED RIGHT NOW ARE ITEM 10 61 65 AND 66.

OKAY.

HAS OVER TOBO IT'S NOT ON CONSENT.

THAT'S A PUBLIC HEARING.

MARY.

I HAVE, UM, I WOULD LIKE TO PULL A 52, SO WE WILL ADD 52.

THAT'S THE ASM P I HAVE, UM, THE DESIRE TO, EXCUSE ME, ADD SOME DIRECTION AND MAKE SOME COMMENTS ABOUT 14 THOUGH.

I DON'T WANT STAFF TO HAVE TO SAY ALL DATA HERE AND PARTICIPATE IN THAT.

SO IF IT'S ALL RIGHT WITH Y'ALL, I'D LIKE TO JUST LEAVE IT ON CONSENT.

I'M GOING TO FOLLOW UP MY DIRECTION PROBABLY WITH THE IFC I'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT REGARDING REAL ESTATE.

SO I THINK WE'LL HAVE OTHER OPPORTUNITIES.

I JUST WANT TO AIR THEM TODAY.

AND THEN I'M PULLING 1 24, PLEASE.

AND GENERALLY SPEAKING THE DIRECTION ON YOUR 14 IS TO DO WHAT DO YOU WANT ME TO TALK ABOUT THE DIRECTION IF WE JUST SURE.

IT'S THINGS LIKE MAKING SURE, UM, ONE, I WANT TO TALK ABOUT A FEW ELEMENTS OF THIS PARTICULAR LEASE THAT I, THAT CAME THROUGH MY CONVERSATIONS WITH MICHAEL GATES.

I CAN BE VERY SHORT.

UM, TWO, I WOULD JUST WANT TO OFFER SOME SUGGESTIONS OR SOME DIRECTION TO STAFF THAT IN THE FUTURE, WE MAKE SURE THAT THOSE KINDS OF ELEMENTS ARE INCLUDED IN THE BACKUP AND THREE, THAT ALL LEASES DO COME TO COUNCIL.

I BELIEVE THAT'S BEEN THE PRACTICE, BUT IT'S NOT THE POLICY.

AGAIN, I'M GOING TO FOLLOW SOME OF THESE THINGS UP WITH THE IFC.

UM, AND THERE MIGHT BE ONE OR TWO OTHER THINGS, BUT IT'S GOING TO BE, IT'S GOING TO BE, YOU KNOW, FOUR MINUTES PROBABLY SOUNDS GOOD.

SO WE'RE ALSO GOING TO PULL ITEM NUMBER 1 24.

OKAY.

UH, MAYOR PRO TEM.

UM, I WOULD LIKE TO POSTPONE ITEM 57 TO NEXT WEEK.

WE JUST GOT NEW MAPS FOR THE SPEEDS.

AND I HAD SEVERAL STREETS THAT WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE RESOLUTION THAT WERE ON THE ORIGINAL MAPS THAT ARE NOT ON THE OTHER MAPS.

AND I HAVE, UM, SINCE WE GOT RESOLVED WHAT THE DISCREPANCY WAS, I'VE NOT BEEN ABLE TO TALK THROUGH THE STREETS DIRECTLY,

[00:10:01]

UM, WITH ATD.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED TO MAKE THEM WAIT AROUND ALL DAY.

DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO POSTPONING? EIGHT OF 57? I HAVE A, I HAVE A QUESTION.

UM, MY QUESTION RELATED TO A PARTICULAR STREET TO SIMILAR SITUATION TO WHAT YOU JUST SAID, MAYOR PRO TEM.

SO THAT'S ITEM 57, RIGHT? NOT 56.

SO WE JUST NEED TO POSTPONE ONE.

IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE THINKING? SO IT'S THE SPEED LIMIT? WELL, NOT AS MP, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE SPEED LIMIT ONE.

THAT'S THE ONE THAT I WAS ASKING IF WE COULD RESPOND TO NEXT WEEK SO THAT I COULD MAKE SURE THAT I HAD THOSE YEAH.

UP TO SPEED LIMIT WAS RIGHT.

56 AND 57.

YES.

UM, I DON'T REMEMBER TALKING ABOUT 57.

I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT, OKAY.

I'M SORRY.

I MISSED THAT CONVERSATION.

MAYOR PRO TEM IS ASKING TO PULL OUT OF A 57 POSTPONE TO POSTPONE 57.

SO THE ORIGINAL BACKUP HAD STREETS IN MY DISTRICT THAT WERE HAVING THEIR SPEED LIMITS REDUCED THAT WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE RESOLUTION.

AND WHEN WE ASKED ABOUT THE DISCREPANCY, THEY PRODUCE NEW MAPS, WHICH MEANS THERE'S THREE STREETS THAT WE THOUGHT WERE GETTING REDUCED SPEEDS THAT ARE NOT THAT I WANT TO TALK THROUGH WITH ATD DIRECTLY.

CAUSE THEY ORIGINALLY INCLUDED THE WRONG MAP.

OKAY.

SO I GATHERED THEM THAT THERE'S NOT A REQUEST TO PULL OR POSTPONE ITEM 56 AT THIS POINT.

YES.

YOU ASKED WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS ANY OBJECTION TO POSTPONING NUMBER 57.

I DON'T HAVE ANY OBJECTION, BUT I DO WONDER IF WE COULD, UM, COUNCILMAN COUNCILWOMAN, FLINT, THIS AND COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN, BOTH WANTED TO PULL THE ITEM FOR DISCUSSION.

I WONDER IF WE CAN HEAR WHAT THEIR CONCERNS WERE.

IF WE DO POSTPONE IT THAT WAY WE CAN BE TAKING THOSE THINGS INTO CONSIDERATION WHILE IT'S POSTPONE.

OKAY.

YES, WE CAN DO THAT.

UM, WE'RE GOING TO PULL 56 AND 57.

LET'S JUST PULL THEM AND WE'LL POSTPONE 56.

YES.

KATHERINE KELLY, 57 56.

WAS THERE A QUESTION ON FIFTH? I JUST WASN'T THERE.

WAS THERE A QUESTION ON 56 OR WAS IT ON 57? IT LOOKS LIKE THERE WAS DIRECTION ON THEM BOTH.

OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

SO WE'RE GOING TO PULL 56 AND 57.

WE'RE GOING TO POSTPONE 57, BUT AFTER WE HAVE OUR DISCUSSION.

OKAY.

COUNSELOR KELLY, I'M SORRY.

YOU CAN'T DO MORE ON THIS ISSUE.

YEAH.

I WAS JUST GOING TO SPECIFY THAT MY QUESTIONS ON 57.

OKAY.

KELLY ON ITEM 62, I FEEL COMFORTABLE LEAVING THAT ON CONSENT.

I WAS GIVEN THAT, UH, UM, MOTION SHEET BY MAYOR PRO TEM AND IT ACTUALLY STRENGTHENS THE RESOLUTION AS A WHOLE.

AND I'D LIKE TO ACCEPT IT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

I'LL MAKE MY COMMENTS ON THE RESOLUTION THAT I SPONSORED DURING THE CONSENT AGENDA.

COMMENTS SOUNDS GOOD.

THEN WE WILL KEEP 60, 62 TOO.

I THINK.

WHAT, WHAT IS THAT AMENDMENT TO 62? COULD YOU TELL US AGAIN? SO I BELIEVE IT WAS DISTRIBUTED YESTERDAY, BUT IF NOBODY HAS IT, WE CAN DO WE NEED TO DISTRIBUTE IT AGAIN? YEAH, I DIDN'T SEE IT.

SO WHAT DOES IT DO? I'M SORRY.

I CAN READ IT TO YOU.

UM, SO, UM, I BELIEVE THAT KATIE POWERS HAS IT AND IF, IF SHE COULD REDISTRIBUTE IT, UM, FOR ITEM 62.

UM, SO ITEM 62, I MOVED TO MEN LINE 51 TO ADD THE FOLLOWING.

ADDITIONALLY, THE CITY COUNCIL FURTHER DIRECTS THE CITY MANAGER TO REVIEW ALL AMENDMENTS ADOPTED WITHIN THE LAST TWO YEARS TO THE AUSTIN ENERGY DESIGN CRITERIA, MANUAL AND UTILITIES CRITERIA ARE MANUAL THAT COULD AFFECT THE FEASIBILITY OF CONSTRUCTING AN ADU ON A LOT AND PROVIDE COUNCIL WITH POTENTIAL RECOMMENDATIONS TO MITIGATE ANY IDENTIFIED IMPACT.

SOUNDS GOOD.

I'VE HACKED WITHOUT OBJECTIONS.

EVERYBODY.

OBJECTION TO THAT.

AMENDMENT BEING ADDED TO ITEM 62, HEARING NONE THAT AMENDMENT IS ADDED AND IT REMAINS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.

I THINK WE NEED A BASE MOTION AND WE CONSIDERED IT FRIENDLY.

SO CAN I JUST ADD IT AS A SPONSOR? THE ITEM YOU DON'T NEED TO? OH, I JUST ADDED IT WITHOUT OBJECTION.

THANK YOU.

THE ITEM ON OUR AGENDA AND CONSENT INCLUDES THAT AMENDMENT, THE MOTION TO PASS.

IT WILL BE THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.

COUNCIL MEMBER, VELA MAYOR.

I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ON ITEM THREE.

OKAY.

AND I DON'T NECESSARILY NEED TO PULL, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO ASK STAFF A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT OKAY.

IF STAFF WOULD BE PREPARED ON THAT, WE WON'T PULL IT ASSUMING IT'S GOING TO BE SHORT.

ALL RIGHT, WE'LL LEAVE IT ON CONSENT.

[00:15:01]

YES.

KEN'S PREMARIN 30.

YEAH.

I, YES.

I ALSO HAVE AN AMENDMENT THAT I'M GOING TO BE BRINGING UP ON ITEM 61 AND GET MY STAFF TO, TO PRINT OUT THE YELLOW SHEET AND BREAK IT DOWN.

SOUNDS GOOD THAT I AM, IT'S BEEN PULLED 61 HAS BEEN PULLED COUNCIL MEMBER OF WENT THIS.

THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COLLEAGUES.

I HAVE TWO AMENDMENTS ON ITEM 59, THE E-BIKE RESOLUTION BY COUNCILMEMBER ELLIS.

AND I POSTED IT ON THE MESSAGE BOARD AND I HAVE COPIES HERE AT THE DEUS FOR CONSIDERATION.

OKAY.

SO EVERYBODY'S SEEN THOSE, ANYBODY NOT SEEN THOSE.

OKAY.

SO WE'LL TAKE NOTICE.

WE'LL PULL, WE'LL TAKE NOTE OF THAT.

I, MY UNDERSTANDING IS COUNCIL MEMBER, I THINK ALTER ALSO HAS MAYOR PRO TEM ALTAR.

I THINK ALSO HAS AN AMENDMENT ON 59 AS WELL.

SO MAKE SURE THAT YOU FIND THAT AND SEE THAT.

ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO TO SPEAKERS IF WE CAN.

I HAVE A COUPLE THINGS.

OH YES.

I'M SORRY.

I'M SORRY.

YES.

UM, I'M 59.

I'M COMFORTABLE WITH PULLING THAT I'VE ACCEPTED THE MAYOR PRO TEM AMENDMENT AS FRIENDLY, AND I'M STILL REVIEWING COUNCIL MEMBER QUINTAS, HIS SUGGESTIONS AND MY OFFER SOME, UH, SIMILAR BUT ALTERNATIVE LANGUAGE.

SO I'LL JUST NEED A MOMENT TO TAKE A LOOK AT THOSE.

UM, AND THEN ON ITEM 69, THE DISTRICT LEVEL PLANNING, I JUST WANTED TO PULL THAT SO I COULD UNDERSTAND, UM, THE, THE INTENT OF THE VERSION TWO.

I KNOW THERE'S BEEN SOME, UM, SOME VERBIAGE ON THE MESSAGE BOARD ABOUT THE CHANGE, BUT I JUST WANTED A MOMENT FOR US TO BE ABLE TO DISCUSS IT WITH THE SPONSOR AS A 69.

SO MAYOR, UM, PERHAPS WE CAN LEAVE 69 ON, UM, CONSENT.

UM, WE CAN, UM, I THINK WE CAN ANSL ANSWER COUNCIL MEMBER ELLIS' QUESTIONS VERY QUICKLY.

THE SUBSTITUTES BEEN APPROVED BY THIS STAFF AND IT'S JUST ALLOWING FOR ORDINANCE INSTEAD OF REQUIRING SOMETHING TO BE IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

THAT IS THE ONLY CHANGE.

SO I'D LIKE TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PERHAPS LEAVE IT ON CONSENT.

WE HAVE A LITTLE TIME AND I CAN MAKE SURE THAT COUNCIL MEMBER ELLIS HAS A BETTER EXPLANATION OF THE CHANGES IN BETWEEN TIME.

IF SHE WANTS TO PULL IT UP FOR LET'S, LET'S DO THIS.

CAUSE IT'S THE REQUEST HAS BEEN MADE, BUT THERE'S AN HOUR BEFORE WE GET BACK TO THIS CAUSE WE HAVE A LOT OF SPEAKERS TO SPEAK.

OKAY.

SO WE'RE GOING TO PULL IT RIGHT NOW, BUT COUNCIL MEMBER ELLIS, IF YOU AND YOUR STAFF COULD TRY TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT IN THE NEXT HOUR, YOU CAN TELL US AT THE END OF THE HOUR, WHETHER YOU WANT TO STAY PULLED OR WHETHER YOU WANT TO PUT IT BACK ON CONSENT.

OKAY.

THAT MAKES SENSE.

ALL RIGHT.

DOES THAT WORK? ALL RIGHT.

AND THEN ON ITEM NUMBER 59, I'M SEEING THAT STAYING ON CONSENT.

IT'S YOUR INTENT TO, UH, YOU LIKED THE AMENDMENTS FROM, FROM COUNCIL MEMBER AND FROM THE MAYOR PRO TEM.

SO WE'RE GOING TO LEAVE THAT ON CONSENT.

EVERYBODY SHOULD TRY TO FIND THOSE, MAKE SURE YOU LOOK AT THOSE AND AN HOUR FROM NOW.

IF ANYBODY WANTS TO PULL 59 TO DISCUSS THOSE IN GREATER DETAIL, WE WILL.

BUT FOR RIGHT NOW, THAT'S STAYING ON, ON, ON CONCEPT.

YES, GUYS, WE'RE TALKING

[Additional Item]

ABOUT.

YEAH.

EARLIER YOU TALKED ABOUT HOW WE WERE GOING TO TAKE UP SPEAKERS TODAY OR YOU PROPOSED HOW WE WOULD TAKE UP SPEAKERS AND I WANT TO BE SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING.

SO WERE YOU SUGGESTING THAT FOLKS HERE SIGNED UP ON THE CONSENT AGENDA WOULD IF THEY ARE NOT SPEAKING ABOUT BMU AND COMPATIBILITY, IS THEIR TIME BEING LIMITED BEYOND THREE MINUTES? YES.

ONE MINUTE FOR PEOPLE THAT ARE SPEAKING, EXCEPT FOR OVER HALF, THE PEOPLE THAT ARE SPEAKING ON THOSE TWO ITEMS, THE VMU ITEM AND THE CORRIDOR ITEM, AND THOSE FOLKS ARE GOING TO GET TWO MINUTES.

EACH, I HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT LIMITING, LIMITING PEOPLE WHO CAME TO TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE OTHER CONSENT ITEMS, JUST BECAUSE THERE ARE TWO BIG ISSUES THAT HAVE GENERATED A LOT OF SPEAKERS.

AND SO I WOULD LIKE TO, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THAT WE RECONSIDER THAT AND HAVE FOLKS WHO CAME FOLKS WHO CAME TO SPEAK ABOUT OTHER ITEMS BEING ALLOCATED THEIR REGULAR TIME.

IT IS REALLY CHALLENGING AS A COMMUNITY MEMBER.

IF YOU'VE PREPARED A THREE MINUTE TALK AND YOU HAVE MULTIPLE THINGS TO SAY, IT'S REALLY TOUGH TO COME AND FIND OUT THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF SPEAKERS ON ANOTHER ISSUE.

SO IT'S ONLY ONE MINUTE WE CAN DO THAT.

SO LET ME TALK ABOUT WHAT THAT COULD BE.

I MEAN, IF WE GIVE EVERYBODY THREE MINUTES, WE'RE ADDING A COUPLE OF HOURS TO OUR MEETING TODAY IN TERMS OF SPEAKER, WHICH MEANS WE DON'T GET DONE SPEAKERS UNTIL WE HAVE TWO AFTERNOON SPEAKERS BETWEEN RATIONAL.

YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO OUR FIRST PIECE OF BUSINESS UNTIL PROBABLY THREE O'CLOCK TODAY.

UH, SO WE'VE, WE'VE BEEN KEEPING THIS TIME TO A MINUTE.

I THINK THAT IT HAS GENERALLY BEEN A GOOD COMPARABLE, WE'LL TAKE A VOTE HERE AND JUST SECOND, BEEN A RELATIVELY GOOD BALANCING OF, OF, OF THE SITUATION THAT HAS NO GOOD CHOICES.

THE LONGER WE POSTPONE THINGS, WE THEN HAVE SOME PEOPLE THAT HAVE TO SPEAK DURING DINNER OR LATER.

UH, AND THEN PEOPLE COMPLAIN THAT THEY'RE NOT BEING GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE ABLE TO SPEAK.

SO HOWEVER WE DO THIS, WE'RE DENYING SOME PEOPLE, THE ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO SPEAK AT ALL OR TO SPEAK TO THE, THE FULL FULL LAB.

WELL, MAY I PROPOSE THAT WE

[00:20:01]

CONSIDER TWO MINUTES, UM, AND THAT WE ALSO AS A COUNCIL AND I THINK I HAD ASKED FOR THIS TO BE BACK ON OUR WORK SESSION TO JUST TRY TO TALK THROUGH HOW WE TAKE UP SPEAKERS NOW THAT WE'RE BACK IN PERSON.

UM, BUT YOU KNOW, WHEN WE WERE BEFORE THE PANDEMIC, WHEN WE HAD ISSUES THAT WE KNEW WERE GOING TO DRAW LOTS AND LOTS OF SPEAKERS, THERE WAS A TIME CERTAIN IF PEOPLE WANTED TO COME EARLIER AND SPEAK, THEY COULD.

BUT OTHERWISE THAT WAS A BLOCK OF TIME.

WE SET ASIDE FOR THOSE ISSUES AND YOU KNOW, IT IS, I MEAN, ABSOLUTELY WE HAVE A NUTTY AGENDA THIS WEEK, NEXT WEEK'S 92.

UM, THEY BOTH REALLY HAVE LOTS OF MEDIA ISSUES ON THEM AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO SPEND THE TIME IT TAKES TO DO ALL OF THEM, OR WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE CHOICES ABOUT WHICH ONES WE CAN DELAY.

AND I DON'T WANT IT TO COME ON THE BACK OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.

SO I WOULD SUGGEST THAT FOR NON 62, 4, 9 66 AND 80, UM, THAT WE ALLOW PEOPLE TWO MINUTES AND THEN THIS AFTERNOON SPEAKERS, ARE WE JUST MAKING THIS CHANGE IN THE MORNING? CAN YOU REMIND ME WHAT THE SITUATION I WAS STUCK ON THE MORNING, CONSENT AND MISSED? WHAT WAS THE ZONING? UH, IT'S SAYS ZONING CASES.

UH, AND I WAS GOING TO HAVE PEOPLE SPEAK FOR ONE MINUTE EACH.

I THINK THERE'S OVER 60 SPEAKERS EXCEPT FOR ZONING.

ARE THERE, ARE THERE SEVERAL PRIMARY? LET ME TAKE A LOOK AT THE SPEAKERS.

OKAY.

RIGHT NOW THE DEFAULT IS ONE MINUTE AS WE'VE BEEN DOING ON ZONING CASES, THAT'S OUR KELLY.

THIS IS A SUBJECT THAT I'D LIKE TO EXPLORE IN MORE DETAIL IN A WORK SESSION AS WELL.

UM, I'VE ALWAYS FOUND IT, ESPECIALLY BEFORE I WAS ON COUNCIL, A LITTLE BIT DISINGENUOUS THAT WE HEAR THE COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON THE DAY THAT WE'RE VOTING ON THE ITEMS. THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO COME BEFORE US THAT I HAVE FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR AND WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO IN MORE DETAIL, ESPECIALLY NOW THAT I'M ON COUNCIL.

SO IF WE COULD TALK ABOUT MAYBE SOME BEST PRACTICES IN OTHER CITIES OR THE WAY THAT THEY DO THAT AHEAD OF COUNCIL MEETINGS, I DEFINITELY LIKED THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLORE IT FURTHER.

OKAY.

I THINK IT MAKES SENSE FOR US.

HOWEVER, WE, THIS GETS RESOLVED TODAY, MANAGER TO GET A BEST PRACTICE AND TALK ABOUT HOW WE DO SPEAKERS.

CAUSE HOWEVER WE DO THIS, WE'RE HAVING TO MAKE WHEREVER WE'RE, WE'RE HELPING SOME PEOPLE AND HURTING OTHER PEOPLE HAS OUR KITCHEN.

UM, I APOLOGIZE.

I COULDN'T QUITE HEAR WHERE IT LANDED.

WHAT IS THE PLAN AND YOUR MOTION? THE MOTION IS TO GIVE EVERYONE SPEAKING IN THE MORNING, TWO MINUTES, RATHER THAN JUST THE PEOPLE SPEAKING ON THOSE TWO ITEMS. THAT'S THE, AND SO WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS ITEM 66 AND 80 PEOPLE GET TWO MINUTES.

RIGHT.

AND THE, UM, THE MOTION IS TO ALLOW EVERYONE TO HAVE TWO MINUTES THIS MORNING.

YES.

OKAY.

OKAY.

THAT'S WHEREVER TOBO MAKES THAT MOTION.

IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION? COUNCILMEMBER, KITCHEN SECONDS.

ANY DISCUSSION BEFORE WE VOTE THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND AND MAYOR, I DID HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF DISCUSSION.

I'M JUST LOOKING OVER THERE.

IT LOOKS LIKE WE JUST HAVE SORT OF SCATTERED.

I'M NOT SURE IF YOU'VE DONE A COUNT OF HOW MANY PEOPLE THAT WOULD REALLY IMPACT YOU.

IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE ONE PERSON HERE, ONE PERSON THERE.

UM, AND, AND IF THOSE FOLKS ARE THE SAME, THEN THOSE ITEMS DON'T GET PULLED FROM CONSENT.

ANYWAY, IT WOULD BE A LITTLE UNDER 20 PEOPLE WOULD BE GIVEN AN ADDITIONAL MINUTE.

SO THAT AMOUNTS TO ABOUT, UM, LET'S SEE, 20 MINUTES, YOU SAID 20.

SO THEY WOULD GET 20.

IT JUST ADDS ABOUT 20 MINUTES.

THAT WAS IT.

SO AS A GENERAL ROLE, AS WE'VE BEEN DOING IT, PEOPLE WOULD GET ONE MINUTE WHEN WE CROSS OVER 40 SPEAKERS.

BUT BECAUSE THE COUNCIL ARE WANTING TO GIVE EXTRA TIME TO PEOPLE ON THOSE TWO CASES, THE VMU AND THE COMPATIBILITY, UH, WE HAD EXTENDED THAT TO THE, TO THE TWO MINUTES.

SO THAT, THAT, THAT ADDED AN ADDITIONAL MINUTE FOR, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT OF THIS CHOICE.

I THINK JUST ADDS 20 MINUTES.

IT JUST ADDS 20 MINUTES TO OUR DAY.

AND I, WHEN WE HAVE THAT CONVERSATION, I THINK WE NEED TO REVISIT WHAT OUR PREVIOUS PRACTICE WAS BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS AGENDA ITEM BY AGENDA ITEM THAT THE FIRST, IT WASN'T SORT OF THE FIRST PEOPLE WHO SIGNED UP FOR THE DAY ON ANY ITEM ON THE AGENDA.

IT WAS THE FIRST PEOPLE WHO SIGNED UP ON A PARTICULAR AGENDA ITEM, GOT THREE MINUTES AND THEN IT GOT REDUCED IS WHAT I THOUGHT WE DID.

UM, NOT, NOT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU SIGN UP, IF WE HAVE A HUNDRED PEOPLE FOR NUMBER ONE AND WE HAVE TWO PEOPLE ON FOR THE TWO PEOPLE ON FOUR, ALWAYS GOT THEIR FULL TIME, BUT WE CAN, WE CAN GO BACK AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE REMEMBERING THAT CORRECTLY.

BUT WHAT WE'VE DONE NOW, YOU SEE AS COLLAPSED, EVERYBODY IS INTO ONE BUCKET RATHER THAN TAKING IT ITEM BY ITEM.

AND I THINK OUR STANDING PRACTICE, AND I THINK OUR POLICY WAS TAKE IT ISSUE BY ISSUE AND REDUCE, REDUCE WITHIN THE AGENDA ITEM YOU ARE.

AND YOU ARE CORRECT THAT OUR, THE WAY WE USED TO DO IT WAS, IT WAS, WE HAD INDIVIDUAL CALLS FOR EACH PEOPLE COULD SIGN UP LITERALLY WHILE THEIR ITEM WAS BEING DISCUSSED.

WE HAD PEOPLE SIGNING UP TO SPEAK AT FOUR OR FIVE O'CLOCK, SEVEN O'CLOCK, NINE O'CLOCK AT NIGHT TO SPEAK.

UH, EACH ONE WAS CAUGHT OUT INDIVIDUALLY.

WE DID DO THAT.

UH, THE, THE, THE POLICY HAD US WITH THREE MINUTES

[00:25:01]

FOR THE FIRST 20 SPEAKERS.

AND THEN ONE MINUTE, UH, AFTER THE 20 SPEAKERS.

SO THE ONE MINUTE WAS WHAT WE HAVE IN OUR RULES OR ORDINANCES FOR SPEAKERS AFTER THE FIRST, UH, 20.

BUT THE FIRST 20 DID GET THREE MINUTES.

UH, AND THAT'S HOW THAT'S WRITTEN.

THAT ALSO HAD US IN COUNCIL MEETINGS, 8, 9, 10, 11 O'CLOCK MIDNIGHT, WHICH WE HEARD FROM A LOT OF PEOPLE WAS INCREDIBLY UNFAIR TO THEM AGAIN.

BUT, BUT MAYOR AGAIN, THAT WAS INDIVIDUAL ITEM BY INDIVIDUAL ITEM, CORRECT? THAT IS NOT THE PRACTICE THAT WE'RE USING AT THE MOMENT.

AND I'M SAYING, I THINK OUR PRACTICE ON THE TABLE, I MEAN, I THINK OUR PRACTICE IN OUR, YOU KNOW, ADOPTED APPROVED PRACTICES IS NOT WHAT WE'VE BEEN FOLLOWING.

CORRECT.

SO IN ANY CASE, WHAT I'D LIKE TO SUGGEST IS THAT I'D LIKE TO JUST ADD THE ADDITIONAL CONTEXT THAT THE CHANGE WE'RE CONTEMPLATING IS IN LINE WITH OUR APPROVED POLICIES.

UM, AND IT ALSO HAS JUST 20 MINUTES.

SO I DISAGREE ABOUT THE APPROVED POLICIES SECTION BECAUSE THAT HAS ONE MINUTE, BUT IN ANY EVENT, THE MOTION IN FRONT OF US RIGHT NOW, OUR APPROVED POLICIES IS THREE MINUTES FOR THE FIRST 20 PEOPLE.

AND THEN ONE MINUTE THEREAFTER AND MAYOR, I THINK, I THINK THAT WE'LL BE HAPPY TO DISCUSS THIS AT A WORK SESSION.

WE CAN TALK ABOUT THIS ALL DAY LONG THEN, UM, WHAT OUR POLICY, WHAT THE ACTUAL PROCEDURES SAY.

OKAY.

SO THE MOTION IN FRONT OF US IS TO GIVE EVERYBODY THIS MORNING, TWO MINUTES, I'M READY TO TAKE A, VOTE THOSE IN FAVOR OF THAT CHANGE.

PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

UM, IT PASSES WITH A MAJORITY VOTE.

UH, SO EVERYBODY THIS MORNING, WE'LL GET TWO MINUTES.

LET'S GO

[Public Comments (Part 1 of 3)]

AHEAD AND CALL THE FIRST SPEAKER.

WE'RE GOING TO DO THE SPEAKERS IN PERSON FIRST, DO THEM IN ORDER.

AND PLEASE IDENTIFY THE ITEM ON WHICH THE PERSON IS TESTIFYING.

THANK YOU.

FIRST SPEAKER LAUREN STANLEY ITEMS, FOUR AND FIVE ON DECK GUS.

YEAH.

UM, MAYOR, WELL OR WELL, OR READING.

I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT WE, WE GOT CONFIRMATION THAT IT WOULD BE OKAY TO AUTHORIZE NEGOTIATION OF ITEM 10, BUT NOT EXECUTE, UM, SO THAT THEY CAN FINISH NEGOTIATING THE PLAN.

AND THEN THEY CAN COME BACK TO US FOR APPROVAL ON THE PLAN.

I MEAN, YOU DON'T NEED TO PULL IT AT THIS POINT.

IT HAS TO BE PULLED ANYWAY TO BE VOTED ON WITH THE OTHER.

BUT WHEN WE DO THAT, I WILL MOTION JUST TO NEGOTIATE IT.

OKAY.

RATHER THAN NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE AND THAT DOESN'T SO THEY CAN CONTINUE THEIR PROCESS.

OKAY.

I'M NOT INTIMATING A PROBLEM WITH THE PLAN.

I JUST THINK WE OUGHT TO.

OKAY.

PLEASE REMEMBER TO, TO, TO RAISE THAT WHEN WE GET TO THAT ITEM.

YES.

COUNSELOR.

SO THE ITEM THAT THE MAYOR PRO TIM IS TALKING ABOUT, THAT'S BEEN, WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS THAT, RIGHT? WE HAVE TO CAUSE IT CAN'T BE TO CONSIDER BEFORE ITEM 81, WHICH IS THE PUBLIC HEARING.

GOTCHA.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

OKAY.

GUS BEN YAS BEING ON ITEM 9 27, 39, 45, 46, 47, 84, 85.

JUST DEPENDING ON, UH, FOLKS, LET'S GET THIS TOGETHER.

OKAY.

BECAUSE, UH, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S BAD FOR THE COMMUNITY OVER HERE AND YOU THINK YOU'RE BEWILDERED, WE'RE MORE BUILDERS, BUT WE'RE OVER HERE.

UH, COUNCIL MEMBER, NATASHA.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR SAYING HELLO.

THAT MEANT A LOT TO ME.

OKAY.

UH, ITEM NUMBER NINE IS, UH, FIRST OF ALL, I JUST WANT, I SHOWED YOU WHEN YOU WERE RUNNING FOR MAYOR.

I SHOWED YOU MY SPECIAL AGENT WITH THE IRS ID.

OKAY.

WHAT I WANTED IS JUST DISCRIMINATORY THE WAY YOU ALL YOU WERE DOING RIGHT NOW, YOU DID THREE MINUTES.

WHAT, WHERE THE HELL DID ALL THE THREE MINUTES GO BEFORE? WHEN I WENT, UH, BEFORE THE, UH, THE IRIS, UH, OCCURRED ANYWAY, I DON'T NUMBER NINE, UH, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

UH, I THINK THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT.

UH, IT'S A UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS ISSUE, EXTENDED EDUCATION VENTURES.

WE ARE FOR IT.

UH, VETERANS FOR PROGRESS, 9,550 MEMBERS, ALL NON NON-VETERANS.

UH, OTHER CONFLICTS ALSO, UH, MARRIED.

DID YOU SAY NUMBER 27? HELLO? DID YOU SAY 2017? I'M ASKING THE CLERK.

I DIDN'T HEAR YOUR NASTY NOW.

NOW YOU DO.

NO, NO.

NOPE.

OKAY.

UH, HOW ABOUT 39? NO.

NOPE.

OKAY.

HOW ABOUT 45? NO.

NO.

WHAT'D YOU READ THE ONES THAT YOU SIGNED UP ON? YEAH.

OH, I'M SORRY.

I WAS SO YES, 9 27, 39, 45, 46, 47, 84 AND 85.

OKAY.

WELL, I'M GOING TO, I'M GOING TO LEAVE IT AT THAT, BUT, UH, HERE'S THE ISSUE.

UH, WE NEED, UH, A QUICKER AND BETTER,

[00:30:01]

UM, NOTIFICATION ABOUT WHAT IS, WHAT IS GOING ON BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT ARE VERY ASTUTE, VERY INTELLIGENT, BUT SOME THINGS ARE, ARE, ARE, ARE GETTING THE COMMUNITY, UH, ANGRY BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON.

IT HAS TO BE A BITTER BITTER WAY.

ANYWAY, I JUST WANTED TO SAY IS JUST CONTINUE TO HAVE THE PEOPLE AND, UH, DON'T HURT THE PEOPLE, HELP THE PEOPLE BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF HURT OUT THERE AND I'M NOT, I'M NOT GOING TO, I'M NOT GOING TO SAY ANYTHING ELSE OTHER THAN JUST KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK OTHERWISE, YOU KNOW, I'LL COME ON DOWN AGAIN.

I JUST GOT OUT OF THE HOSPITAL AGAIN.

IT HAS, UH, UH, WHEN I WAS IN, UH, VIETNAM.

SO ANYWAY, I'LL GET, THANK YOU.

GET IT TOGETHER.

MAYOR.

HOPE YOU GET IT TOGETHER.

OH, ME TOO.

MAYBE I'LL HAVE A BEER NEXT SPEAKER.

KRISTIN HANEY ITEMS. 39 ON DECK, REBECCA HIBBLER GOOD MORNING.

COUNCIL MEMBERS.

MY NAME IS KRISTIN HANEY.

I AM THE CHAIR OF THE EAST CESAR CHAVEZ NEIGHBORHOOD LAND USE COMMITTEE.

UM, I'M HERE TO SUPPORT ITEM NUMBER 39.

UM, THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED IN A LIVE WORK FLEX SUBDISTRICT, AND IT IS ELIGIBLE FOR A DENSITY BONUS.

THIS PROJECT IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR A HEIGHT BONUS AND IT IS NOT REQUESTING ADDITIONAL HEIGHT.

UM, THE MAXIMUM BASED BUILDING HEIGHT FOR THIS PROJECT IS 40 FEET.

UM, THE LIVE WORK FLEX SUB-DISTRICT IMPOSES A MINIMUM DENSITY OF 17 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.

UM, AND ITS PRIMARY INTENTION IS TO FUNCTION AS A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, UM, WITH PROX AND WITH HIS PROXIMITY TO LOWER DENSITY NEIGHBORHOODS ADJACENT TO THE TOD.

UM, RESIDENTIAL IS A REQUIRED USE OF THIS SUBDISTRICT AND WE'RE VERY GRATEFUL THAT IT IS.

UM, WE'VE BEEN, AS YOU GUYS KNOW, WE'VE BEEN DEALING WITH A LOT OF, UM, REZONING PROJECTS COMING IN AND ASKING FOR A LOT MORE THAN THIS AND NOT GIVING US ANY HOUSING WHATSOEVER.

SO WE'RE EXCITED TO SEE HOUSING COME TO THE PROJECT.

UM, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING, UM, 20, ROUGHLY 25,000 BONUS SQUARE FEET IN EXCHANGE.

THEY ARE OFFERING TO PROVIDE ONE THIRD OF THE GROSS RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE AS AFFORDABLE UNITS AT 60% MFI.

AND THEY'RE OFFERING TO PAY A FEE IN LIEU, UM, FOR THE ENTIRE BONUS SQUARE FOOTAGE AREA.

SO, UM, WE REALLY APPRECIATE THE APPLICANT'S INTENTION TO WORK WITHIN THE SALTY OTO DE REGULATING PLAN UNTIL A HEIGHT APPROPRIATE BUILDING THAT PROVIDES COMMERCE, RESIDENTIAL, AND AFFORDABLE RESIDENTIAL TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND WE HOPE THAT YOU WILL JOIN US IN SUPPORTING THIS PROJECT.

THANK YOU, REBECCA.

HIBBLER ON DECK JANICE RANKIN, JANICE RANKIN, SPEAKING ON ITEM 52 ON DECK JOSEPH REYNOLD SPEAKING ON 52 AS WELL.

THANK YOU.

UH, COUNCIL MEMBER TOBO FOR PULLING THIS ITEM, MR. MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS.

I AM JANICE RANKIN, A CONSTITUENT OF COUNCIL MEMBER POOL AND DISTRICT SEVEN.

AND YOU HEARD FROM ME ON THE SUBJECT OF THE ASAP PREDESIGNATED RIGHT OF WAY AT THE COUNCIL MEETING ON MAY 19TH, THE ELLENDALE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION PASSED A RESOLUTION SUBMITTED TO YOU ON MONDAY, JUNE 6TH.

YOU SHOULD HAVE A COPY IN YOUR MATERIALS.

IT REQUESTS THE COUNCIL TO EXPRESS ITS INTENT ABOUT THE RIGHT OF WAY IN AN ORDINANCE.

THIS COULD BE ADDED AS A NEW SUB PARAGRAPH A, WHICH IS IN THE REMARKS THAT I SUBMITTED TO YOU IN WRITING THROUGH THE CITY CLERK, AND THAT YOU COULD BE ABLE TO, I THINK ADAPT PRETTY EASILY.

THE PURPOSE OF IT WOULD BE FOR THE COUNCIL TO DECLARE AS AN ACT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING THAT THE ISM PAY STREET NETWORK AMENDMENTS WILL NOT IMPAIR OR AFFECT THE USE.

OUR PURPOSE OF OWNERSHIP, RIGHTS OF THE PRIVATE REAL PROPERTIES AFFECTED OUTSIDE THE AGREED DEDICATION CITY PROCEDURES AND THE ADDITIONAL PREDESIGNATED ROUTE OF WASTE SUGGESTIONS WILL NOT BE USED OR INVOKED AS A BASIS FOR CLAIMING TAKING OR ACQUIRING THESE PROPERTY RIGHTS WITHOUT FOLLOWING PROPER NOTICE BONAFIDE OFFER AND OTHER PROCEDURES UNDER CHAPTER 21 OF THE TEXAS PROPERTY CODE NOTICE IN PROTEST PROCEDURES OF CHAPTER TWO 11 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE AND OTHER APPLICABLE STATE LAW.

[00:35:01]

THIS ADDITIONAL PARAGRAPH, WHICH IS SHORT WOULD VERIFY STATEMENTS MADE BY CITY STAFF AND SOME COUNCIL MEMBERS IN RECENT PUBLIC MEETINGS AND CREATE AN OFFICIAL DOCUMENT FILED IN THE CITY RECORDS BY THE CITY CLERK, MAKING IT ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC.

THIS ADDITIONAL SHORT PARAGRAPH WOULD PROTECT THE INTEREST OF YOUR CONSTITUENTS WHO LIVE AND WORK HERE.

RAISE FAMILIES HERE, DO GOOD WORKS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES HERE.

PAY PROPERTY TAXES HERE AND VOTE HERE.

PLEASE DO THIS.

THANK YOU, JOSEPH REYNOLDS.

SO SPEAKING ON 52 ON DECK, ROY WHALEY ALSO ON 52 MAYOR AND COUNCIL I'M JOE REYNOLDS, I LIVE ON WEST 49TH STREET.

I'M HERE TODAY TO URGE YOU TO REJECT THE ASN P UPDATE, WHICH WAS ITEM 52, THERE'S BEEN INADEQUATE AND IMPROPER PLANNING WHEN SETTING THE NEW RIGHT OF WAY.

THERE ARE TWO DEFECT TYPES IN THIS PLANNING.

FIRST, A FAILURE OF SCOPE TO CONSIDER UNDOCUMENTED EITHER PROPERTY OR CHARACTER OR THE PROPERTIES RELEVANT, PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL LIMITATIONS, BOTH LIMITING RIGHT AWAY UTILIZATION.

SECOND, THE FAILURE PROCESS.

AND THAT IS NOT WRITING IN THE RESTRICTIONS FOR USING THE RIGHT OF WAY, WHICH WERE PROMISED IN HEARINGS, BUT NOT INTO THE DOCUMENT.

JANICE JUST ADDRESSED THAT FOR YOU.

THE FIRST CLASS OF FAILURES IS ENHANCED WHEN YOU APPROVE THE PLAN AT THAT POINT, POSSIBLE DEFECTS ARE IGNORED.

THE PLAN BECOMES 100%.

OKAY.

IT'S COUNCIL APPROVED THAT HAPPENED WITH THE TRAIL PLAN DOWNTOWN TO THE DOMAIN LIKE ASM SMP.

IT FAILED TO CONSIDER ENVIRONMENTAL LIMITATIONS.

A CONTRACT WAS LET TO CONSTRUCT THE PATHWAY.

IT ASSUMED NO LIMITATIONS TO BUILDING THE WELL-KNOWN GEOLOGY OF SHOW CREEK WAS IGNORED, CONSTRUCTION, DISTURBED, THE HILLSIDE AND THE RESULTING COLLAPSE NOW HAS A COST APPROACHING $20 MILLION.

AND MY HANDOUT, I INCLUDED ONE EXAMPLE OF A SIMILAR FUTURE ASM P UNDER INCIDENT.

IT CAN RESULT IN AN APARTMENT SLIDING INTO BARTON SPRINGS ROAD AT LAMAR.

NO, THE ENGINEER WON'T IDENTIFY AND CORRECT AVOID THE PROBLEM ANY MORE THAN THE ENGINEER FOR THE TRAIL.

THERE'LL BE FOCUSED ON THE ROADWAY, NOT THE CUT NEEDED TO BUILD IT.

AND THERE'LL BE OTHER EXAMPLES YOU'RE HEAR ABOUT WHEN THE LOCAL NEWS INTERVIEWS YOU PLANS MUST BE MORE THAN JUST DESIRES AND OBJECTIVES.

THEY MUST INCLUDE LIMITATIONS IN LOGISTICS.

AFTER ASM P DISCUSSED EXCESSIVE RIGHT AWAY, THERE WAS WIDESPREAD ALARM WITH FLAGS STUCK IN YARDS TO SHOW THE EXTENT OF THE TAKING STAFF REPEATEDLY VOICED ASSURANCES THAT THE HOMEOWNERS WOULD NOT BE AFFECTED, BUT ROUGHLY REPEATEDLY REFUSED TO WRITE THE VOICE LIMITATIONS INTO THE PLAN.

THERE WAS NO TRUST OF STAFF.

THE LAST MINUTE REDLINE CHANGES TO THE PLAN AFTER ALL HEARINGS AND POSSIBLE CITIZEN COMMENT ENHANCE THE DEPTH.

YOU HAVE A DUTY TO REJECT IT AS PRESENTED TODAY UNTIL THOSE DEFECTS ARE ADDRESSED.

THANK YOU, ROY WHALEY, SPEAKING ON ITEM 52 ON DECK JEFFREY BOWEN, HOWDY.

Y'ALL ROY WHALEY.

I AM THE CHAIR OF THE AUSTIN REGIONAL GROUP OF THE SIERRA CLUB CONSERVATION COMMITTEE.

AND I WON'T TAKE MUCH TIME.

THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN, UH, TALKED ABOUT IT'S ALREADY BEEN DECIDED.

I DON'T KNOW WHY IT'S BACK.

HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU GET TO BITE THE APPLE UNTIL YOU GET WHAT YOU WANT? UH, VOTE.

NO REJECT.

THIS IS EASY.

YOU'VE ALREADY DONE IT ONCE.

IT'S EASY TO DO IT AGAIN.

PLEASE DO.

THANK YOU.

I JUST NEED RIGHT MR. WHALEY, RIGHT? WHAT, WHAT SPECIFICALLY? I MISSED EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANTED US TO REJECT ORDINARY PREMIUM.

REALLY? WHAT WAS, WHAT EXACTLY WERE YOU URGING US TO REJECT ON 52? UM, TH THE ENTIRE 52 OR A SPECIFIC ELEMENT OF IT? WELL, SPECIFICALLY ON 52, MY CONCERNS WOULD BE, UM, THE EFFECT THAT WOULD HAVE ON MOPAC.

AND ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE INCLUSION OF SH 45 EXTENSION? CAUSE THERE'S A LOT MORE THAN THAT.

HOW FAR ARE YOU GOING OVER THAT? THERE IT'S ALREADY BEEN DECIDED.

I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHY IT'S COMING BACK.

I MEAN, IF WE DO THAT, IT'S GOING TO PUT SUCH PRESSURE ON MOPAC.

WE'VE ALREADY GOT ONE 30 THAT'S BEING UNDER UTILIZED BECAUSE OF THE TOLLS.

WE'VE GOT THE TRUCKS THAT ARE JUST JAMMING UP BY 35.

THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN ON MOPAC.

AND THAT WAS NEVER PART OF THE PLAN.

MOPAC WAS SUPPOSED TO BE AN INNER CITY BOULEVARD.

ONE 30 IS SUPPOSED TO DO THAT.

360 IS SUPPOSED TO DO THAT BACK IN 19 86, 20 WAS SUPPOSED TO BE AT THE OUTER LOOP.

RIGHT.

I DON'T MEAN TO STOP YOU.

I APPRECIATE THIS.

I HAVE AN AMENDMENT COMING FORWARD

[00:40:01]

LATER TO ADDRESS THAT.

I JUST WANTED, I DIDN'T HEAR YOU TALK ABOUT SH 45, SO I WASN'T SURE IF YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE ENTIRE ESSAY, I JUST WANTED TO BE CLEAR ON WHICH PIECE YOU WERE OBJECTING TO.

SO THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

THE PROBLEMATIC PART.

OKAY.

THANKS.

JEFFREY BOWEN SPEAKING ON 52 AND 66 ON DECK.

SACARY FADDIS.

UH, GOOD MORNING.

MY NAME'S JEFFREY BOWEN.

I'M IN DISTRICT GATE.

UH, I'M HERE ON RIGHT NOW ON THE SMP.

UH, THERE APPEARS TO BE MANY UNDISCLOSED ISSUE SURROUNDING THE AMENDMENTS TO THE ASM P ACCORDING TO THE COVER OF THE RED LINE ASAP, IT STATES IT'S ALREADY BEEN AMENDED AS OF TODAY.

YET, HERE WE ARE WITH ITEM 52 ON THE AGENDA.

THERE'S NO MENTION OF THE 1,407 PAGE DOCUMENT.

AND THE BACKUPS REGARDING THE CITY BLOCKS AFFECTED BY THE EXPANSION OF THE PUBLIC RIGHT AWAY.

UH, THIS WAS PROVIDED BY THE ASM P TEAM TO MANY IN THE PUBLIC 20 BLOCKS PER PAGE, JUST OVER 28,000 BLOCKS EFFECTED.

IF YOU JUST ESTIMATE SIX PROPERTIES PER BLOCK, THAT BRINGS THE TOTAL NUMBER TO JUST UNDER 169,000 PROPERTIES.

AND THAT PROBLEM, THAT NUMBER IS PROBABLY LOW.

THAT INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED BY THE ASM P TEAM AND SHOULD BE IN THE BACKUPS IS CALLED TRANSPARENCY.

HOW MANY WERE NOTIFIED OF THESE EVENTUAL CHANGES? WHERE IS, OR WHERE THE GOOD FAITH, FAIR DEALINGS, AND MOST OF ALL GOOD GOVERNANCE IN A RECENT TCM, UH, TRAINING SESSION THIS PAST WEEK, THE TCM IS REFERRED TO AS OUR, THE ASM P IS REFERRED TO AS THE GUIDING DOCUMENT.

WHEREAS ASM P REFERS TO THE TCM AS THE GUIDING DOCUMENT, WHICH IS IT, THIS ISN'T GOOD GOVERNANCE.

THE CHANGE IN THE ORDINANCE THAT GIVES THE TRAFFIC, THE CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER AUTHORITY TO MAKE CERTAIN OPERATIONAL CHANGES WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY.

THIS IS RESHAPING LAND USE.

WHY NOT SAY WHAT IT IS? IT'S A BACKDOOR TO TAKING PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT.

DO WE NEED TO BE REMINDED OF PAST COURT RULINGS? IT IS STATED THAT THE PUBLIC WAS PROVIDED NUMEROUS OPPORTUNITIES TO COMMENT ON THIS AMENDMENT.

WHAT GOOD IS PUBLIC INPUT? WHEN COLE KITTEN STATES AT THE AUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION, THAT THE PUBLIC COMMENTS WERE TAKEN WITH A GRAIN OF SALT WHERE OUR GOOD FAITH, FAIR DAILIES TRANSPARENCY AND GOOD GOVERNANCE FROM OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS.

ZACHARY SPEAKING ON ITEM 66 AND 80 ON DECK.

CARMEN YAN IS FULLY THOUGH.

CARMEN YAN IS BULLY THOSE SPEAKING ON 66, 69 AND 80 ON DECK MONICA GUZMAN.

GOOD MORNING.

I'LL, I'LL TRY TO STAY DIPLOMATIC, BUT I AM WONDERING WHERE THAT GOVERNMENT THAT WORKS FOR ALL SECTION WENT IN STRATEGIC DIRECTION.

2023.

IT'S PRETTY TOUGH TO KEEP UP WITH Y'ALL RIGHT NOW.

UM, YOU WILL SEE A STATEMENT FROM DEL VALLEY COMMUNITY COALITION AND GO AUSTIN, VAMOS AUSTIN, IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY RELATED TO ITEM 80, VMU, PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO THAT STATEMENT.

THE REASON WE WROTE IT IS BECAUSE WE ARE IN RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PEOPLE DIRECTLY IMPACTED NEGATIVELY BY SPECULATION OF ZONING AND OTHER REAL ESTATE PRACTICES THAT UNREGULATED OR DEREGULATED, UPROOT AND DISRUPT THE LIVES BUSINESSES AND CARETAKER NETWORKS IN OUR CITY, THEY DAMAGE OUR ENVIRONMENT.

THEY DISPLACE TRANSIT WRITERS, AND THEY GIVE US MORE EXPENSIVE PROBLEMS THAT YOU THEN TALK ABOUT HOW TO ALLOCATE OUR LIMITED TAX DOLLARS TO SOLVE.

YOU GIVE THIS GIFT TO DEVELOPERS.

IF YOU DEREGULATE VMU, IF YOU GET RID OF COMPATIBILITY, IF YOU GIVE BI-RITE ENTITLEMENTS, WE LOSE THE PUBLIC PROCESS THAT ALLOWS US TO NEGOTIATE BETTER DEALS.

YOU'VE CREATED A LAND ACQUISITION FUND FROM PROJECT CONNECT DOLLARS.

YOU'VE CREATED A COMMUNITY INITIATED SOLUTIONS FUND THAT WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW THE HELL TO GET TO ACTUAL PEOPLE.

AND YOU'VE GOT A TENANT RELOCATION FUND WITH NO MONEY IN IT.

THESE ARE THE SOLUTIONS THAT