* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.
          [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83, WHEN PUBLIC HEARINGS ARE TAKEN UP, THIS ITEM WILL BE POSTPONED TO JULY 28TH, UH, 2022 ITEM NUMBER 1 0 8 HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED WITH ITEM 1 25.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 ARE PRESENTED AT PLANNING COMMISSION AND IN FRONT OF YOU TO MAKE A CASE FOR THESE ZONINGS AS IF THE HARM IS MITIGATED. 
          AND IT'S NOT, PEOPLE ARE BEING HARMED BY THIS. 
          WHEN YOU GIVE AWAY ENTITLEMENTS, IF YOU MAKE BLANKET CHANGES LIKE THIS TO THE CODE, WE LOSE THE PUBLIC PROCESS TO NEGOTIATE, TO USE THOSE FUNDS. 
          YOU'VE WORKED SO HARD TO ALLOCATE FOR US. 
          WE CAN COME UP WITH BETTER DEALS THAT PRODUCE MORE HOUSING, PRESERVE AFFORDABILITY, AND KEEP REGULAR AUSTINITES FROM BEING 
          [00:45:01]
DISPLACED. 
          I ALSO JUST WANT TO SAY THAT IF YOU DO THIS WITH THE COMPATIBILITY, ALL OF THESE CONFUSING THINGS ABOUT THE ASM P Y'ALL ARE ASKING FOR LAWSUITS, WHY DO WE HAVE TO SUE THE CITY OF AUSTIN TO GUARANTEE OUR PUBLIC PROCESS? WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO DO THAT EVERY TIME. 
          AND WE SHOULDN'T HEAR EXCUSES ABOUT HOW YOU'RE WORRIED ABOUT VIOLATING FAIR HOUSING. 
          IF WE LOOK AT AREA MFI SO WE CAN EQUITABLY UP ZONE, BUT YOU'RE WILLING TO CHALLENGE STATE LAW ON OUR PUBLIC PROCESS AND NOTIFICATION, PLEASE GIVE US A CHANCE TO ACTUALLY WORK OUT SOME BETTER LAND DEALS AND PRODUCE HOUSING IN A WAY THAT'S LESS HARMFUL. 
          AND PLEASE THIS AFTERNOON, GIVE THOSE CLAYTON LANE RESIDENTS THEIR FULL TWO OR THREE MINUTES, BECAUSE THE CASE YOU'RE DISCUSSING, DETERMINES WHERE WHETHER AND HOW THEY ARE DISPLACED FROM THE CITY OF AUSTIN. 
          THE LEAST YOU CAN DO IS LET THEM TELL THEIR STORY UP HERE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YEAH. 
          MONICA GUZMAN, SPEAKING ON ITEMS, 66, 69, 80 ON DECK, MARIO, COME TO GOOD MORNING. 
          MARION COUNCIL, I'M MONICA GUZMAN POLICY DIRECTOR OF GABA GO AUSTIN, VAMOS AUSTIN, AND A DISTRICT FOR RESIDENT GABA IS OPPOSED TO ITEM 66 AND 80. 
          I WANT TO REFERENCE THE DEL VALLEY COMMUNITY COALITION GOV A JOINT STATEMENT SPECIFICALLY REGARDING THE AFFORDABILITY AFFORDABILITY LEVEL OF AFFORDABLE UNITS REQUIRED BY BMU TWO, THEY SHOULD BE TIED TO 60% OF THE TRAVIS COUNTY MFI OR 80% OF THE MFI FOR THE CENSUS BLOCK GROUP OR CENSUS TRACK. 
          IF BLOCK GROUP DATA IS NOT AVAILABLE, THAT THE PARCEL IN QUESTION IS ON WHICHEVER IS LOWER. 
          THIS DEFINES AFFORDABILITY BASED ON WHAT IS AFFORDABLE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND TAKES INTO ACCOUNT EQUITY ISSUES AND ACHIEVES WHEN BMU TWO IS USED IN AN AREA IN WHICH THE MFI IS LOWER THAN THE TRAVIS COUNTY WIDE MFI, ANY AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCLUDED WILL BE AFFORDABLE TO THE EXISTING RESIDENTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          THIS MITIGATES IMPACT OR DISPLACEMENT AND ENSURE SOME EXISTING LONG-TERM RESIDENTS CAN CONTINUE TO AFFORD THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          AFFORDABLE HOUSING WILL BE INCLUDED IN HIGHER INCOME NEIGHBORHOODS AT A RATE THAT IS MORE AFFORDABLE THAN CURRENT UNITS AVAILABLE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          WHEN UNITS ARE BUILT IN A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT ARE AFFORDABLE BASED ON TRAVIS COUNTY, BUT NOT LOCAL AFFORDABILITY. 
          THESE UNITS CONTRIBUTE TO GENTRIFICATION AND DISPLACEMENT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          THIS WILL MITIGATE THAT IMPACT. 
          AND THE RELOCATION BENEFITS MUST BE STRENGTHENED GIVEN THAT THE TENANT RELOCATION ORDINANCE AND PARTICULARLY POTENTIALLY UNFUNDED TENANT RELOCATION FUND ARE INSUFFICIENT TO PREVENT THE RISK OF DISPLACEMENT AND HOMELESSNESS. 
          VMU TWO DEVELOPERS MUST PROVIDE A PACKAGE OF FINANCIAL BENEFITS DIRECTLY TO RENTERS IMPACTED BY DISPLACEMENT. 
          WHEN THE OLD RENTERS REQUESTED SUCH A PACKAGE FROM THE DEVELOPER, JCI, THE DEVELOPER DIRECTED THEM TO THE TRO AND TOLD THEM THAT THE CITY WOULD TAKE CARE OF THEIR RELOCATION EXPENSES. 
          MY CLOSING COMMENTS ARE AS A DEFAULT RESIDENT, I REMEMBER WATCHING HEARING COUNCIL DISCUSSION ABOUT POSTPONING, THE BMU DECISION TO ALLOW TIME FOR YOU TO ENGAGE THE COMMUNITY. 
          MAY 16TH WAS THE SOUTH AUSTIN BMU COMMUNITY MEETING, BUT RESIDENTS IN THE REMAINING SIX DISTRICTS, INCLUDING DISTRICTS ONE IN FOUR IN THE EASTERN CRESCENT ARE STILL WAITING. 
          WHEN WILL YOU SCHEDULE THE MEETING FOR AUTHENTIC ENGAGEMENT, ESPECIALLY WITH MULTI-LINGUAL LOW INCOME AND WORKING CLASS COMMUNITIES, PLEASE DO RIGHT BY YOUR CONSTITUENT, GO BACK AND WATCH AND LISTEN TO THE TESTIMONY, BUT PEOPLE OF COLOR ON MAY THE 19TH. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I'M SPEAKING ON ITEMS 52 AND 80 ON DECK, FRED FLETCHER. 
          GOOD EVENING. 
          COUNCIL MEMBERS, MARIO CANTU. 
          UM, WHEN IT SPEAK ON ITEM 52, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE WAS, UH, A LOT OF CONVERSATION, MAYBE A LOT OF PROMISES THAT WERE MADE ON THAT PARTICULAR ITEM. 
          AND IF THERE WAS PROMISES THAT WERE MADE TO THE RESIDENTS, TO CITIZENS HERE IN AUSTIN, TEXAS, THEN THAT THOSE ITEMS NEED TO BE IN WRITING AND THEY NEED TO BE FOLLOWED. 
          UH, IF THAT'S NOT THE CASE, THEN THERE NEEDS TO BE A LOT MORE CONVERSATION REGARDING THIS ITEM AND MAKING SURE THAT EVERYTHING IS COMPLETE. 
          AND IN WRITING FOR THE RESIDENTS OF THAT AREA ON ITEM 80, UH, THE VMU TWO, AS YOU KNOW, I WAS HERE LIKE ABOUT THREE WEEKS AGO, SPEAKING ON VM YOU TWO, AND THIS CONVERSATION THAT I HAD WITH EACH ONE OF Y'ALL PRESENT, UH, THE MAIN THING THAT I SPOKE ABOUT WAS DISPLACEMENT. 
          WE HAVE THAT SITUATION THAT I SPOKE ABOUT RIGHT NOW, GOING ON WITH THESE INDIVIDUALS IN ITEM ONE 20. 
          THE SCENARIO THAT I GAVE IS EXACTLY WHAT'S TAKING PLACE RIGHT NOW. 
          AND IN THIS APARTMENT COMPLEX, THERE'S THREE. 
          MY UNDERSTANDING THERE IS THREE, UH, VETERANS THAT ARE THERE. 
          UH, ARE WE GOING TO STICK THOSE VETERANS BACK DOWN UNDER BEN WHITE BOULEVARD, AFTER THIS IS DONE? YOU KNOW, THE GOAL WAS FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. 
          UH, AND, UH, AND I KNOW MAYOR ADLER HAD WORKED ON THIS IS TO PULL 
          [00:50:01]
VETERANS OFF THE STREET AND TO KEEP THEM OFF THE STREET, BUT WE STILL HAVE VETERANS THAT ARE ON THE STREET AND WE STILL HAVE THEM POTENTIALLY GOING ON THE STREET. 
          ASIDE FROM THAT JUST AN IN VETERANS ALONE. 
          WHAT IF WE'RE PULLING HEALTHCARE WORKERS? WHAT IF WE'RE PULLING PARAMEDICS? WHAT A FRUIT PULLING EMT IS, WE'RE PULLING OUR ENDS AND JUST RESIDENTS ALONE THAT JUST LIVE HERE AT A LOWER MFI. 
          WE NEED TO WORK ON THE, THE PURPOSE OF MAKING SURE THAT THESE INDIVIDUALS, WHEN THIS SCENARIO IN THIS SITUATION TAKES PLACE IN THIS CITY, WE FIND A WAY TO SHIFT THESE INDIVIDUALS INTO BETTER HOUSING, EITHER EQUAL OR GREATER AT THE MFI THAT THEY WERE AT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          SPEAKING ON ITEMS, 57 58, FRED FLETCHER ON DECK LISA FLETCHER, EDGAR HANDLE IS ITEM 68 SPEAKING. 
          YES. 
          OKAY. 
          I'M CANDACE FULLS AND I AM VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE AUSTIN HISTORY CENTER ASSOCIATION BOARD. 
          AND I'M HERE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF ITEM NUMBER 68. 
          AND I WANTED TO THANK COUNCIL MEMBER, LESLIE POOL AND HER AGE, LOUISA BRYNN'S MAID AND LISETTE GALVIN FOR SHEPHERDING THIS RESOLUTION FROM THE TRAVIS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO OUR CITY COUNCIL. 
          I ALSO WANTED TO THANK COUNCIL MEMBER LES, UM, KATHY TOVO FOR HER UNFAILING SUPPORT OF THE AUSTIN HISTORY CENTER, INCLUDING DEFLECTING EFFORTS BY OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS TO DEDICATE SPACE AT THE FALK FOR NON ARCHIVAL NON-LIBRARY CITY PURPOSES FOR SPONSORING CITY COUNCIL ACTION TO INCREASE 2018 BOND FUNDING FOR THE AUSTIN HISTORY CENTER BUILDINGS AND FOR BEING A LONG TIME AUSTIN HISTORY CENTER ASSOCIATION, MEMBER, AND SUPPORTER OF ITS ACTIVITIES AND EVENTS. 
          THANK YOU, LESLIE AND CATHY. 
          THANK YOU, EDGAR HANDLE. 
          SPEAKING ON ITEMS, 59, 62, 66 AND 80 ON DECK, LUKE METZKER. 
          UM, I'D LIKE TO SAY I'M STRONGLY IN FAVOR OF ITEM 86 CONCERNING URBAN RENEWAL FOR 11TH AND 12TH STREETS AS AN AUSTIN RESIDENT WHO SPENDS A LOT OF TIME ON THESE QUARTERS. 
          I'M GLAD TO SEE WORK, TO BREATHE NEW LIFE INTO THIS ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT ON ITEM 62, I ALSO STRONGLY APPROVE A CHANGES TO MAKE ADU EASIER TO BUILD. 
          I WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO AFFORD MY HOME IF I DID NOT SHARE THE LOT WITH AN ADU ON ITEMS 66 AND 80 CONCERNING HOUSING ON OUR CORRIDORS WHILE I APPRECIATE THE EFFORTS TO ALLEVIATE THE HOUSING CRISIS, WE REALLY SHOULD MAKE THE MOST OF THIS OPPORTUNITY. 
          IT'S PAINFULLY CLEAR THAT DETACHED HOMES IN AUSTIN ARE ATTAINABLE ONLY BY THE RICH AND THAT BUILDING HOMES FOR THE AVERAGE HOUSEHOLDS MEANS BUILDING MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING. 
          SADLY, WE SEEM TO BE HELD BACK IN PART BY AN IDEA THAT MULTIFAMILY HOUSING IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH FAMILIES, BUT I'M A SECOND GENERATION HUNTER AND IMMIGRANT. 
          AND MY WIFE IS A FIRST-GENERATION IRANIAN IMMIGRANT, AND WE WERE RAISED FOR MANY YEARS AND APARTMENTS. 
          AND AT TIMES OUR FAMILIES WERE DEPENDENT ON PUBLIC TRANSIT APARTMENTS. 
          AREN'T SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE KEPT FROM OTHER HOMES. 
          THEY PROVIDE OPPORTUNITY TO WORKING CLASS FAMILIES. 
          SO I ASKED COUNCIL TO BUILD ABUNDANT HOUSING ON OUR CORRIDORS TO ELIMINATE PARKING AND COMPATIBILITY REQUIREMENTS THAT PREVENT MORE HOMES FOR FAMILIES LIKE MINE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND I MET AND EDWIN EDWIN, ONE MINUTE. 
          MAY I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION FOR THE GO AHEAD? YES. 
          I'M AN IMMIGRATION ATTORNEY REPRESENTED MANY, MANY CLIENTS, MANY OF WHOM LIVE IN DISTRICT FOUR, UH, LARGE FAMILIES. 
          THE VAST MAJORITY OF MY CLIENTS WORKING CLASS FAMILIES LIVED IN APARTMENTS WITH THEIR FAMILIES IS THAT I KNOW THAT'S YOUR PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, BUT IN TERMS OF LIKE THE FOLKS THAT YOU GREW UP WITH, IS THAT WHAT YOU SEE AROUND YOU? YEAH, I MEAN, GROWING UP, IT WAS MY WHOLE EXTENDED FAMILY. 
          I MEAN, I HAVE, UH, AUNTS, UNCLES, GRANDPARENTS, COUSINS LIVED WITH THEIR FAMILIES IN APARTMENTS FAMILIES, EVEN ACROSS THE U S IN CALIFORNIA. 
          I MEAN, IT'S JUST EVEN TODAY. 
          UM, WE STILL HAVE FAMILY AND FAMILY, FRIENDS, MANY OF WHOM ARE IMMIGRANT FAMILIES TOO, WHO ARE LIVING IN APARTMENTS AND RAISING CHILDREN. 
          I MEAN, I, I THINK IN MANY WAYS IT'S MAYBE A MORE NORMAL THING FOR IMMIGRANT FAMILIES. 
          UM, MAYBE 
          [00:55:02]
I DON'T KNOW WHY MIGHT BE SPECIFIC TO THEM. 
          I REALLY THINK IT'S A, IT'S A THING FOR ALL FAMILIES, BUT THAT'S AT LEAST MY EXPERIENCE. 
          WELL, I JUST WANT TO SAY, I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS. 
          I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND THAT A LOT OF FOLKS, YOU KNOW, THINK OF A KIND OF A HOUSE, YOU KNOW, AND, AND, AND WHEN WE HAVE KIDS, WE'RE GOING TO BUY A HOME, BUT THAT'S LARGELY UNAVAILABLE FOR HUGE SWATHS OF OUR POPULATION. 
          AND, UH, I, I JUST WANT IT NOT TO BE SOMETHING EXTRAORDINARY. 
          IT'S A NORMAL THING FOR FAMILIES TO LIVE IN APARTMENTS AND GROW UP IN APARTMENTS. 
          AND I APPRECIATE YOUR, YOUR INPUT. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          NEXT SPEAKER, LUKE, METZKER SPEAKING ON ITEM 61 ON DECK BLI RANDOLPH. 
          UH, GOOD MORNING, LUKE METZKER WITH ENVIRONMENT TEXAS AS AUSTIN GROWS, WE'RE PAVING OVER MORE AND MORE OF OUR NATURAL AREAS SINCE 1997. 
          WE'VE LOST ABOUT 30% OF OUR OPEN SPACE IN TRAVIS COUNTY. 
          IN A TWO YEAR PERIOD, WE LOST 6% OF OUR TREE CANOPY. 
          AND AS WE PAVE OVER MORE AND MORE, THAT CAUSES SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS, INCLUDING WATER POLLUTION, FLOODING URBAN HEAT ISLAND EFFECT ON WATER POLLUTION. 
          WE KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN IT RAINS, IT DOESN'T ABSORB INTO THE GROUND, BUT INSTEAD RUSHES ALONG IN CONCRETE, PUTTING IN FERTILIZERS AND AT DOG POOP AND OTHER THINGS THAT WHEN PEOPLE SWIM IN OUR CREEKS, THEY CAN GET SICK. 
          A RECENT STUDY FOUND THAT 57 MILLION AMERICANS GET WATERBORNE ILLNESSES EVERY YEAR FROM SWIMMING IN OUR CREEKS AND LAKES AND OCEANS. 
          AND THAT'S THINGS LIKE, UH, UH, EYE INFECTION, EAR INFECTION, SKIN RASHES, AND OTHER PROBLEMS. UH, WE ALSO KNOW FLOODING IS A SERIOUS PROBLEM HERE IN CENTRAL TEXAS. 
          WE HAVE MORE FLOODING RELATED DEATHS THAN ANY OTHER PART OF THE COUNTRY, ASIDE FROM HOUSTON IN CENTRAL TEXAS. 
          AND, UH, FLOODING IS ONLY GOING TO GET WORSE WITH CLIMATE CHANGE AND THEN FINALLY, URBAN HEAT ISLAND EFFECT WITH MORE AND MORE CONCRETE. 
          IT'S JUST MAKING A HOTTER AND HOTTER AND OUR CITIES, WHICH JUST MAKES IT MORE MISERABLE WHEN THIS TIME OF YEAR AND ALSO DEADLY FOR PEOPLE HAVE TO WORK OUTSIDE. 
          SO AS WE DENSIFY AND WE DO NEED A DENSIFY BECAUSE SPRAWL IS A PERHAPS OUR BIGGEST ENVIRONMENTAL CRISIS, WE, AS WE DENSIFY, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE'RE MITIGATING SOME OF THOSE IMPACTS AND ITEM 61 IS A CRITICAL MEASURE TO HELP MAKE SURE THAT WE REDUCE THE IMPACTS OF STORMWATER RUNOFF, HELP CLEAN UP OUR CREEKS, HELP REDUCE FLOODING, HELP, ADD MORE NATURE TO OUR CITIES, UH, SO THAT WE CAN, UH, HAVE A, UH, BOTH A NATURAL AND A CITY AND A HEALTHIER WATERS. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          CAUSE CHAIR, BEFORE YOU TAKE OFF ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCE, THERE WAS SOME QUESTION WITH RESPECT TO, UH, UH, GREENFIELD AND, AND SLOPE. 
          WE OBVIOUSLY WANTED, WE WANT TO HAVE GREENFIELD, UH, DEVELOPMENT. 
          UM, AND THE QUESTION THAT IT BECOMES DIFFICULT IS IF YOU ALREADY HAVE A TRACK, THAT'S A HUNDRED PERCENT OF PERVIOUS COVER, UH, HOW DO YOU ACTUALLY INSENT THEM TO REDEVELOP THAT TRACK? IF THE RULES IN PLACE WOULD TAKE AWAY TOO MUCH OF THE PROPERTY TO ALLOW FOR THAT INCENTIVE, UH, WE PREPARED A, AN AMENDMENT WITH OTHERS, COLLEAGUES, COUNCIL MEMBER, HOPPER, MADISON, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER, ALICE, TO SAY, LET'S FIGURE OUT THE BEST WAY FROM AN ENVIRONMENTAL STANDPOINT TO, TO ACTUALLY MAKE SURE THESE PROTECTIONS COME IN PLACE. 
          UH, AND THEN COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO YOU HAD ASKED YESTERDAY, WE'VE LIMITED THAT JUST TO THE SLOPE AND THE GREENFIELD LANGUAGE. 
          AND I THINK WE'VE WORKED ON THAT LANGUAGE WITH YOU AND, AND, UH, YOUR GROUP, IS THAT LANGUAGE THAT YOU SUPPORT? YEAH, I THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO TAKE A LITTLE BIT EXTRA TIME. 
          I THINK THE CITY STAFF ARE GOING TO NEED THAT TIME TO ACTUALLY DEVELOP THE RULES AND IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE GET IT RIGHT. 
          CAUSE WE DO WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE ENCOURAGING INFILL DEVELOPMENT, NOT SPRAWL, UM, BUT AT THE SAME TIME WORKING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE REDUCING THAT RUNOFF POLLUTION. 
          GREAT. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          OKAY. 
          NEXT SPEAKER BLIGHT. 
          RANDOLPH'S SPEAKING ON 61 ON DECK ROY WHALEY. 
          STUART CAR SPEAKING ON 62 ON DECK TAYLOR JACKSON. 
          TAYLOR JACKSON, SPEAKING ON ITEM 62 ON DECK JC DWYER, MAYOR, MAYOR PRO TEM COUNCIL MEMBERS. 
          MY NAME'S TAYLOR JACKSON. 
          I'M THE CEO FOR THE HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF GREATER AUSTIN. 
          SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF ITEM 62, FOCUSED ON HELPING THE CONSTRUCTION OF ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS 80 YEARS 
          [01:00:01]
ON BEHALF OF OUR MEMBERS. 
          WE SAID HE ELEMENTS FOR CONSIDERATION YESTERDAY AS WE MOVE FORWARD. 
          FLEXIBILITY IN ADU CONSTRUCTION IS THE STARTING POINT WORKING TOWARDS A SOLUTION TO A VERY COMPLEX ISSUE WITH THE GOAL FOR THE CITY TO ADD 135,000 HOUSING UNITS WITHIN A TEN-YEAR PERIOD, ALTHOUGH IT WILL NOT SOLVE OUR HOUSING SUPPLY ALONE, 80 USE DO PROVIDE HOUSING OPTION AND HOUSING OPTIONS, EXCUSE ME, TO RESIDENTS AND EVEN POTENTIAL RENT REVENUE, HELPING OUR GROWING POPULATION TO STAY IN THEIR HOMES AND NEIGHBORHOODS, WHETHER IT'S TO HELP THEIR FAMILIES OR AGE IN PLACE. 
          THANK YOU TO COUNCIL MEMBERS, KELLY HARPER, MADISON VAILA KITCHEN, ELLIS AND ROPER TIM WITH YOUR AMENDMENT. 
          AND OF COURSE YOUR STAFF MEMBERS FOR YOUR COLLABORATION WITH THE HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION, OUR ORGANIZATION'S VISION IS TO BUILD COMMUNITIES THAT ENABLE PEOPLE TO THRIVE AND GROW COLLECTIVELY. 
          WE MUST CONTINUE TO BE DILIGENT AND PERSISTENT TO SOLVE FOR HOUSING. 
          MY STAFF MEMBER, HBA STAFF MEMBER, DAVID GLENN BOARD, PRESIDENT SCOTT TURNER. 
          AND I WELCOME THE CONTINUED COMMUNICATION AND COLLABORATION IN THIS EFFORT. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. 
          THANK YOU. 
          JC DWYER. 
          SPEAKING ON ITEM 66 ON DECK BRITTANY PAXMAN. 
          I THINK MR. WHALEY MIGHT'VE BEEN SKIPPED OVER THE PERSON WHO WAS AHEAD OF HIM. 
          DIDN'T COME TO THE PODIUM AND THEN HE WAS ON DECK, BUT THEN WE KEPT GOING. 
          MR. RARELY HAS ALREADY SPOKEN. 
          HE SPOKE EARLIER. 
          WE HAD HIM TWICE ON THE LIST. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          NEXT SPEAKER, BRITTANY PAXMAN SPEAKING ON 66 ON DECK, UH, WEISS AS OUR HELLO COUNCIL. 
          UH, MY NAME IS BRITTANY PAXMAN. 
          UM, I'M A SINGLE FAMILY HOME OWNER. 
          I'M IN DISTRICT ONE AND I ALSO JUST STARTED MY OWN SMALL BUSINESS A YEAR AGO. 
          UM, AND, UM, I'M HERE TO SPEAK ABOUT 66, UM, ALLAH  BRITTANY . 
          DO I KNOW THAT WHEN A CASA, WHEN HE FAMILIAR? UH, SO WAIT, WHEN AUSTINITE, UM, MISA WILLOWS VVN IN LOYOLA LANE IN THOSE SYNTHES. 
          UH, MY GRANDPARENTS LIVED ON LOYOLA WAYNE IN THE, IN THE S UM, I HOPE I SAID SEVENTIES CORRECTLY, SO I JUST WANNA MAKE A COUPLE POINTS. 
          UM, I THINK THE FIRST TIME, THE BEST TIME TO BUILD MORE AND DEVELOP, UH, WAS 30 YEARS AGO. 
          THE SECOND BEST TIME IS NOW. 
          AND, UM, I REALLY LIKE US TO BE DIFFERENT AND WELCOMING OF NEW AUSTINITES. 
          I THINK SOME OF US WHO'VE LIVED HERE A LONG TIME. 
          THINK WE ARE ENTITLED TO LIVE IN HOUSES OR WE ARE ENTITLED TO, UH, NOT WELCOME NEW PEOPLE. 
          UM, I FULLY REJECT THAT WE SHOULD BE A COMMUNITY THAT WELCOMES NEW AUSTINITES WHEREVER THEY COME FROM. 
          UM, I ALSO, UH, LIVED IN AN APARTMENT. 
          THEN I LIVED IN A CONDO, UM, IN, UM, COUNCIL MEMBER, RENTERIA DISTRICT. 
          THEN I MOVED ACROSS THE STREET AND BOUGHT A HOUSE, UH, IN DISTRICT ONE, UM, ON NINTH STREET. 
          THAT WAS ALL POSSIBLE BECAUSE WE HAD DENSE HOUSING ON THE EAST SIDE. 
          UM, AND I AM ETERNALLY GRATEFUL FOR THAT, AND I HOPE THAT WE CAN CREATE THAT TYPE OF OPPORTUNITY FOR MORE AND MORE AUSTINITES UM, I ALSO WANT TO SAY TO FOLKS WHO MIGHT SUE THE CITY OR THINGS LIKE THAT, I ASK PEOPLE TO RECONSIDER. 
          I, I DO REALLY WANT TO HEAR SPECIFICALLY FROM THE EARLIEST SPEAKERS. 
          THEY SAID SOME THINGS I HADN'T CONSIDERED. 
          AND, UM, I CERTAINLY, ESPECIALLY AS A WHITE WOMAN, DON'T KNOW ALL OF THE INS AND OUTS OF THIS. 
          UM, SO I'M, I'M REALLY OPEN TO BEING PERSUADED. 
          BUT, UM, MY PERSPECTIVE RIGHT NOW IS THAT WE NEED MORE HOUSING. 
          WE NEED TO BUILD HIGHER. 
          WE NEED TO BUILD CLOSER TO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. 
          AND I'M HERE TO SAY YES, IN MY BACKYARD, BUILD APARTMENTS. 
          NEXT DOOR TO ME, BUILD CONDO IS MAKE IT SO THAT PEOPLE CAN LIVE IN MY COMMUNITY. 
          THANK YOU, UH, WAYS AS ARE SPEAKING ON 66 AND 80 ON DECK, DANIEL KIBBLEMAN GOOD MORNING. 
          MAYOR MAYOR BROUGHT THEM COUNCIL MEMBERS. 
          MY NAME IS  AND I SERVE ON THE BOARD OF HOUSING WORKS AUSTIN AND I SERVE AS THE VICE-CHAIR OF ITS ADVOCACY COMMITTEE. 
          THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TODAY TO YOU ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND OTHER HOUSING RELATED ISSUES AND OUR APRIL LETTER TO YOU. 
          ALL HOUSING WORKS. 
          AUSTIN EXPRESSED ITS SUPPORT FOR CREATING A VMU DUAL PROGRAM. 
          WHILE ALSO ADDRESSING THE ISSUES OF COMPATIBILITY AND BARKING, ASKING YOU TO MODIFY OUR COMPATIBILITY REQUIREMENTS AND ELIMINATE PARKING WHERE POSSIBLE WITH AN EFFORT TO INCREASE OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING CAPACITY. 
          WE THANK COUNCIL FOR THEIR EFFORTS TO INCREASE AUSTIN'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING STOCK TO BUY RIDE DEVELOPER INCENTIVE PROGRAMS, LINKING HOUSING, TO TRANSIT, AND CREATING MORE OPPORTUNITIES FOR DENTISTS TO HAVE 
          [01:05:01]
PROTECTIONS IN THIS HOUSING. 
          WE THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP ON EXPANDING HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES, INCLUDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES THROUGHOUT OUR CITY, AND PARTICULARLY WORKING ON ITEM 66 AND 80 WHILE COUNCIL HAS TAKEN IMPORTANT STEPS TO ADDRESS THE IMPACTS OF COMPATIBILITY AND PARKING ON HOUSING. 
          THERE IS MUCH MORE WORK LEFT TO BE DONE, BOTH IN THE PRESENT AND IN THE FUTURE. 
          WE HOPE THAT WE CAN WORK NEXT YEAR AND BEYOND DEUCE, FURTHER SUPPORT HOUSING AND BUILDING OUT MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES IN OUR CITY BY BI-RITE DEVELOPER INCENTIVE PROGRAMS AND TACKLING COMPATIBILITY AND PARKING REQUIREMENTS ON ITEM SIXTIES 61. 
          WE HOPE THAT COUNCIL CAN ENSURE THAT ANY IMPACT ON HOUSING CAPACITY IS MINIMIZED WHILE ADDRESSING CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES. 
          THIS IS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO SUPPORT BOTH OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND HOUSING GOALS. 
          ALONG WITH OUR ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS AS A COMMUNITY, I TANKED THE MIRROR'S EFFORTS TO ENSURE THAT ANY, ANY UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF THIS ITEM ARE MINIMIZED WHILE ENSURING THE MAXIMUM ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFIT FOR OUR COMMUNITY. 
          THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR EFFORTS. 
          AND LASTLY, ON A PERSONAL NOTE, I JUST WANT TO SAY I'M VERY EXCITED TO SEE THAT CONFEDERATE STREET IS SET TO BE RENAMED BEING FROM THAT PART OF THE CITY. 
          I WALK ON THAT BAR ON CONFEDERATE STREET EVERY DAY, AND I'M EXCITED THAT FROM NOW ON, I WILL WALK AND MAGGIE MAY STREET. 
          THANK Y'ALL. 
          THANK YOU, DANIEL. 
           SPEAKING ON 66 AND 80 ON DECK, DAVID ANDERSON, UH, MAYOR ADLER, MAYOR PRO TEM ALTER COUNCIL MEMBERS. 
          THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. 
          MY NAME IS DANIEL CAPPLEMAN AND I AM A PRO HOUSING ADVOCATE. 
          TODAY. 
          YOU HAVE SOME CHOICES TO MAKE ABOUT HOW WE ALLOCATE THE SCARCE LAND IN THE CITY. 
          THESE ALLOCATIONS REPRESENT THE PRIORITIES OF THE CITY, THE CURRENT LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE PRIORITIZES THE PROTECTION OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND THE PEOPLE IN THEM TO MAKE A GROSS GENERALIZATION. 
          THOSE IN SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN AUSTIN REPRESENT IN AGGREGATE IT PRIVILEGED MINORITY LAND USE AND ZONING REGULATIONS HAVE A VERY DARK PAST. 
          IF WE CONTINUE TO CLING TO THE VESTIGES OF AN INEQUITABLE AND IMMORAL SYSTEM OF LAND USE REGULATIONS, THE CITY OF AUSTIN MAKES A SINGLE AND PROFOUND STATEMENT. 
          YOU ARE NOT WELCOME HERE. 
          SO TODAY, AS YOU CONSIDER A FEW LAND USE REFORM ITEMS IN FRONT OF YOU ON 80 USE COMPATIBILITY PARKING MINIMUMS, AND VMU TO MAKE A BRAVE AND NECESSARY CHOICE, USE THE POWER VESTED IN YOU BY THE PEOPLE OF AUSTIN TO CHOOSE, TO ALLOW MORE PEOPLE TO LIVE HERE. 
          THE OVERLY RESTRICTIVE LAND USE REGULATIONS HAVE CREATED AN AFFORDABILITY CRISIS. 
          THEY ARE CONTRIBUTING TO THE CLIMATE CRISIS. 
          THEY ARE PERPETUATING PROFOUND INEQUITIES AMONG THE PEOPLE OF AUSTIN AND THE DISPLACEMENT THAT EVERYONE IS SO WORRIED ABOUT IS OCCURRING UNDER THE CURRENT CODE. 
          SO THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THESE ITEMS FORWARD AND ATTEMPTING TO MAKE SOME CHANGES THAT WILL ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF HOMES FOR THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY. 
          HOWEVER YOU CAN AND SHOULD, AND MUST MAKE FURTHER CHANGES TO THESE ITEMS, INCLUDING FURTHER RELAXATION OF COMPATIBILITY, THE TOTAL ELIMINATION OF PARKING MANDATES AND BUY RIGHT DEVELOPMENT TO SHOW US TODAY THAT YOU ALL ARE INDEED SERIOUS ABOUT ADDRESSING THE HOUSING CRISIS THAT WE ARE FACING. 
          I'M NOT GOING TO STAND HERE AND CITE THE NUMEROUS STUDIES THAT SHOW THAT RELAXING LAND USE REGULATION LEADS TO MORE ABUNDANT HOUSING FOR ALL OUR RESIDENTS. 
          THEY WILL ALWAYS BE THERE FOR YOU TO READ AND TO LEARN FROM. 
          THERE'S NOT REALLY ANY SERIOUS DEBATE ABOUT WHY AMERICAN CITIES FIND THEMSELVES IN THIS CRISIS. 
          YOU GUYS ALL KNOW WHY, AND YOU HAVE THE POWER TO USE THIS INFORMATION, TO CREATE THE POLICIES THAT WILL LEAD TO A AFFORDABLE, SUSTAINABLE AND EQUITABLE DEVELOPMENT. 
          SO PLEASE BE BRAVE, BE BOLD, AND DON'T LET THE THREAT OF A LAWSUIT FROM A DISGRUNTLED MINORITY SCARE YOU FROM DOING THE RIGHT THING, HELP YOUR CONSTITUENTS AND MAKE THESE URGENT REFORMS TO THE CODE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, DAVID ANDERSON, SPEAKING ON 78 ON DECK CRAIG NASER MAYOR, MAYOR PRO TEM COUNCIL MEMBERS. 
          I BELIEVE 78 HAS BEEN PULLED. 
          I ALSO SIGNED UP ON 79 HAS BEEN POSTPONED TO JULY 28,000, SIGNED UP ON 79. 
          I'M JUST HERE REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT AND AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. 
          IF YOU HAVE ANY, THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ITEMS 61, CRAIG. 
          NASER ON DECK GREG ANDERSON SO THANK YOU ALL FOR TAKING IT UP. 
          ITEM 66 AND AB UM, NOTHING COSTS US MORE HOUSING UNITS IN THE CITY THAN COMPATIBILITY. 
          IT'S ALMOST LIKE WE HEAR THAT OVER AND OVER AGAIN. 
          AND THE GREAT THING IS WE'RE ALL TALKING ABOUT IT, RIGHT? SO WHERE, AND WHEN WE FIND THE LEADERSHIP TO FINALLY DO AWAY WITH IT, MAYBE 
          [01:10:01]
IT'S NOW, MAYBE IT'S NOT NOW THE LONGER WE WAIT, THE MORE PEOPLE WHO ARE HURT BY IT. 
          RIGHT? NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. 
          SO COMPATIBILITY IN A NUTSHELL IS TO PRETEND THE FAR RIGHT IS AN AMAZING TRANSIT CORRIDOR AT SEVENTH STREET. 
          IT'S AIRPORT, YOU NAME IT AND THEN THERE'S BILL'S HOUSE ON THE LEFT. 
          AND THIS DEVELOPMENT NOW HAS HOW MANY UNITS LOST BECAUSE OF COMPATIBILITY. 
          NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. 
          SO ALL OF THESE UNITS, NEXT SLIDE ARE VACANT BECAUSE WE WEREN'T ALLOWED TO BUILD THEM BECAUSE OF COMPATIBILITY NEXT LINE. 
          SO IF BILL'S HOUSE COSTS $2 MILLION AND ALL THIS LAND AVAILABLE TO HAVE AN AMAZING DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM THAT COULD HAVE YIELDED A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF HOUSING ON TRANSIT ON OUR MOST WALKABLE TRANSIT, YOU KNOW, INVESTED CORRIDORS, WE DON'T LET THEM GET BUILT BECAUSE IT'S MORE IMPORTANT TO PROTECT THE MULTIMILLION DOLLAR HOME FROM CHANGE THAN IT IS TO LEGALIZE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF HOUSING IN THE CITY. 
          SO WHEN DO WE GET THE LEADERSHIP TO FINALLY SAY WE ARE BEYOND COMPATIBILITY? IT, MAYBE IT MADE SENSE IN 1984, WHEN ALL WE WERE LOOKING TO DO IS BUILD SPRAWL, BUT NOW WE'RE NOT LOOKING TO DO THAT. 
          WE'RE LOOKING TO BUILD MORE COMPACT AND CONNECTED MORE RESPONSIBLY, AND WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO DO THAT UNDER OUR OUTDATED RULES, SUCH AS COMPATIBILITY. 
          NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. 
          SO LAST THING, UM, ACTUALLY I HAVE ONE MORE AFTER THIS, IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT THAT WE CALIBRATE IT, CORRECT, REALLY? RIGHT. 
          SO STAFF IS RECOMMENDING A 20% JUMP AND WE'RE ALL GOING DOWN TO BELOW 60% AND BELOW NO MORE 80% FOR RENTAL. 
          BUT IF WE JUST ARBITRARILY SAY 50%, THAT COULD COST US A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF UNITS. 
          I'VE ALREADY HAD A COUPLE OF PEOPLE REACH OUT TO ME WHO ARE JUST LIKE LOOK CAPITAL. 
          AND, UH, THESE, THESE MONIES THAT BUILD THESE PROJECTS, THAT'S EFFICIENT MONEY THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. 
          AND IF WE'RE GOING TO KILL THE DEAL BY TAKING TOO MUCH VALUE, THAT MONEY WILL JUST GO ELSEWHERE. 
          SO THEREFORE THOSE HOMES NEVER GET BUILT LAST LINE. 
          AND THEN WHILE YOU GUYS ARE LOOKING AT ITEM 61, PLEASE BE CONSIDERED OF THE FACT THAT IT WILL COST US. 
          A LOT OF HOUSING COSTS A LOT OF MONEY. 
          IF WE DON'T TAKE CARE OF THIS ONE ITEM, THANK YOU, CRAIG. 
          NASER ON ITEM 61 ON DECK SOLVAY PRAXIS. 
          HELLO, AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL. 
          I'M CRAIG NASER. 
          I'M THE CONSERVATION CHAIR OF THE LONESTAR CHAPTER OF THIS YEAR CLUB. 
          BACK IN THE EARLY TEENS, I WENT TO A WHOLE SERIES OF WATERSHED MEETINGS THAT WERE SOME OF THE BEST MEETINGS I'VE EVER BEEN TO WHERE THE LOT, ALMOST ALL THE STUFF IN ITEM 61 WAS COVERED. 
          WE HAD DEVELOPERS THERE. 
          WE HAD, UH, ENVIRONMENTALIST THERE, THERE WERE FANTASTIC MEETINGS. 
          A LOT OF THE STUFF WE TALKED ABOUT, I INCORPORATED IN MY YARD, IN MY HOUSE. 
          THIS IS REALLY GOOD STUFF. 
          AND I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT THERE, IT'S NOT TRUE THAT WE EITHER DO DENSITY OR EITHER WE PROTECT OUR CITY FROM FLOODING AND WATER PROBLEMS. THAT IS NOT TRUE. 
          FIRST OF ALL, WATER'S GOING TO FLOW WHETHER YOU HAVE DENSITY OR NOT, IT'S JUST A REALITY OF NATURE AND YOU HAVE TO ACCOUNT FOR IT. 
          IF YOU DON'T WANT PEOPLE FLOODED AND, AND DOWN THE CREEK AND PEOPLE DAMAGED AND PEOPLE KILLED. 
          SO, UH, I ALSO THINK THAT IF YOU BUILD DENSITY WITHOUT CLOSE BY PARKLAND, FROM WHAT I'VE SEEN AND LIVING IN MANHATTAN ISLAND FOR YEARS IS YOU BUILD THE GHETTOS OF THE FUTURE. 
          PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO LIVE TOO FAR AWAY FROM SOME KIND OF NATURAL ENVIRONMENT. 
          SO THE IDEA OF MAYBE TAKING SOME TEA, SOME PARTS OF A HUNDRED PERCENT IMPERVIOUS COVER AND CREATING A LITTLE MORE PARKLAND IS GOING TO MAKE A MORE LIVABLE, MORE SUSTAINABLE CITY INTO THE FUTURE AND MORE EQUITABLE. 
          IT WILL MAKE THINGS MORE EQUITABLE. 
          I KNOW THIS IS THE LONG VIEW. 
          THIS ISN'T THE SHORT VIEW. 
          WE HAVE TO HAVE THE LONG VIEW IN MY OPINION. 
          SO PLEASE, I WANT TO SEE A STRONG WATERSHED ORDINANCE AS WE GET ON THIS STUFF. 
          THIS IS GOOD STUFF HERE. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          SALVAGE PRAC SIX, SPEAKING ON ITEM 80 ON DECK CURTIS ROGERS. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          GOOD MORNING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. 
          MY NAME IS SOLVAY ROSA TODAY. 
          I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE DEL VALLEY COMMUNITY COALITION IN OPPOSITION TO ITEM 80 DVC AND GABA HAVE SHARED A JOINT STATEMENT WITH COUNSEL IN WHICH WE ASK YOU ALL TO DO A DEEPER DIVE INTO THE IMPACTS OF THE VMU PROGRAM IN REGARDS TO DISPLACEMENT ISSUES PRIOR TO ADOPTING THIS RESOLUTION, OUR CONCERNS ARE THAT EQUITY ISSUES FOR RESIDENTS AT RISK OF DISPLACEMENT WHO ARE DISPROPORTIONATELY BLACK AND BROWN, AND IN THE EASTERN CRESCENT HAVE NOT BEEN INVESTIGATED. 
          WE KNOW THIS RESOLUTION HAS BEEN IN THE PIPELINE FOR A LONG TIME, BUT THE STAKES ARE JUST TOO HIGH FOR RESIDENTS FACING DISPLACEMENT. 
          AND THE FACT THAT THE CITY HAS SO HAS HAD SO LONG TO DO SUCH A STUDY AND HAS NOT DONE. 
          SO IS ALARMING. 
          YOU WILL BE HEARING FROM RENTERS LATER TODAY FROM THE OLD HOMESTEAD PROPERTY WHOSE EXPERIENCES CAN BE VIEWED AS A CASE STUDY IN THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES AND PERVERSE INCENTIVES CREATED BY BMU WITH THE DESTRUCTION OF NATURALLY OCCURRING, DEEPLY AFFORDABLE UNITS AND DISPLACEMENT OF WORKING CLASS RESIDENTS BETWEEN 10 
          [01:15:01]
AND 40% MFI, INCLUDING LATINEX IMMIGRANT FAMILIES AND VETERANS PENDING THE REZONING CASE. 
          THE PROPERTY WILL BE SOLD TO THE DEVELOPER JCI AND DEMOLISHED FOR A VMU DEVELOPMENT IN WHICH EVEN THE AFFORDABLE UNITS AT 60% MFI ARE UNAFFORDABLE TO EXISTING RESIDENTS. 
          WE ASK THAT COUNCIL DIRECT STAFF TO INVESTIGATE THE AFFORDABILITY LEVELS AND NUMBER OF UNITS LOST IN CONTRAST TO THE AFFORDABILITY AND QUANTITY OF UNITS PRODUCED BY BMU AND THE PROPOSED TO BM U2, AS WELL AS THE IMPACTS ON RESIDENTS DISPLACED BY SUCH. 
          REZONINGS FINALLY, PLEASE REVIEW OUR SEVERAL RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE BELIEVE WILL SOMEWHAT MITIGATE DISPLACEMENT. 
          SHOULD COUNCIL MOVE AHEAD. 
          DESPITE OUR SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS, FIRSTLY, WE RECOMMEND THAT THE AFFORDABILITY LEVEL AFFORDABLE UNITS REQUIRED BY VMU TO BE TIED TO WHICHEVER IS LOWER OF THE TWO FOLLOWING OPTIONS, EITHER 60% OF THE TRAVIS COUNTY MFI AS PROPOSED IN THE CURRENT RESOLUTION OR 80% OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD MFI, WHICH CAN BE DETERMINED BY CENSUS BLOCK GROUP OR CENSUS TRACT, IF BLOCKER DATA IS NOT AVAILABLE, IT WOULD MEAN DOING THIS WOULD MEAN THAT AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRODUCED BY BMU WILL BE AFFORDABLE TO EXISTING RESIDENTS AND ENSURE SOME EXISTING LONG-TERM RESIDENTS CAN CONTINUE TO AFFORD THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, MAYOR. 
          I HAVE A QUESTION. 
          THE KITCHEN, UH, YOU, YOU STARTED, DID YOU COMPLETE YOUR LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS? UM, NO, THERE WERE ACTUALLY TWO MORE RECOMMENDATIONS I'D LIKE TO HEAR THEM. 
          ABSOLUTELY. 
          UM, SO ONE IS THAT WE RECOMMEND THAT A STUDY BE DONE WITH RESIDENTS WHO HAVE BEEN DISPLACED BY REDEVELOPMENTS AND IN SIMILAR SCENARIOS TO DETERMINE THE COMPENSATION NECESSARY TO PREVENT HOMELESSNESS AND DISPLACEMENT FOR THEM. 
          UM, AND THIS SHOULD ALSO REVIEW THE CURRENT TENANT RELOCATION ORDINANCE, WHICH IS WEAK AND THE TENANT RELOCATION FUND, WHICH IS UNFUNDED. 
          UM, AND THEN OUR THIRD RECOMMENDATION, UM, WAS TO, UM, BASICALLY PRESERVE COMPATIBILITY REQUIREMENTS, UM, ESPECIALLY FOR WORKING CLASS BY POCKET NEIGHBORHOODS, VULNERABLE TO AND EXPERIENCING ACTIVE OR CHRONIC GENTRIFICATION. 
          UM, WE BELIEVE THAT THESE REQUIREMENTS ENSURE THAT DEVELOPERS COMMUNICATE WITH LOCAL RESIDENTS REGARDING THE PROPOSED CHANGES AND NEGOTIATE FOR COMMUNITY BENEFITS. 
          UM, GIVING THAT AWAY GIVES AWAY THE TOOL FOR COMMUNITIES TO NEGOTIATE COMMUNITY BENEFITS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, MAYOR. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I JUST WANTED TO FLAG FOR STAFF WE'VE WHEN WE CONSIDER ITEM 80, IF WE CAN HAVE STAFF SHARE AN UPDATE ON THE TENANT RELOCATION FUND, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER TOBO I BELIEVE YOU ASKED A QUESTION DURING OUR BUDGET PROCESS ABOUT THE TENANT RELOCATION FUND AND I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THERE WAS FUNDING IN THAT FUND. 
          AND SO I JUST WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF STAFF COULD BE ABLE TO SPEAK TO THAT LATER TODAY. 
          I THINK IT MAY BE A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT THINGS. 
          UM, ONE IS THAT WE HAVE PUT IN MONEY FOR IF THE STAFF COULD COME BACK. 
          THAT WOULD BE GREAT. 
          I THINK WE PUT MONEY INTO CHINA, TENANT RELOCATION AND TENANT ADVOCACY IN RESPONSE TO SOME RESOLUTIONS THAT I AND OTHERS HAD BROUGHT. 
          AND THEN I BELIEVE WE WERE MOVING FORWARD WITH, UM, A NEXUS STUDY. 
          WE HAD MONEY FOR A NEXUS STUDY AND THAT'S, THAT'S THE SUBJECT OF WHERE IT GOT LOST. 
          UM, BUT THAT IS, THAT IS THE NEXT STEP. 
          AND YEAH, I THINK THANKS FOR MENTIONING THAT, THAT WE HAVE SERIES OF BUDGET QUESTIONS, TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO MOVE THAT WORK FORWARD. 
          IT MIGHT HAPPEN TO THE MONEY THAT WE HAD AND WE IN RESPONSE TO A COUPLE OF, UH, OF, UH, SITUATIONS RIGHT NOW, UH, IN DISTRICT FOUR, WE'VE BEEN LOOKING AT THE, BOTH THE, THE, THE RULES AROUND THE ATTENDANT, UH, RELOCATION AND THE FUND. 
          AND MY OFFICE DID CONFIRM THAT THERE IS $0 IN THE TENANT RELOCATION ASSISTANCE FUND. 
          UH, SO THAT'S WHERE WE ARE. 
          WE WERE TRYING TO GET SOME FOLKS, SOME RELOCATION ASSISTANCE, BUT, UH, WE WERE ADVISED THAT THERE ARE $0 RIGHT NOW AND THERE IS NO PROCESS TO FUND IT. 
          AND AGAIN, I'LL LET STAFF SPEAK TO THIS IN THE FUTURE, BUT THERE'S ALSO, I THINK THAT THERE ARE SUBSTANTIAL BOTH KIND OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND LEGAL CONCERNS WITH THE FEES THAT WERE, UH, SET OUT IN IT. 
          SO ANYWAY, I THINK WE'VE GOT A HILL TO CLIMB, UH, WITH REGARD TO, TO TENANT RELOCATION ASSISTANCE. 
          MS. BARGAIN. 
          I THINK THAT WE SHOULD PUT ON THE EXECUTIVE SESSION, THE QUESTION OF LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO THAT FUND SO THAT WE CAN HAVE THAT CONVERSATION. 
          I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT OUR NEXT SPEAKER SPEAKING ON ITEM 80, CURTIS ROGERS ON DECK, JAKE MURDOCH, GOOD MORNING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS. 
          MY NAME IS CURTIS ROGERS. 
          I'M A RESIDENT DISTRICT THREE. 
          UH, LAST TIME I WAS HERE, I READ A LIST OF 19 AMERICAN CITIES THAT NO LONGER HAD A PARKING RATIO FOR THEIR HOMES AND BUSINESSES. 
          BUT I FAILED TO MENTION WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THESE RULES WERE CHANGED. 
          NOT MUCH, NOT MUCH CHANGES IMMEDIATELY. 
          THIS ISN'T A REFORM THAT DRASTICALLY CHANGES. 
          IF ANYTHING, OVERNIGHT, MINNEAPOLIS HAS HAD A FEW YEARS TO LOOK AT THE IMPACT AND 
          [01:20:01]
THEY CREDIT THE CITY'S ELIMINATION OF PARKING MANDATES WITH FACILITATING AN INCREASE IN CONSTRUCTION OF SMALLER APARTMENT BUILDINGS, CHASTEN WITTENBERG, A PLANNER FOR THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS SAID THAT FOR SITE CONSTRAINT, REASONS AND ECONOMIC REASONS, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HARD TO PARK THESE BUILDINGS AT ONE PARKING SPACE PER UNIT. 
          HE SAID, WE'RE CLEARLY SEEING THAT MAKING A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE SIMILAR TO ALL OF THESE CITIES DOWNTOWN AUSTIN HAS NO PARKING RULES YET. 
          WE STILL HAVE PARKING AND ALMOST ALL NEW BUILDINGS ARE CONTINUING TO BUILD PARKING. 
          THIS CHANGE WAS SIMPLY GIVE AUSTIN THE ABILITY TO EVOLVE AS TRANSPORTATION CHANGES. 
          AS P AS PROJECT CONNECT COMES ONLINE, AS ELECTRIC BIKES BECOME MORE MAINSTREAM AND AS WE IMPROVE OUR INFRASTRUCTURE FOR PEDESTRIANS, WHEELCHAIRS, AND BIKES, THE REALITY IS, IS NOT MUCH OF A CHANGE FOR US AS IT IS FOR THE NEXT GENERATION. 
          LAST, IT'S GOING TO BE 170, 107 DEGREES THIS WEEKEND. 
          AND I THINK ALLOWING MORE PART, WE SHOULD ALLOW MORE PARKING, BUT WE SHOULD MANDATE IT. 
          WE SHOULDN'T BE PUTTING MORE ASPHALT AND MORE CONCRETE IN AUSTIN AS A MANDATE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, JAKE MURDOCH, SPEAKING ON ITEM 80 ON DECK AUGGIE STRUCK. 
          HI THERE. 
          UH, JUST WANTED TO SAY MY NAME IS JAKE MURDOCH MARIST AND DISTRICT THREE. 
          I'M A RENTER. 
          AND I THINK LIKE A LOT OF RENTERS I WOULD LOVE TO STAY IN AUSTIN. 
          I LOVE AUSTIN. 
          UM, BUT WE NEED MORE HOUSING. 
          SO I JUST ASKED THAT WE PLEASE UPDATE THE RULES TO ALLOW FOR MORE HOUSING AND STOP REQUIRING SO MUCH PARKING. 
          THANKS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AUGUST STRUCK, SPEAKING ON ITEM 80 ON DECK, PAUL SALDANIA ALRIGHT. 
          MY NAME IS AUGIE STRAUCH. 
          I'M A RESIDENT OF DISTRICT THREE. 
          I'M A RENTER AND I'M A TEACHER I'VE ALREADY BEEN DISPLACED THIS YEAR BECAUSE OF RENT INCREASES. 
          AND I'M WORRIED THAT IT'S GOING TO CONTINUE. 
          AND I FEEL LIKE MORE VERTICAL INTEGRATED HOUSING IS GOING TO BE THE ONLY SOLUTION TO ALLOWING MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN AUSTIN. 
          TEACHING IS A LOVE OF MINE AND A PASSION, BUT I FIND MYSELF AT A CROSSROADS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT I CAN CONTINUE TO DO MY PASSION IN AUSTIN STILL. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, PAUL. 
          SALDANIA SPEAKING ON ITEM 1 23 SPEAKER. 
          CINDY, THERE'LL BE A JOSEPH MOVING ON TO REMOTE SPEAKERS. 
          N I GIRA  GO AHEAD. 
          HELLO? CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES. 
          HELLO? OKAY. 
          GREAT. 
          GOOD MORNING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS. 
          MY NAME IS DONNA AND I CURRENTLY SERVE IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION. 
          I'M THE MEDIA TEST HERE, THE  CONTACT TEAM AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOODS COUNCIL. 
          TODAY. 
          I'M SPEAKING ONLY FROM MY SUBSTANCE, SAME SPEAKING ON ITEMS, 39, 50 TO 66 61 69 AND 80. 
          I SUPPORT THE SEPARATE COMMENDATION ON ITEM 39. 
          I MEAN, NOT POSITION TWO. 
          ITEM B TWO FOR REASONS PREVIOUSLY STATED I BELIEVE SUPPORT ITEM 61 AND SAY UNTIL LATER SUPPORT ON MAY THE 18TH, I SUPPORT ITEM 69 AND POINT OUT THAT THERE ARE STILL SO MANY AREAS. 
          SO AT THE SEAT OF THAT, DO NOT HAVE A PLAN WORKING WITH CURRENT RESIDENTS WHO TRULY KNOW WHAT IS WORKING AND WHAT IS NEEDED, ENHANCES THEIR OVERALL QUALITY OF LIFE. 
          I HOPE ONCE THESE PLANTS WERE APPROVED THAT THE LAND USE COMMISSION, THE COUNCIL WILL HONOR THE PLANTS PROPOSED BY THIS RESOLUTION. 
          AS THERE HAS BEEN INSTANCES IN WHICH THE CURRENT PLANS AND EVEN VALID PETITIONS ARE NOT HONORED, EVEN AFTER RESIDENT'S NEGOTIATION ATTEMPT TO WORK WITH THE DEVELOPERS FALL APART. 
          THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE REGARDING COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT WILL HAVE NO TEETH. 
          WHEN RESIDENTS VOICES IN OPPOSITION TO SUBSEQUENT PLAN AMENDMENTS ARE NOT HONORED. 
          AS IT'S BEEN EXPERIENCED BY RESIDENTS, LIVING WITHIN ESTABLISHED CURRENT PLANS. 
          I'M ALSO IN A POSITION TO ITEM 66 AND 80, THE EQUITY OPPOSITES NOT BEING CONSULTED REGARDING THE IMPACT THIS PROPOSAL WOULD HAVE ON VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES, PARTICULARLY THE AREAS WITHIN THE EASTERN CRESCENT, CAREFUL CONSIDERATION REGARDING THE POTENTIAL DISPLACEMENT, ANDREW INTERPRETATION OF RESIDENTS ALONG THE CURRENT AND PROPOSED  AREAS HAS NOT TAKEN PLACE. 
          THIS CONCERN IS BEING DEMONSTRATED BY ITEM ONE 20 ON TODAY'S AGENDA. 
          I SUPPORT THE OLD HOMESICK RENTERS ASSOCIATION AND THEIR EFFORTS TO NOT DISPLACE CURRENT RESIDENTS. 
          IF THESE RESIDENTS ARE FORCED TO BECOME HOMELESS, THEN THAT WOULD BE A CLEAR INDICATION OF WHAT THE REST OF US CAN EXPECT. 
          IF ITEMS 66 AND 80 ARE APPROVED PEOPLE CAN'T SEE THAT THEY'RE WORKING TOWARDS MITIGATING HOMELESSNESS AND AT THE SAME TIME HAD TO THE HOMELESS POPULATION. 
          AGAIN, WHY HASN'T THE 
          [01:25:01]
EQUITY OFFICE BEING CONSULTED AND HOW WILL THE PROJECT CONNECT EQUITY TOOL FACTORING TO THIS? THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND SERVICE TO OUR COMMUNITY. 
          PAULA KAUFMANN SPEAKING ON ITEM 39. 
          YES, THE SOUTH RIVER CITY CITIZENS APPROVED THE STATEMENT REGARDING LAND USE LABOR DAY, 2019, QUOTE AFFORDABILITY. 
          WE'LL GET RID OF IT OFF. 
          NEED MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AS RCC AS NUMEROUS AFFORDABLE UNITS, AN OLDER HOME HOMES, ADU AND MOBY FAMILY HOMES TODAY. 
          HOWEVER, WE DISAGREE WITH BEING LU ALTERNATIVE FOR DEVELOPERS. 
          THERE WAS A GREAT ENTITLEMENTS IN EXCHANGE FOR COMMUNITY BENEFITS. 
          20% OF THE EVICTION BE ON-SITE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNQUOTE, MY OWN COMMENTS. 
          THE OTHER IS ASSERTION. 
          IS IT ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE TO BUILD ON SITE? ISN'T FAIR TO THE REST OF AUSTIN. 
          SHE CAN BUILD TO THE CURRENT TYPE DESPERATE LOANS DON'T BORROW MONEY. 
          DEBT SERVICE, SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASES COSTS. 
          COUNCIL HAS HEARD EXPERTS TESTIFIED THAT BEING LIVE RARELY PRODUCES AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          THE ARGUMENT THAT MORE HOUSING COULD BE BUILT ON CHEAPER. 
          WHAT IS NOT LOGICAL WHEN YOU PROTEST BY THE LAW, FAMILY RATES DO NOT COVER, BUT WHAT'S THE ARGUMENT THAT POOR PEOPLE WANT TO LIVE, WHERE THEY'RE COMFORTABLE. 
          THE FIVE AUSTIN'S GOALS TO PUT HOUSING, YOUR EMPLOYERS, NOT THE BUILDERS BUILD ON THEIR LAND. 
          IT'S NOT A MANDATE. 
          IT'S A NEGOTIATION. 
          IF THEY DON'T WANT TO BUILD AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THEY CAN BUILD TO THE CURRENT RESTRICTION. 
          BUT THE ONUS ON THE OWNER TO VERIFY ANNUALLY THAT THE RESIDENTS MEET THE AFFORDABILITY SHE REQUIREMENT AND HAVE THE OWNERS COVER THE HOA FEES FOR THE LOWER INCOME RESIDENTS. 
          OTHERWISE THEY CAN BUILD TO CURRENT CUP AND SPEAKING ON ITEMS ONE, TWO, AND ONE TO THREE, IT'S OUTRAGEOUS HOW MUCH CASH THE COUNCIL EXPECTS ACADEMY DRIVE AND SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS TO ENDURE THIS TIGHT USED TO BE 15 ACRES WITH A PARKING LOT. 
          I HAVE WALKED FROM THE PARKING GARAGE AT MUSIC LANE TO THIS VENUE. 
          IT'S A LONG WAY BECAUSE I HAVE NEVER TRIED TO HELP. 
          HE HAS A BIG EMPTY PARKING LOT THAT HE CHARGES FOR. 
          SO ONE OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS SAYS THAT IT'S CLEANER TO HAVE 15,000 SQUARE FEET FOR MUSIC VENUE, BUT I'VE DRIVEN HER DISTRICT. 
          IT'S CLEAN BECAUSE NO ONE PARKS ON THE STREET WE SHOULD. 
          WHY SHOULD SHE GIVE DISTRICT NINE, A POOR QUALITY OF LIFE? WELL, HER CONSTITUENTS LIVE IN PEACE AND THEIR GATED COMMUNITIES. 
          SO WHAT, AND ALSO I WENT TO THE PLACE. 
          THE OWNER SAYS THAT THEY CAN'T MOVE THE STAGE, THE STAGE ISN'T THERE NOW. 
          SO IT'S NOT FORTHCOMING THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY COMPROMISED, BUT HE HASN'T DONE THAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          WILLIAM BUNCH ITEM 52 AND 80 YES. 
          UM, GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR COUNCILMEN. 
          THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR SERVICE TO OUR COMMUNITY ON ITEM 52. 
          UM, I WANT TO ASK THAT YOU PLEASE REMOVE THE, UH, EXTENSION OF SH 45 SOUTHWEST OVER TO  FROM THE DOCUMENT. 
          UH, YOU SHOULD'VE ALL RECEIVED A LETTER FROM ME ABOUT THIS ON BEHALF OF SAVE OUR SPRINGS ALLIANCE. 
          I'M VERY MUCH APPRECIATE COUNCIL MEMBER WAS TAKING THAT OFF OF CONSENT. 
          UM, I RECOGNIZE THAT SOME TIME BACK THIS STRETCH OF HIGHWAY WAS INCLUDED APPARENTLY IN THE CITY'S PLAN, BUT THAT WAS BEFORE IT WAS TAKEN OUT OF THE CAMPO REGIONAL PLAN. 
          UH, IT WAS ALSO DONE IN CONFLICT WITH DIRECT CITY COUNCIL POLICY AGAINST THIS ROADWAY. 
          AND THEN AS YOUR BACKUP SHOWS, VERY CLEARLY ALL OF THE PUBLIC OUTREACH THIS TIME AROUND SHOWED DID NOT SHOW THAT ROAD IN THE PLAN. 
          IT, UH, IT WAS USING THE CAMPO, UH, MATERIALS FOR THAT BACKUP. 
          IF YOU BUILD THIS ROAD, IF YOU SUPPORT IT'S AND BUILDING, YOU'RE BASICALLY SUPPORTING THE CONVERSION OF MOPAC, UH, FROM A LOCAL COMMUTER HIGHWAY INTO AN INTER-REGIONAL AND INTERSTATE ALTERNATIVE, UH, FOR  FOR TRUCKS AND CARS. 
          TECH STOPS TOLD US WE CAN'T BAN TRUCKS ON MOPAC IF WE MAKE THIS LINK. 
          AND SO, UH, WHEREAS WE HAVE ALMOST NO TRUCK TRAFFIC, 
          [01:30:01]
INCLUDING TRUCKS, HAULING TOXIC MATERIALS ON MOPAC. 
          UM, IF THIS GETS DONE, UH, THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE. 
          THIS SHOULD NOT BE DONE BY STAFF IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF COUNCIL POLICY AND THROUGH THE BACK DOOR AND BASICALLY SECRETLY, UM, IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO THIS, LET'S DO IT OPEN AND HONESTLY, THROUGH A REAL PRO PUBLIC PROCESS. 
          SO THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          IT SHOULD BE A VERY SIMPLE, UH, SINCERELY A CORRECTION TO THE A 300 PAGE DOCUMENT THAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU AS THE STRATEGIC MOBILITY PLAN. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, NATALIE. 
          FRENSLEY ITEM 52 AND 66. 
          RUNNING I'M NATALIE FRIEND FLIGHT, AND I LIVE IN D SEVEN AND THEN A CONSTITUENT OF COUNCIL MEMBER POOL. 
          TODAY. 
          I'M SPEAKING FOR MYSELF, I'M ASKING REGARDING ITEM 52 FOR COUNCIL TO WRITE FORMALLY INTO THE ASM P ORDINANCE WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS, ELLIS TOPO, AND OTHERS, AS WELL AS CITY STAFF MEMBERS, KITTEN AND SPILLER HAVE STATED IN PUBLIC RECORDED MEETINGS. 
          MS. JANICE RANKIN SPOKE EARLIER ABOUT PROPOSED WORDING, BUT THE ALLENDALE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED INTO THEIR RESOLUTION, WHICH WAS SENT TO YOU EARLIER. 
          I URGE YOU TO INCORPORATE THE SUGGESTED WORDING FOR THE ORDINANCE REGARDING ITEM 66. 
          THIS COUNCIL HAS FOLLOWED PUBLIC INPUT PROCEDURES THAT ARE CONTRARY TO AUSTIN, CULTURE OF INCLUSIVE, MUNICIPAL PARTICIPATION, GOOD GOVERNANCE, AND RESPONSIBLE COMMUNITY PLANNING, MANDATE PUBLIC ACCESS TO INFORMATION AND TIME TO DELIBERATE IT. 
          ONLY TWO DAYS AGO, A COUNCIL MEMBER POSTED AMENDMENTS TO RELAX PARKING REQUIREMENTS AROUND SCHOOL. 
          THIS IS THE NATURE OF CHANGE, NOT A MINOR REDDIT OF THE EARLIER POST TO DRAFT RESOLUTION. 
          HOW MUCH TIME WILL YOU GIVE THE PUBLIC CONSIDER THIS ONLY TWO DAYS AGO, ANOTHER COUNCIL MEMBER POSTED GRAPHICS FOR ARGUMENTS ABOUT CORRIDOR DENSITY ON THE COUNCIL MESSAGE BOARD. 
          HOW MUCH TIME WILL YOU GET THE PUBLIC TO CONSIDER THIS NEW INFORMATION? THERE HAS BEEN NO WIDELY PUBLICIZED TOWN HALLS OR OTHER ORGANIZED MASS EVENTS FOR THE GREATER PUBLIC TO FIND OUT ABOUT AFFORDABILITY, PROJECTIONS, IMPACT AND EVALUATION PROCEDURES DRIVING THIS SPECIFIC RESOLUTION AS CARMEN YANNIS PALITO SAID EARLIER THIS MORNING, IT'S HARD TO KEEP UP WITH YOU ON LAND USE AS SOUL BAY ROSSA PRAYAS SAID EARLIER THIS MORNING CITY HAS NOT PROVIDED A DEEP DIVE ON THE DISPLACEMENT IMPACT OF VMU COMPATIBILITY AND PARKING RELAXING CHANGES AUSTINITES DESERVE BETTER THAN MERELY REACTING TO POLICY POSITIONS POSTED AT THE LAST MINUTE, PLEASE REPAIR THE HARM FOR GOOD GOVERNANCE BY GIVING ALL AUSTINITES DEEP, COMPLETE, AND VALIDATED INFORMATION AND THE TIME TO DELIBERATE IT. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. 
          THANK YOU, MEGAN MASON BACH ITEMS 52 62 66 AND 80. 
          HI, THIS IS MEGAN MEISENBACH. 
          AND THANK YOU COUNSEL FOR HEARING WHAT I HAVE TO SAY TODAY. 
          UM, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE ASM P AT BEING A CHANGE IN LAND USE, UM, FOR THE FUTURE. 
          I, I UNDERSTAND, BUT STILL, UH, FOR THE 28,000 BLOCKS THAT HAVE BEEN, UM, LISTED IN THE ASN P PROJECT, THOSE RESIDENTS HAVE NO IDEA THAT IN THE FUTURE, IF THEY CHANGE THEIR ZONING, THAT MANY FEET WILL BE TAKEN FROM THE FRONT OF THEIR PROPERTY TO BE USED DIFFERENTLY. 
          SO IT'S A LAND USE CHANGE, AND I OBJECT TO IT FOR THOSE REASONS, UM, FOR, UH, THE OTHER ITEMS, I THINK THAT RELAXING PARKING AND COMPATIBILITY IS REALLY A BAD IDEA. 
          IT ESPECIALLY AFFECTS THE EASTERN CRESCENT WITH, UM, THEIR ABILITY TO NEGOTIATE WITH DEVELOPERS AND GET A MORE EQUITABLE PLAN. 
          UM, I THINK THAT'S ALL I'M GOING TO SAY TODAY, BUT WE'VE HAD A WONDERFUL LOT OF SPEAKERS. 
          UM, 31%, UH, HIGHER BUILDING RATE IN AUSTIN THAN ANYWHERE ELSE WE'RE DOING REALLY WELL WITH OUR BUILDING. 
          I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO CHANGE THESE ROLES. 
          UM, WE NEED PARKING FOR 80 ADU. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. 
          HAVE A GOOD DAY CHIP HARRIS ITEM 66 MAYOR AND COUNCIL 
          [01:35:01]
MEMBER. 
          MY NAME IS PARIS. 
          UH, ALL TALLER BUILDINGS, PROMISE SOME BENEFITS. 
          THEY ALSO COME WITH HER OWN SET OF ISSUES. 
          HERE ARE A COUPLE OF POINTS ILLUSTRATING THOSE ISSUES AND ARGUING FOR BUILDINGS, FIVE STORIES OR LESS URBAN PLANNING EXPERT. 
          MICHAEL BUXTON HAS STATED QUOTE, WHAT HIGH RISE DOES IS SEPARATE LARGE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE FROM THE STREET. 
          SO WE ENDED UP WITH A CITY IS DETACHED FROM STREET LINE. 
          WE ENDED UP WITH A CITY THAT IS BASED ON ENCLAVES AND GATED COMMUNITIES IN QUOTE, ACCORDING TO SUZANNE LEONARD CO-FOUNDER AND DIRECTOR OF MAKING CITIES LITTLE BULL INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL, TALL BUILDINGS OFFERED INCREASED PROFITS FOR DEVELOPERS. 
          HOWEVER, THE HIGHER A BUILDING RISES, THE MORE EXPENSIVE IS THE CONSTRUCTION. 
          THAT'S THE TALL BUILDINGS TEND TO BE LUXURY UNITS, TALL BUILDINGS, FLIGHT, THE PRICE OF ADJACENT LAND, THUS MAKING THE PROTECTION OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING, LESS ACHIEVABLE IN THIS WAY. 
          THEY ACTUALLY INCREASE INEQUALITY. 
          THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK DAVID KING ITEM 69 AND 80. 
          THANK YOU. 
          CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          MY NAME IS DAVID KING AND I'M SPEAKING ON ITEMS 69 AND 80 69 DISTRICT LEVEL PLANNING FOR IMAGINE AUSTIN ACTIVITY, CENTERS AND CORRIDORS. 
          PLEASE DIRECT THE CITY MANAGER TO RESERVE AND DISTRIBUTE AT LEAST 10% OF THE CITY'S ANNUAL BUDGET OR DISPLACEMENT PREVENTION, FINANCIAL SUPPORT DIRECTLY TO LOW AND MIDDLE INCOME RENTERS AND HOMEOWNERS AND SMALL COMMUNITY-BASED BUSINESSES LOCATED IN OR NEAR PLENTY DISTRICTS AND PLANNING AREAS FOR PROJECT CONNECT, TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT, AND IMAGINE AUSTIN ACTIVITY CENTERS AND CORRIDORS ITEM 80 VERTICAL MIXED USE ZONING CODE AMENDMENT. 
          PLEASE STOP DRIVING WEDGES BETWEEN HOMEOWNERS AND RENTERS IN ORDER TO FACILITATE LAND DEVELOPMENT POLICIES, THAT ACCELERATE MARKET RATE PROJECTS THAT DISPLACE LOW AND MIDDLE INCOME RENTERS AND HOMEOWNERS AND SMALL COMMUNITY-BASED BUSINESSES TO CLEAR THE DECKS FOR WEALTHY AND HIGH INCOME FAMILIES AND THEIR HIGH END BUSINESSES. 
          PLEASE SEE CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY AMC PRESIDENT ON A GABBY THAT TALLER AND LIKELY MORE EXPENSIVE, EXPENSIVE VMU DEVELOPMENTS COULD FURTHER DRIVE UP PROPERTY TAXES IN NEARBY NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE RENTERS AND HOMEOWNERS ARE STRUGGLING TO STAY IN THEIR APARTMENTS AND HOMES. 
          THEY INCREASED HYPE WILL IMPACT THE VALUE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY. 
          AGAIN, ANOTHER WAY THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE DISPLACED OF HERE. 
          HE SAID SHE RECOMMENDS THAT FUTURE VNU PROJECTS REQUIRE INDIVIDUAL APPROVAL BY THE CITY TO ALLOW FOR COMMUNITY INPUT. 
          I IMPLORE COUNCIL TO COMPLY WITH THE STATE LAWS REGARDING PUBLIC PROCESS, PUBLIC NOTICE AND PROTEST RIGHTS FOR ZONING CHANGES. 
          COMPATIBILITY SHOULD NOT BE WAIVED OR REDUCED BY RIGHTS AS IT WILL FACILITATE RAPID ESCALATION IN PROPERTY VALUES AND PROPERTY TAXES ON PROPERTIES ON OR ADJACENT TO CORRIDORS, THEREBY INCREASING DISPLACEMENT PRESSURES ON LOW END AND MIDDLE INCOME RENTERS AND HOMEOWNERS AND SMALL COMMUNITY-BASED BUSINESSES. 
          MARKING REQUIREMENTS SHOULD NOT BE WAIVED OR REDUCED BY RIGHT IN AREAS. 
          EXPERIENCING OVERFLOW PARKING FROM COMMERCIAL USES CHRONIC TRAFFIC SAFETY ISSUES, INADEQUATE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE, OR INVOLUNTARY DISPLACEMENT OF LOW AND MIDDLE INCOME RENTERS AND HOMEOWNERS AND SMALL COMMUNITY-BASED BUSINESSES. 
          PLEASE IMPLEMENT, IMPLEMENT THE BMU RECOMMENDATIONS EXPRESSED EARLIER BY CARMEN JADA'S MONICA GUZMAN AND SAW THE ROSA PRAXIS. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. 
          SCOTT TURNER ITEM 61 62 AND 69. 
          GOOD MORNING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. 
          I'LL FIGURE IT OUT IN 61. 
          FIRST AS A GREEN BUILDER, I'M ALL IN FOR BETTER ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP, NEW DEVELOPMENTS, LIKE THE HOUSE SCALE AND SELL PROJECTS. 
          I BUILD ALWAYS PROVIDE MORE ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS THAN WHAT WAS THERE BEFORE. 
          THIS IS NOT ONLY BECAUSE I CHOOSE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE AUSTIN ENERGY GREEN BUILDER PROGRAM, BUT ALSO BECAUSE OF CODE REQUIREMENTS, LIKE THE ONES IN THIS RESOLUTION, I WAS GLAD TO SEE THE AMENDMENT REGARDING GREENFIELD DETENTION. 
          HOWEVER, BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY HARD ENOUGH TO DEVELOP SMALLER TRACKS FOR HOUSING, MUCH LESS AFTER DOUBLING OR TRIPLING THE DETENTION POND SIZE GREENFIELD DETENTION WOULD BE YET ANOTHER BARRIER THAT WOULD KEEP MOST TRACKS ON CORRIDORS AS CAR LOTS, OR STRIP CENTERS AND LEAVE US WITH LITTLE OR NO NEW HOUSING. 
          AND NONE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS THAT COME WITH IT. 
          MANY OF THE PROPOSALS IN THIS RESOLUTION WERE INCLUDED IN THE LDC REWRITE, BUT THE GOAL THERE WAS TO HELP THE ENVIRONMENT AND INCREASE OUR HOUSING SUPPLY. 
          THAT WAS A WIN-WIN AND THAT WIN-WIN IS NOT IN THIS RESOLUTION, BUT IT SHOULD BE, 
          [01:40:01]
WE CAN ACHIEVE THAT GOAL, BUT WE HAVE TO APPROACH THIS HOLISTICALLY THE WAY WE DID WITH THE LDC, RIGHT? I'M NUMBER 69. 
          UH, I AGREE. 
          WE DO NEED AN UPDATE TO THE PLANNING PROCESS TO ONE THAT ACTUALLY IS ACTUALLY ACCOUNTABLE FOR MEETING THE CITY'S GOALS AND THOSE OF, MOST OF ITS RESIDENTS, THE MAJORITY OF WHICH ARE COMMONLY UNDERREPRESENTED IN PLANNING EFFORTS. 
          FOR EXAMPLE, THE WORD TENANT IS NOT EVEN INCLUDED IN THE RESOLUTION THAT THEY ARE THE MAJORITY OF AUSTINITES. 
          THE CURRENT PLANNING PROCESS IS DOMINATED BY PEOPLE WHO HAVE TIME TO COME TO PLANNING SESSIONS AND KNOW HOW TO INFLUENCE THE OUTCOME. 
          AND THIS IS REFLECTED IN THE CITY'S OWN STUDY ON THE INFLUENCE OF NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING, CONTACT TEAMS, WITHOUT REQUIRING AN EQUITABLE AND ACCOUNTABLE PLANNING PROCESS. 
          THIS RESOLUTION WILL PRODUCE THE SAME INEQUITABLE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING OUTCOMES THAT IT HAS FOR MANY YEARS AND STILL DOES TODAY, WHICH IS A LITTLE OR NO PLANS FOR MORE HOUSING, PLEASE MAKE HOUSING THE TOP PRIORITY IN ANY PLANNING PROCESS OR CITY WILL FOREVER BE ON AFFORDABLE FOR MOST OF ITS RESIDENTS, JUST LIKE IT IS TODAY. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          RYAN JOHNSON, ITEM 62 AND 69. 
          YES. 
          HI, THIS IS RYAN JOHNSON. 
          UM, I'M HERE AS A LIFELONG RESIDENT OF DISTRICT AND URBAN PLANNING PROFESSIONAL AND A FORMER CITY STAFF MEMBER. 
          WHILE I DO SUPPORT THESE EFFORTS UPDATE OUR CITY CODE IS BETTER THAN NOTHING. 
          I'M CONCERNED THAT THEY WON'T MAKE A MEANINGFUL DENT IN OUR HOME AND THAT THEY WILL ACTUALLY BURDEN UNDER UNDER-RESOURCED CITY STAFF MEMBERS. 
          WE SHOULD FOCUS ON AMENDING THE CODE IN WAYS THAT MAKE REGULATION SIMPLE, SUCH AS BY REMOVING ALL COSTLY PARKING MANDATES ACROSS THE CITY AND REMOVING OVER, DO THINGS SO-CALLED COMPATIBILITY UNIFORMLY. 
          SOME PEOPLE TODAY HAVE TALKED ABOUT THE VALUE OF PUBLIC PROCESS, WHICH IS IMPORTANT, BUT IT'S ALSO ABUSED DISINGENUOUSLY BY THOSE VERY SAME PEOPLE TO FIGHT AGAINST THE ONLY INTERVENTION WHICH WILL ACTUALLY PREVENT DISPLACEMENT IN THE LONGTERM. 
          BUILDING MORE HOUSING IN SHORT I'VE LIVED IN AUSTIN, MY ENTIRE LIFE. 
          I LOVE IT HERE. 
          I WANT TO BUY A HOME, NOT NECESSARILY A HOUSE HERE ONE DAY, BUT UNLESS YOU'VE FINALLY ENACT REAL REFORMS AND ALLOW A VARIETY OF HOUSING EVERYWHERE TOWN, I WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO. 
          THAT JUST MAKES ME SAD. 
          THANK YOU, ANDY AND MCKENNA SPEAKING ON ITEM EIGHT 80. 
          YES. 
          HELLO. 
          I HAVE THE OLD HOMESTEAD BRENNER'S ASSOCIATION. 
          I'M SPEAKING FOR MYSELF, BUT I BELIEVE SOME OF WHAT I MIGHT SAY THEY WOULD AGREE. 
          OTHERS WOULD AGREE WITH, UH, WHAT I LEARNED AT THIS PROPOSAL TO MAKE A BMU TO, UM, A LOT EASIER FOR DEVELOPERS TO KIND OF RUN ROUGH SHOT OVER THE PROCESS OF NOTIFYING TENANTS. 
          I JUST HAD TO KIND OF TALK ABOUT HOW I DIDN'T EVEN HEAR ABOUT THE PROCESS WHERE I'M LIVING BECAUSE OF THE UTILITY BILL SITUATION. 
          I DON'T GET A UTILITY BILL THAT COMES IN WITH MY RENT. 
          I HAD TO GO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE PEOPLE THERE HEARD MY STORY GOT INVOLVED. 
          AND NOW WE ARE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT TITLE ONE 20 LATER ON, BUT YOU KNOW, YESTERDAY I GOT A NOTICE ABOUT, UM, SOMETHING THAT WAS STUFFED IN A, UH, A HANDRAIL. 
          I DIDN'T SEE IT. 
          IT WAS A WEEK LATE. 
          UM, IT WASN'T PUT ON MY DOOR, WASN'T MAILED TO ME. 
          SO I'M JUST SAYING THE NOTIFICATION PROCESS IS ALREADY BROKEN. 
          IT'S STILL BROKEN, UH, FORGET TELLING NEIGHBORS WHO LIVE BEYOND 500 FEET. 
          WHAT'S GOING ON. 
          WHEN I TALKED TO THEM ON MY WALK, THEY'RE LIKE, OH, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ALL THIS MORE TRAFFIC BECAUSE OF THIS HUGE DEVELOPMENT. 
          I'VE BEEN HERE 25 YEARS, TOTAL SINCE THE EARLY NINETIES, UH, ON AND OFF. 
          BUT THE LAST TIME, 22 YEARS, I'M LOOKING AT ALMOST HAVING TO LIVE IN CRAPPY CRAIGSLIST, RENTER ROOMMATE SITUATIONS, WHICH NEVER LAST ON LAST ONE IS GOING TO THE LAST ONES INVOLVED. 
          SOMEBODY WHO, UH, ALMOST ASSAULTED ME. 
          UM, THAT'S NOT TENABLE. 
          I'VE BEEN IN THIS APARTMENT FOR A YEAR. 
          UM, AND IT FEELS LIKE HOME. 
          LITERALLY, THERE'S A SIGN OUT FRONT THAT SAYS THAT, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER BELLA HAD TO GET INVOLVED TO GET THE DEVELOPER JCI, TO EVEN COME TO THE TABLE. 
          THEY HAVEN'T COME ANYWHERE CLOSE TO MEETING OUR ARE ORIENTED KNEES. 
          THEY'RE NOT EVEN DEMAND THEY'RE THEY'RE WARRANTED NEEDS BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO LAND ON HER ASS IS MANY PEOPLE HAVE BEEN LIVING HERE FOR YEARS. 
          THAT'S BEEN MENTIONED, THEY'RE VETERANS. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, I SUPPORT WITH THE SPEAKERS WITH GABA AND OTHERS HAVE SAID THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN CHANGE THE POLICY. 
          YOU CAN BUILD MORE, BUT IT HAS TO BE ACTUALLY AFFORDABLE, NOT THIS CAPITAL, A MFI BOLOGNA BETTER THAN WORK, WHERE WE'RE ALLOWED TO MOVE BACK HERE IN A FEW YEARS, BUT WE'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO AFFORD IT, BUT LET'S GET REAL PEOPLE. 
          SO THE PROCESS IS BROKEN. 
          NOW YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT MAKING IT EVEN LESS, UH, DEMOCRATIC. 
          AND THAT OFFENDS ME DEEPLY AS A PERSON WHO LIVES IN AUSTIN. 
          AND YOU KNOW, I'M A COMMUNITY VOLUNTEER. 
          I'M A NONPROFIT WORKER AND WE NEED TO DO MORE 
          [01:45:01]
SYNOVIA JOSEPH ITEMS, 27 39, 49, 53 AND 68. 
          ASK A TECHNICAL QUESTION. 
          YES. 
          I SIGNED UP IN PERSON FOR THE VMU ITEM, 51 AND 52 AND WENT TO THE CLERK'S OFFICE FIRST. 
          CAN YOU JUST TELL ME IF THEY MERGE THE TWO SETS OF ITEMS? HOW DOES THAT WORK? YOU CAN SPEAK, YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES TO SPEAK ON ANYTHING THAT YOU WANT TO SPEAK ON OTHER THAN ZONING CASES, BUT I'M ASKING TO MAKE SURE THAT MY POSITION IS, I ACTUALLY REMEMBERED IT THROUGH 51, 52 AND 80. 
          I DIDN'T HEAR THE CLERK CALL THAT ON A MINUTE AGO. 
          YES. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          MAYOR KIM WITH ALARMS AND OLIVIA, JOSEPH JUST WANTED TO MAKE A FEW COMMENTS AS IT RELATES TO 51. 
          THAT'S THE METRO METHODS. 
          I ACTUALLY AM OPPOSED TO THAT ITEM. 
          I WANT TO CALL TO YOUR ATTENTION THAT JUST YESTERDAY, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION CHAIR, ROBERT SCOTT MENTIONED THAT THE COLONY PARK AREA WILL NOT BENEFIT FROM THE EXPO PARKING, RIGHT? THAT WILL EVENTUALLY BE IN THAT AREA. 
          SHE MENTIONED ON KVI THAT IT WOULD BE MAINER AND HOOVERVILLE AND ELVIN, BUT NOT PEOPLE IN COLONY PARK. 
          SHE DOESN'T THINK THAT THEY'LL GET IN THEIR CARS AND RIDE DOWNTOWN ON THE BUS, AS IT RELATES SPECIFICALLY TO THE AUSTIN STRATEGIC MOBILITY PLAN. 
          I JUST WANT TO REMIND YOU THAT TITLE FIXERS SPECIFIED ON PAGE 2 25, WHICH PROHIBITS DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RACE, COLOR, NATIONAL ORIGIN. 
          SO WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT 80 LIVE VERTICAL AND EXCUSED, I JUST WANT TO CALL TO YOUR ATTENTION AT 80% AREA MEDIAN INCOME ON OUR MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME IS MORE THAN MOST. 
          AFRICAN-AMERICANS EARN. 
          THAT'S ABOUT $55,000. 
          YOUR STUDY IN 2020 FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SAID, AFRICAN-AMERICANS, AREN'T ABOUT $42,000. 
          SO I WOULD ASK YOU TO UPDATE THE CODE TO ENSURE THAT ESSENTIAL WORKERS WHO EARN ABOUT 60% AREA MEDIAN INCOME CAN ACTUALLY OWN HOMES AS WELL. 
          I AM FOR THE FALK LIBRARY EXPANSION AND SEND SOME INFORMATION TO ASK THAT YOU ACTUALLY DESIGNATE AN AREA FOR AFRICAN-AMERICANS BASED ON THE E RATIO OF AFRICAN-AMERICAN HISTORY. 
          AS IT RELATES TO THE 27, I AM OPPOSED TO THE $600,000 FOR KCI. 
          I APPRECIATE THAT YOU WANT TO STREAM THE COUNCIL MEETINGS ON AIR. 
          HOWEVER, THEY ARE BEHOLDEN TO COUNCIL AND PLAY PROPAGANDA AS IT RELATED TO THE PROJECT, CONNECT ON THE AIR AND THEY REFUSE TO PUT AN ANTI-VIRAL AD BASED ON THEIR BIAS TOWARDS THE CITY. 
          I WOULD LASTLY, JUST ASK THAT AS YOU LOOK AT THE VERTICAL MIX USE THAT YOU INCLUDE PARKLAND DEDICATION. 
          IF YOU GO DOWN YOUR LANE, WHICH I DID THIS MORNING, IT'S A CONCRETE JUNGLE, WHICH WAS ONCE DENSE FORESTRY. 
          AND SO HEIGHT IS ONE THING, BUT LET'S NOT ACTUALLY EXACERBATE THE PROBLEMS THAT AFRICAN-AMERICANS OR LOW INCOME PEOPLE HAVE HAD TERMINANCE OF HEALTH, UH, AS IT RELATES LAST WEEK TO THE NUMBER 49, THAT'S THE LEANDRA I JUST WANTED TO THANK THE STAFF FOR SENDING ME THE INFORMATION YESTERDAY, BUT IT DOESN'T SAY HOW, UM, AUSTIN AND TRAVIS COUNTY RESIDENTS WOULD BENEFIT FROM LEANDER PRE-K. 
          IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL GO ON THE INTIMATE METHODS. 
          ONE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THAT CONCLUDES REMOTE SPEAKERS. 
          ALRIGHT, COLLEAGUES. 
          UH, IT IS, UH, NOON, UM, ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. 
          [Consent Agenda]
AS I SEE IT, UM, WE HAVE IT'S ITEMS ONE THROUGH 74 AND 1 21 THROUGH 1 24. 
          UH, THE POLL ITEMS I HAVE ARE 10 14 50, 2 56, 57 61 65, 66 AND 69 AND 1 24. 
          IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE? WE WERE GOING TO GIVE PEOPLE A CHANCE TO COMMENT. 
          LET'S JUST GET EMOTION OUT ON THE FLOOR. 
          OKAY. 
          WE'LL GO. 
          WE'LL HAVE COMMENTS AND WE'LL GIVE PEOPLE A CHANCE TO CHANGE THINGS. 
          IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA? AND SO ROBERT MADISON MAKES THE MOTION WENT THIS SECOND, THE SECOND SET. 
          OKAY. 
          NOW LET'S DISCUSS THE CONSENT AGENDA COUNCIL MEMBER YET. 
          UH, YES, I, I, YOU KNOW, I STILL HAVE SOME, UH, CONCERNS ABOUT ITEM 39. 
          SO I REQUEST THAT WE POSTPONE THAT UNTIL NEXT WEEK. 
          THIS IS THE PLAZA. 
          [01:50:01]
IT'S UP THE TRACK. 
          IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO POSTPONING THIS ITEM UNTIL THE NEXT WEEK? NO, STAFF'S FINE WITH THIS. 
          SO 69 WE'LL STAY ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, BUT IT IS POSTPONE TILL NEXT WEEK. 
          NO, THAT'S NOT 69 39 RATHER. 
          THANK YOU. 
          WE'LL POSTPONE TILL NEXT WEEK. 
          FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA COUNTS MEMBER KITCHEN. 
          UH, I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR COUNCIL MEMBER ELLIS, BUT, UM, UH, I DON'T KNOW IF SHE HAS HER HAND RAISED, BUT SHE MIGHT BE READY TO PUT 69 BACK ON CONSENT. 
          YEAH. 
          MY ONLY INTENT WAS FOR YOU TO BE ABLE TO SPEAK A LITTLE MORE DIRECTLY ABOUT YOUR MESSAGE BOARD POSTS. 
          UM, SO IF WE CAN KNOCK THAT OUT BEFORE VOTING ON CONSENT, I'M HAPPY TO KEEP IT ON. 
          OKAY. 
          IT'S KNOWN. 
          SO IF THERE'S GOING TO BE A DISCUSSION ON IT, WE'RE GOING TO PULL IT SO WE CAN GET TO THE NOON THINGS. 
          SPEAKERS OBVIOUSLY WENT ALONG TODAY. 
          UH, SO 69 IS GOING TO BE PULLED. 
          WHAT ELSE ARE YOU? OKAY. 
          THERE WAS ANOTHER ONE YOU WERE GOING TO BE TAKING A LOOK AT, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER ELLIS TO SEE IF YOU WERE OKAY WITH US 59. 
          ARE YOU OKAY WITH THE, UM, THE  ALTER AMENDMENTS? UM, ACTUALLY, SO I, I POSTED ONTO THE MESSAGE BOARD, UM, OF REVISED LANGUAGE FOR ONE OF COUNCIL MEMBER . 
          SO I'M NOT SURE IF SHE'S HAD A CHANCE TO, TO LOOK AT THAT. 
          UM, BUT WE'RE ALSO MERGING THEM INTO A VERSION TWO. 
          SO I JUST, AND IT WOULD INCORPORATE, UM, ONE MORE, WHEREAS, AND THEN INCORPORATE COMES FROM A REPORT AS MAYOR PRO TEM OFFICERS. 
          THEY WANT TO HOLD ON THAT JUST A MINUTE. 
          WE'RE GOING TO PULL OUT IN 59. 
          WE'LL HANDLE THAT QUICKLY WHEN WE REGATHER. 
          OKAY. 
          ANYTHING ELSE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA HAS TOBO MIRA? I'M NOT SURE WHETHER YOU SAID 14 WAS BEING PULLED. 
          THAT'S THE ONE I JUST HAVE DIRECTION, BUT I THINK GIVEN THE TIME I'LL PULL IT, BUT JUST AGAIN, WITH THE, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING, WE DON'T NEED STAFF FOR THAT STAFF ONE NOT NEEDED. 
          THANK YOU FOR THAT. 
          THAT'S WHERE KELLY, WE'RE MAKING COMMENTS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. 
          CORRECT. 
          WE'LL MAKE THOSE LATER. 
          OKAY. 
          NEVERMIND. 
          AND THAT WAY WE CAN GET TO THE CONSENT SPEAKERS AND MUSIC AND OKAY. 
          SO BEFORE WE DO THAT, MAY I JUST SAY THAT I'M ABSTAINING ON ONE ITEM ON THE CONSENT AGENDA AND THAT WOULD BE ITEM NUMBER 38, WHICH I WILL MAKE COMMENTS ABOUT AND EXPLAIN FURTHER WHEN WE HAVE THAT TIME. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, WITH REGARD TO ITEM THREE, UH, AND ALSO RESOURCE RECOVERY. 
          I DON'T THINK THAT THEY'RE HERE ON THAT ITEM AND, OH, I'M SORRY. 
          UM, UH, THEY ARE, UH, I JUST HAD A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS THAT ITEM, UH, BEFORE THE CONSENT. 
          SO OUR QUESTION IS, REMEMBER, THAT'S PULL ITEM NUMBER THREE. 
          WE'LL HANDLE THAT AFTER LUNCH. 
          OKAY. 
          YES. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER, UH, TELEPHONE. 
          UM, I NEED THE ITEM, THE RECORD TO REFLECT THAT I AM RECUSING MYSELF ON 10 AND 81 AND I HAVE, UH, UH, AFFIDAVIT OVER WITH THE CLERK'S OFFICE. 
          GREAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION, IF YOU COULD JUST SEE THE CLERK PLACE. 
          UM, ALL RIGHT. 
          SO I'M SHOWING THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM. 
          I JUST WENT THROUGH 74 AND 1 21 THROUGH 1 24. 
          THE PULLED ITEMS ARE 3 10, 14 52 56 57 59 61 65 66 69 AND 1 24. 
          UM, ANYTHING ELSE THERE? YES. 
          YES. 
          69 BACK ON CONSENT PLEASE. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          69 IS BACK ON CONSENT. 
          AND COULD YOU PLEASE READ THROUGH THE POLL NUMBERS AGAIN? I WILL. 
          UM, PAUL LIVES, CONSENT AGENDAS, ONE THROUGH 74 AND 1 21 THROUGH 1 24. 
          THE PULLED ITEMS ARE 3 10, 14 52 56 57 59 61 65 66 AND 1 24. 
          YEAH, WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. 
          IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT? WE'VE ALREADY SECONDED IT. 
          AND THE FIRST QUESTION BEFORE WE VOTE, YES, MAYOR PRO TEM. 
          I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM THAT MY AMENDMENT FOR 62, UM, WITH RESPECT TO THE UTILITY REGULATIONS WAS ALREADY ACCEPTED AS PART OF THE BASE FOR 62. 
          UM, EARLIER. 
          YES, IT WAS A KEPT IT EARLIER AND IT IS PART OF THE, UH, ITEM ON CONSENT. 
          OKAY. 
          ITEM NUMBER 
          [01:55:01]
39 IS STAYING ON THE, UH, UH, CONSENT AND IT'S BEING POSTPONED. 
          THAT'S CORRECT. 
          AND MAYOR FOR ITEM TAZ IS ITEM 1 22 AND ITEM 73 AND MAYBE SOME OTHERS CALLED OFF AND CHANGES AND CORRECTION PAIR PROGRAM. 
          SORRY, I DIDN'T MEAN TO SPEAK OVER YOU. 
          I THOUGHT YOU'D FINISHED. 
          UM, SO FOR ITEM, NUMBER 10, WE HAVE TO PULL THAT ANYWAY FOR THE LATER ITEM. 
          YES. 
          OKAY. 
          AND JUST TO CLARIFY WHAT I WAS SAYING EARLIER, I WOULD, WHAT I'VE TALKED WITH STAFF ABOUT IS THAT WE WOULD MOVE TO NEGOTIATE. 
          UM, AND THEN THEY WOULD COME BACK TO EXECUTE. 
          I'M NOT EXPECTING A PROBLEM WITH THE MANAGEMENT PLAN THAT COMES BACK. 
          I JUST WANT TO, I DO WANT TO REVIEW IT. 
          UM, AND AT THIS POINT THERE'S NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION FOR ME TO FULLY UNDERSTAND THE SCOPE, BUT AGAIN, I'M NOT EXPECTING A PROBLEM, BUT I WANT TO, TO REVIEW IT BEFORE WE EXITED. 
          YEAH. 
          NOT A PROBLEM. 
          WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT. 
          WHEN WE GET TO ITEM NUMBER 81, ALL RIGHT. 
          LET'S TAKE A, VOTE THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. 
          PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. 
          THOSE OPPOSED. 
          SO IT'S UNANIMOUS ON THE, UH, ON THE, ON THE DAY. 
          S GOOD. 
          UH, WE DON'T HAVE ANY HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION MEETING TODAY JUST TO LET EVERYBODY KNOW WE HAVE, UH, NOW, 
          [Public Comments (Part 2 of 3)]
UH, PUBLIC COMMENT, DALE WARD TISDALE, KRISTIN KELLY, MARIO KENTU. 
          THANK YOU, BOBBY BREEDEN. 
          HANG ON A SECOND. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COME ON DOWN. 
          OKAY. 
          GOOD AFTERNOON. 
          MAYOR AND COUNCIL, UH, OPER PRESENT REGENCY HEALTHCARE, WHICH IS A BIG AGENCY HERE IN AUSTIN. 
          WE OWN 14 OF OUR, UH, NURSING AND REHAB CENTERS. 
          WE CAME UP WITH NEW PROGRAM OR TRYING TO GET THE INFORMATION OUT AS MUCH AS WE CAN ON HIRING SENIORS AND JUNIORS AND TRAINING THEM AND GIVE THEM THAT, THAT CAREER THEY WANT TO PURSUE. 
          UH, RIGHT NOW, UH, WE ARE CURRENTLY HIRING THE SIX ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THAT FLYER YOU HAVE, AND WE TRAIN THEM, WE PAY FOR IT. 
          SO IT'S A GOOD PROGRAM THAT IF THEY WANT TO GO TO CNA SCHOOL AND THEY SHOW THAT THEY ARE DEDICATED, WE'RE GOING TO SEND THEM TO SCHOOL. 
          WE'RE GOING TO TRAIN THEM SAME WITH THE MEDICAL ASSISTANTS TO PASS MEDS AND STUFF. 
          WE'RE GOING TO SEND THEM TO SCHOOL. 
          WE'RE GOING TO TRAIN THEM CURRENTLY. 
          I'VE GOT A NURSE IN SCHOOL THAT WE'RE SUPPORTING AND SHE'S WORKING FLEXIBLE HOURS AT NIGHT. 
          THAT WAY SHE CAN STILL SUPPORT HER FAMILY. 
          SO IT'S A GOOD PROGRAM WE STARTED AND WE'RE JUST TO GET THE INFORMATION OUT TO THE GREATER CITY OF BOSTON. 
          WE GOT, UH, 14, UH, COMMUNITIES RIGHT HERE, NINE IN AUSTIN, TWO IN BLAST, DROP ONE AT ELGIN. 
          AND, UH, WE'RE JUST TRYING TO GET THAT INFORMATION OUT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I DON'T SEE THE FLYER HE MADE REFERENCE TO. 
          YOU WANT TO LISTEN? WHY DON'T YOU GIVE IT TO THE CLERK? CLERK WILL MAKE SURE THAT WE GET COPIES. 
          THANK YOU, MARIO. 
          CAN TO GO TO THE FIRST SLIDE. 
          GO AHEAD. 
          GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          I DIDN'T KNOW YOU WERE WAITING. 
          THAT'S RIGHT. 
          SO I JUST WANT A LITTLE BIT OF SILENCE FOR THESE INDIVIDUALS, UM, AND MENTAL HEALTH EITHER WAY. 
          IT'S A THREE-MINUTE TIME ON PUBLIC SPEAK. 
          THANK YOU JUST A LITTLE BIT OF TIME FOR THESE INDIVIDUALS THAT WERE IN YOUR VALLEY. 
          YOU KNOW, GETTING IMPACTED WITH THE CHILDREN, HAVING TO WORK ON THEM. 
          IT'S, YOU KNOW, WORKING ON CHILDREN IS, 
          [02:00:01]
IS VERY, VERY DIFFICULT. 
          IT'S NOT EASY WORK AT ALL. 
          UH, NEXT PLEASE. 
          SO MENTAL HEALTH, UH, THE TOP THREE STRESSORS CONTRIBUTING TO A POOR STATE OF MENTAL HEALTH INCLUDE CAREER FINANCES AND LACK OF SLEEP. 
          IF YOU LOOK AT THE BOTTOM, IT SAYS COMMONLY MANY AGENCIES UTILIZE A TIMEFRAME OF 12 HOURS, 16 HOURS, OR 24 HOURS SHIFTS. 
          YOU KNOW, THOSE SHIFTS, WE REALLY CAN'T CHANGE A LOT OF THAT. 
          UH, THE CAREER WE MIGHT FINANCE AS WE COULD BACK ASLEEP, WE REALLY DON'T CHANGE BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO HAVE HEALTHCARE WORKERS WORKING AT NIGHT. 
          THEY CAN'T ALL GO HOME AND THEN COME OUT OF THEIR HOUSE TO GO TO WORK, TO COME PICK YOU UP THERE. 
          THEY'RE WORKING 24 HOURS A DAY ALL YEAR LONG NEXT. 
          SO IT'S NO SECRET THAT OCCUPATION WITH EMS RESULTS IN A HIGH STRESS WORK ENVIRONMENT, EMS WORKERS ARE REGULARLY EXPOSED TO THE REALITIES OF HUMAN SUFFERINGS AND TRAGEDY, INCLUDING DEATH STRESSORS CAN BE GROUPED INTO THREE GENERAL CATEGORIES, RE ROUTINE WORK DEMANDS, CRITICAL INCIDENTS INVOLVING SERIOUS HARM OR DEATH AND SOCIAL CONFLICTS, SOCIAL CONFLICTS. 
          OFTEN YOU WOULD ENCOUNTER ON A SCENE WITH FAMILY ARGUING, UM, INTERACTION WITH FAMILY MEMBERS OR NEIGHBORS, SOMETHING LIKE THAT WHERE, YOU KNOW, SOMEONE'S BEEN SHOT, STABBED HURT. 
          UH, SO THAT'S WHAT THAT WOULD INCLUDE NEXT. 
          UH, AND, AND THIS IS, I THINK THIS ONE'S REALLY IMPORTANT BECAUSE IN ADDITION TO MANY PROVIDERS, UH, SEEK OVERTIME HOURS OUTSIDE OF THEIR NORMAL SCHEDULE SHIFTS OR EMPLOYED WITH MULTIPLE AGENCY RESULTING IN WORK BACKUP SHIFTS, THIS IS LARGELY REPORTED DUE TO THE PAY DISCREPANCY WITHIN THE EMS COMMUNITY. 
          MANY PROVIDERS REVEAL FEELING AS THOUGH THE ADDITIONAL HOURS WORKED ARE A NECESSITY TO OBTAIN A COMFORTABLE FINANCIAL STANDING. 
          SO SOME INDIVIDUALS MAINLY A LOT HAVE TO WORK ANOTHER JOB IN ORDER TO PAY THE BILLS. 
          AGAIN, CAREER FINANCES, I THINK IS A VERY IMPORTANT THING TO LOOK AT. 
          CAN THAT BE FIXED? YES, WE CAN FIX FINANCES AND HOURLY WAGE FOR EMS PARAMEDICS, CMTS AND THE NINE 11 DISPATCHERS. 
          AGAIN, LACK OF SLEEP. 
          UH, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE TO WORK THROUGH THAT ON THEIR OWN, UH, BECAUSE OF THE SHIFTS AND THE DEDICATION THAT THEY GIVE. 
          ALSO, I WANTED TO INCLUDE THAT, UH, A LOT OF THE EMS PARAMEDICS CMTS ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE CONTINUING EDUCATION HOURS WITH A LOT OF TRAINING, UH, EVERY FOUR YEARS FOR THEIR CERTIFICATION, UH, AND PARAMEDICS OFTEN, UH, HAVE TO DO 120 HOURS OR MORE. 
          SO THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, JORDAN BETTIS. 
          MOVING ON TO REMOTE SPEAKERS, PAT BALLS, TRELLIS UH, THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK. 
          UM, THIS IS PAT VICE MAYOR, MAYOR PRO TEM AND COUNCIL MEMBERS. 
          UM, CAN YOU ALL HEAR ME? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, I AM A FORMER MEMBER OF THE ANIMAL ADVISORY COMMISSION AND CURRENT RESIDENT OF DISTRICT NINE IN 2015. 
          THE CITY OF AUSTIN OTTER PUBLISHED A REPORT ON ANIMAL SERVICES. 
          IT'S STATED THE ANIMAL SERVICES OFFICE CONTINUES TO MEET THE CITY'S 90% LIVE OUTCOME GOAL. 
          HOWEVER, ANIMAL SERVICES DOES NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT FACILITIES AND RESOURCES ALLOCATED TO MEET THE GOAL AND REMAIN IN LINE WITH THE STATE REQUIREMENTS AND INDUSTRY BEST PRACTICES. 
          AS A RESULT, THE SPEEDY'S ANIMAL SHELTERS ARE OVERCROWDED. 
          ANIMALS ARE NOT CONSISTENTLY RECEIVING THE RECOMMENDED LEVEL OF CARE AND RESPONSE TIMES TO CALLS FOR ASSISTANCE ARE UNTIMELY. 
          IN ADDITION, ANIMAL SERVICES DOES NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT PROCESSES TO RECORD AND PRIORITIZE ALL REDUCING THEIR ABILITY TO MANAGE FIELD OPERATIONS. 
          I HAVE SENT YOU THE LINK FOR THIS REPORT IN AN EMAIL, AND I WANT CONTINUE BY SAYING THAT ANIMAL SERVICES CONTINUES TO BE UNDERFUNDED IN 2022. 
          THE CITY'S ANIMAL SHELTER CONTINUES TO BE OVERCROWDED. 
          ANIMALS ARE STILL NOT RECEIVING THE RECOMMENDED LEVEL OF CARE AND COST TO THREE. 
          ONE, ONE CONTINUED TO NOT BE ANSWERED IN A TIMELY MANNER. 
          YOU RECENTLY RECEIVED AN EMAIL FROM A CITY RESIDENT. 
          I BELIEVE 
          [02:05:01]
HE LIVES IN, IN DISTRICT THREE. 
          AND I BELIEVE THAT, AND I KNOW THE EMAIL HE SENT. 
          YOU HAD A PICTURE OF A DOG THAT WAS KILLED ON THE STREET BECAUSE OF LACK OF THREE, ONE, ONE RESPONSE TO THAT CALL AND TO CALL THE REPORT ABOUT LOOSE DOGS. 
          UM, THE ANIMAL ADVISORY COMMISSION TO DATE HAS NOT MADE TIME TO DISCUSS THE REQUEST BY ANIMAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL STAFF CHOOSING INSTEAD TO CALL A LAST MINUTE SPECIAL CALLED MEETING FOR THIS FRIDAY NIGHT TO DISCUSS STRAY HOLD TIME. 
          AN ISSUE THAT HASN'T BEEN DISCUSSED PRIOR TO THIS WEEK, THE ANIMAL ADVISORY COMMISSION ALSO HAS A MEETING ON MONDAY EVENING. 
          I HOPE THE COMMISSION WILL RECOMMEND ADDITIONAL STAFF FOR ANIMAL SERVICES AT THAT TIME TO ADDRESS THE UNDERFUNDING AND OVERCROWDING. 
          IF THE COMMISSION FAILS TO RECOMMEND ADDITIONAL STAFFING, I REQUEST THE COUNCIL, ASKED THE CITY AUDITOR FOR AN UPDATED REPORT AND ASKED FOR A FAIR AND UNBIASED REVIEW OF ANIMAL SHELTER STAFFING. 
          THANKS VERY MUCH FRANCIS . 
          CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, GO AHEAD. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, MY NAME IS  AND I HAVE LIVED IN SOUTH SOUTHEAST AUSTIN FOR ABOUT 25 YEARS. 
          TODAY. 
          I WANT TO SPEAK ABOUT NEIGHBORHOODS STABILITY, AND I DO WANT TO SAY THAT MY STABILITY IS CAN PROMISE. 
          I WAS IMPRESSED WHEN I VISITED THE CITY OF AUSTIN WEBPAGE AND THAT IT HAS DENSITY BONUSES FOR DEVELOPERS TO PUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          BUT I NOTICED THAT MOST OF THE TIME, THE 10% AFFORDABLE HOUSING AVAILABLE IT'S FOR THE 60% MFI AND IN UP INCLUDING, I MEAN, EXCLUDING LOW-INCOME COMMUNITIES. 
          I HEAR THAT SOME PEOPLE MUST BE DISPLACED. 
          I NOW REALIZE THAT THE PEOPLE THAT MUST BE DISPLACED ARE THE PEOPLE THAT ARE 60% AND BELOW, WHICH IS ALL OF US THAT HAVE MADE POSITIVE CHANGES IN OUR COMMUNITIES. 
          I WAS TOLD THAT IF I WANTED TO FIGHT FOR MY HOME, I NEED TO GET MY REPRESENTATIVES ATTENTION. 
          I NEED TO KNOW HOW, HOW THEY THINK OR HOW YOU THINK, HOW YOU SPEAK YOUR LANGUAGE. 
          I NEED TO LEARN, UM, IF YOU'RE REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRATIC, IN OTHER WORDS, I NEED TO BECOME AN EXPERT IN YOUR JOB. 
          WHY DO I NEED TO LEARN YOUR LANGUAGE? WHY DO I NEED TO LEARN ABOUT VERTICAL MIXED USE EQUITY, TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT, PROJECT CONNECT, OFFICER CHICKEN OFF THE STRATEGIC MOBILITY PLAN, LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, ANY MATCHING AUSTIN, JUST SO I COULD TRY TO FIGHT TO STAY IN MY HOME. 
          YOU ARE WORKING ON OUR BEHALF QUITE DOESN'T LOOK LIKE YOU ARE AGAINST US. 
          YOU KNOW, ALL THE, THE LOW INCOME COMMUNITIES, QUITE A, WE FEEL THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO GET RID OF US. 
          THAT'S WHAT WE'RE FEELING, ESPECIALLY THE RANCHERS AND THE VERY LOW INCOME COMMUNITIES. 
          WE FEEL THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO GET RID OF US, AND THIS IS HER HOMES. 
          AND I JUST WANT TO STOP THERE BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO SAY BEFORE THE TIME ITSELF, THAT THERE'S TWO OTHER RESIDENTS THAT ARE IN, IN THE QUEUE, THAT THERE, THEY DON'T HAVE A TRANSLATION. 
          AND I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY'S THERE TO TRANSLATE FOR THEM, BUT I'M WILLING TO THAT'S HOW I HAVE MAYOR. 
          UM, I THINK MS. POLITO RAISED HER HAND THAT SHE WOULD BE ABLE TO TRANSLATE IF NECESSARY, PERHAPS PERLA RODRIGUEZ, 
          [02:10:08]
PERLA HERNANDEZ. 
           IRENE HERNANDEZ. 
           SEE. 
           UM,   UH,  UH   OKAY. 
           GOOD MORNING. 
          MY NAME IS  SORRY. 
          YES, . 
          AND I LIVE IN ZIP CODE 78, 7 4 4. 
          UH  UH . 
          THIS IS SEE THAT IS TODAY. 
          I AM SPEAKING BECAUSE I WAS DISAPPOINTED THE LAST TIME THAT I CAME TO SPEAK WITH THE COMMUNICATION SERVICES AND THE INTERPRETATION WHEN WE CAME TO SPEAK ABOUT OUR NEEDS, UH  UH, UP ON IS THAT  WHEN WE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK LAST TIME, THE WAY THAT THINGS WERE INTERPRETED DIDN'T, UH, DIDN'T COMMUNICATE EVERYTHING THAT WE SAID. 
          IT'S, , IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WHEN WE SPEAK THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY HEARD, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THE TIME IT TAKES FOR US TO WORK TO COME HERE, WHEN WE SPEAK. 
          IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT THE THINGS THAT W THAT WE SAY ARE HEARD AND THAT YOU PAY ATTENTION TO THE PROCESS OF THAT, SO THAT WE UNDERSTAND WHAT IS SAID, AND WE'RE ABLE TO, UH, SPEAK, UM, , THAT'S EVERYTHING THAT I HAVE TODAY. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          BURNOUT RODRIGUEZ. 
          WHEN I STARTED THIS , UM, FEBRUARY LATE, UH, THE MATTER BAUZA THIS WAS  MY NAME IS  GOOD AFTERNOON. 
          AND I LIVE IN 7, 8, 7 4 4 ZIP CODE IN DOVE SPRINGS. 
          TODAY. 
          I'M SPEAKING BECAUSE I'VE BEEN EXTREMELY DISAPPOINTED WITH THE SERVICES OF INTERPRETATION. 
          WHEN I'VE COME TO SPEAK BEFORE ABOUT OUR COMMUNITY'S NEEDS. 
          UH, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE WANT YOU TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU INTERPRET FOR SPEAKERS WELL, SO THAT YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS WE'RE ASKING FOR OUR COMMUNITY'S NEEDS. 
          [02:15:03]
   RACHEL  THE LAST TIME WE CAME TO SPEAK, WE WEREN'T GIVEN ENOUGH TIME AND THE THINGS WE SAID WEREN'T INTERPRETED WELL, AND WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN WE COME TO SPEAK, THAT WE ARE HEARD AND LISTENED TO WE TAKE OUR TIME OUT OF WORK TO COME AND TESTIFY, BUT WITHOUT GOOD INTERPRETATION, IF YOU CAN'T HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, WE'RE SAYING IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND THE OBSTACLES THAT WE FACE AS A COMMUNITY. 
          I THINK , EH, NOT THE FOOD CHAIN CONTINUE THAT  . 
          SO I ASK OF YOU THAT YOU MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE INTERPRETED FOR INTERPRETED FOR, AND TREATED WITH DIGNITY, RESPECT, AND, UH, AND COMPLETE UNDERSTANDING FOR WHAT WE'RE SAYING. 
           DORA. 
          SO MOST THE NAME OF SOME OF THE DYNAMICS OF THE RACHEL. 
          THIS IS NOT THE SCHOOL CHAIN. 
          THEY CANNOT REPRESENT THEM OR . 
          KAY. 
          I THINK WE SEE IN THE WILD BULL EQUALS     WE ARE A WORKING COMMUNITY AND WE DESERVE TO BE, TO HAVE THE RIGHT, TO BE HEARD AND TO BE TREATED WITH RESPECT WHEN YOU DON'T LISTEN TO THE THINGS THAT WE SAY, OR WHEN YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU SAY, THEN YOU'RE NOT RESPECTING THE WORD OF THE COMMUNITY AND WE DESERVE THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD. 
          BUT MOST OF THE NOT SO GROSS AND THEN MAMA  NO PERFECT. 
          SO  IS GETTING  HOW EVERYBODY'S FEELING. 
             ,  NO ID NEED NIDA. 
          A LOT OF US ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND THE LANGUAGE WE UNDERSTAND WHAT'S BEING SAID IN ENGLISH, WE PREFER TO SPEAK IN OUR OWN NATIVE LANGUAGE BECAUSE WE CAN WORK COMFORTABLY EXPRESS OURSELVES AND YOU CAN HEAR WHAT WE'RE GOING THROUGH, AND WE'RE NO LESS DESERVING OF THE DIGNITY AND THE RESPECT OF BEING HURT. 
           ,   FOR ME, FOR ME,  OUR LAB. 
           RATCHET. 
          I'M VERY PROUD, VERY PROUD TO LIVE IN THIS COMMUNITY. 
          I'M VERY PROUD OF WHAT I DO FOR MY COMMUNITY. 
          AND I AM PROUD TO S TO COME HERE AND TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT WHAT MY COMMUNITY NEEDS. 
          UM, IT'S ESSENTIAL THAT YOU, UH, TREAT US WITH DIGNITY AND RESPECT SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF OUR COMMUNITY HERNANDEZ. 
          WHEN I STARTED THERE SPECIALIZED S UM, BUT THEN IT SAVES ME NEEDLES. 
           OKAY. 
          MY NAME IS . 
          I ALSO LIVE IN ZIP CODE 78, 7 4, 4   . 
          AND ALSO I'M SPEAKING TODAY BECAUSE I FEEL SOMEWHAT DISAPPOINTED. 
          UH, AND ON BEHALF OF MY COMMUNITY, I FEEL WE'VE BEEN DONE A DISSERVICE , 
          [02:20:02]
UH  UH, NO, NO. 
            WHEN WE COME TO SPEAK FOR OUR COMMUNITY, SOMETIMES OUR WORDS AREN'T WELL TRANSLATED AND WE'RE NOT ABLE TO ADVOCATE FOR OUR COMMUNITY. 
          WELL,  GETTING ON , BUT I CAN NOT. 
           THE LAST TIME THAT WE SPOKE THERE WASN'T ENOUGH TIME TO CORRECTLY STATE THE THINGS THAT WE WERE ASKING FOR AND TO CORRECT WHAT WE SPOKE ON FOR OUR COMMUNITY. 
          UH, WE HAVE THE RIGHT AS A COMMUNITY TO COME AND SPEAK FOR WHAT WE NEED AND TO BE LISTENED TO, SINCE WE KNOW WHAT IS HAPPENING,  GOING BE MORE THAN A COMPANY THAT WE'VE TAKEN THE TIME OUT OF WORK TO COME AND SPEAK AND TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF OTHERS IN OUR COMMUNITY, FOR THEIR NEEDS. 
           THE   WHEN WE COME TO SPEAK AND OUR WORDS ARE TRANSLATED. 
          IF THEY'RE NOT TRANSLATED WELL, THEN IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR YOU ALL TO HEAR THE OBSTACLES THAT WE WERE FACING AS A COMMUNITY. 
          WE ASK THAT YOU LISTENED TO US WITH RESPECT, THAT YOU WORK ON BETTER TRANSLATION, AND THAT YOU TAKE INTO ACCOUNT OUR CONCERNS AS RESIDENTS, UH, AS WE SPEAK, I ALSO WANTED TO SAY, I MISSED A LINE FROM . 
          THIS IS A TOUGH TRANSLATION. 
          THIS HAS GOT SPEAKING, BUT, UH, FOR INCREASED TRANSPARENCY, THAT WAS ONE PIECE AND MADNESS. 
          IT'S VERY IMPORTANT FOR TRANSPARENCY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THAT CONCLUDES REMOTE SPEAKERS. 
          OKAY. 
          CARMEN, THANK YOU. 
          UM, COLLEAGUES, THERE WERE A COUPLE ITEMS THAT I THINK WE CAN HANDLE HERE REAL QUICKLY THAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS WE CAN BUY SOME STAFF GO. 
          [Items 75 - 77]
UH, WE HAVE THREE EMINENT DOMAIN CASES, ITEMS 75, 76 AND 77. 
          WITH RESPECT TO THESE THREE ITEMS. THESE THREE NON-CONSENT KIND OF NATION ITEMS. IS THERE A MOTION TO THE EFFECTED? THE CITY COUNCIL OF AUSTIN AUTHORIZES THE USE OF THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN TO ACQUIRE THE PROPERTY SET FORTH AND DESCRIBED IN THE AGENDA FOR THE CURRENT MEETING FOR THE PUBLIC USES, DESCRIBED THEIR END MAYOR PRO TEM MAKES THE MOTION COUNCIL MEMBER POOL SECOND. 
          ANY DISCUSSION THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HANDS. 
          THOSE OPPOSED UNANIMOUS ON THE DIOCESE. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          YOUR FAVOR UNANIMOUS ON THE DYES. 
          UH, ALL THREE OF THOSE ITEMS, UH, UH, PASS. 
          UH  YES. 
          I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A COMMENT BASED ON THE TESTIMONY WE JUST RECEIVED FROM, FROM OUR COMMUNITY THAT I WILL FOLLOW UP WITH OUR CITY CLERK AND WITH OUR CITY MANAGER TO LOOK AT WAYS THAT WE CAN IMPROVE OUR TRANSLATION SERVICES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          VERY GOOD. 
          THANK YOU. 
          [78. Conduct a public hearing in accordance with Texas Parks and Wildlife Code Chapter 26 and consider a resolution authorizing a change in use of Govalle Neighborhood Park for the Watershed Protection Department to use, maintain, and repair 156 linear feet of 60” reinforced concrete storm pipe, to be constructed by the developers of the Flats on Shady Lane multi-family development to convey stormwater from the residential portion of the development. (Austin City Hall, 301 W. Second Street, Austin, TX).]
AND THEN, UH, I THINK WE HAVE, UH, UH, SOME PUBLIC, UH, HEARING ITEMS, UH, THAT ALSO, I THINK MAY BE ABLE TO MOVE QUICKLY. 
          YOU MIGHT WANT TO CHECK ME, UH, BUT THE PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS THAT I THINK MIGHT BE ABLE TO MOVE QUICKLY BEGINNING WITH ITEM NUMBER 78, ALSO 78 79, I THINK MOVE QUICKLY AND ITEMS, UH, AB 2 83, 84 AND 85. 
          ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR NEED TO HOLD ON ANY OF THOSE GUYS PATTERSON ITEM NUMBER 78, BUT IT SAYS THAT ONCE POSTPONE TILL 7 28, ARE WE STILL DISCUSSING IT? NO, BUT WE CAN POSTPONE IT. 
          WE HAVE TO TAKE THE ACTION NOW TO 
          [02:25:01]
POSTPONE IT. 
          PUT YOUR RIGHTS 78 AS A POSTPONEMENT BECAUSE OUR POLL, I WOULD TAKE A MOTION TO LET'S. 
          YEAH, LET'S DO THAT JUST FOR THE RECORD. 
          I THINK THAT WOULD BE EASIER. 
          SO 78 BEING POSTPONED, UH, AS WE ANNOUNCED EARLIER, UH, IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT? I'M MAYOR PRO TEM SECOND SET. 
          UH, THOSE ARE FAVORITE. 
          POSTPONE THE ITEM, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. 
          THAT OPPOSED 78 IS UNANIMOUSLY POSTPONE, UH, 
          [79. Conduct a public hearing to consider an ordinance authorizing an amendment to the Land Development Standards Agreement with Manor Independent School District to extend the expiration of the agreement by a period of five years.]
ITEM NUMBER 79. 
          WE'VE CALLED ALL THE SPEAKERS. 
          ANYBODY ELSE HERE TO SPEAK ON THAT? IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE I'M 79. 
          THAT'S WHERE I'M PULLED, MAKES A MOTION. 
          SECOND, UH, COUNCILMEMBER HARPER, MADISON NAMED DISCUSSION, AND WE'RE CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING AND VOTING TO APPROVE THOSE A FAVOR. 
          PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. 
          THOSE OPPOSED NANA'S HEARING IS CLOSED AND THE ITEMS APPROVED ITEM 
          [82. Conduct a public hearing and consider an ordinance relating to the full-purpose annexation of approximately 194 acres located in Travis County near 6100 Blue Goose Road and ratify agreements with the owners of the land for the provision of services. Case number: C7a-2022-0002. The property is currently in Austin’s extraterritorial jurisdiction adjacent to Council District 1.]
NUMBER 82. 
          UH, IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM NUMBER 82 TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? OOPS, SORRY. 
          SO 82 BEING POSTPONED TO 6 16, 6 16. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALSO MOVE. 
          BEEN POOL MOVES TO POSTPONE THIS ITEM TO SIX 16TH OR SECOND AS THE HARPER MADISON SECOND, SET THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE POST BOWMAN. 
          RAISE YOUR HAND. 
          THOSE OPPOSED ADVERSELY POSTPONE, UH, ITEM 
          [83. Conduct a public hearing and consider an ordinance relating to the full-purpose annexation of approximately 87.9 acres located in Travis County southwest of the intersection of East Slaughter Lane and Thaxton Road, and ratify an agreement with the owner of the land for the provision of services. Case number: C7a-2022-0006. The property is currently in Austin’s extraterritorial jurisdiction adjacent to Council District 2.]
NUMBER, UH, 83 IS ALSO A POSTPONEMENT TO A JULY 28TH. 
          UH, IS THERE A MOTION TO POSTPONE KEFIR? TOBO MAKES THE MOTION SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER AT THE REIA DISCUSSION. 
          THOSE ARE FOR THE POSTPONEMENT. 
          PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. 
          THOSE OPPOSED ADAM IT'S ON THE DIOCESE POSTPONE ITEM 
          [84. Conduct a public hearing on the City’s draft Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Action Plan that will be submitted to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development as part of the City’s application for federal funding.]
NUMBER 84. 
          UH, IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS ITEM AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? MAY I THINK IT'S JUST CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR 84 AND FOR 85. 
          OKAY. 
          I MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FIRST. 
           IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION? YOU GUYS WERE HARBOR MADISON SECONDS. 
          THAT MOTION DISCUSSION THOSE IN FAVOR. 
          PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. 
          THOSE OPPOSED ITEM NUMBER 84. 
          WE'VE CONDUCTED IN OUR CLOSED, THE PUBLIC HEARING ON, UH, 84. 
          UM, 
          [85. Conduct a public hearing on the City’s draft HOME American Rescue Plan (HOME-ARP) Allocation Plan that will be submitted to U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development as part of the City’s application for $11,441,252 in federal funding through a HOME-ARP grant.]
I THINK 85 IS THE SAME WAY. 
          IS THERE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING NOW ON ITEM NUMBER 85, MAYOR PRO TEM MAKES THAT MOTION. 
          YOU CAN'T REMEMBER KITCHEN SECONDS. 
          THAT MOTION. 
          THAT WAS A VERY, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND THOSE OPPOSED. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          WE'VE NOW TAKEN CARE OF 78, 79 AND 82 THROUGH 85, AS WELL AS THE EMINENT DOMAIN ITEMS. 75 THROUGH 77. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          YEAH, THAT'S MY PROTECH. 
          UM, 
          [10. Authorize negotiation and execution of a management agreement with Austin DMO, Inc. doing business as Downtown Austin Alliance for management of services funded by the Austin Downtown Public Improvement District for a period of five years for a total contract amount of $79,115,646.00. Related Item #81.]
I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO PASSAGE OF ITEM 10 WITH JUST TO BE NEGOTIATE. 
          UM, AND I THINK 81 IS THE HEAD. 
          LET'S TAKE THEM UP SEPARATE LASER. 
          THERE'S A BIT OF EMOTION TO PASS ITEM NUMBER 10, BUT JUST NEGOTIATE ONLY. 
          UH, THERE WERE SECOND COUNTS WERE IMPOSED. 
          SECOND SATURDAY DISCUSSION. 
          YOU GUYS GUYS WERE KITCHEN. 
          UM, UH, I'D LIKE SOME FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ONE. 
          SO THIS ONE IS RELATED. 
          OKAY. 
          SO LET'S HOLD OFF THEN, THEN WE'RE GOING TO HOLD ON AND NOT ACT ON NUMBER 10 YET. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD COLLEAGUES, WE HAVE, UH, SOME MUSIC THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE CALLING UP HERE JUST A SECOND. 
          AND WE HAVE EXECUTIVE SESSION. 
          YOU GUYS, GUYS, OUR KITCHEN. 
          UM, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S QUICK, BUT WE HAD, I THINK WE PULLED 56 AND 57. 
          WE PULLED 56 AND 57. 
          CAUSE IT SOUNDED LIKE THERE NEEDED TO BE SOME DISCUSSION ON WHAT ARE EITHER OF THOSE. 
          SO LET'S HOLD OFF ON THOSE. 
          OKAY. 
          IT'S UH, 1240 RIGHT NOW. 
          UM, COLLEAGUES, WE SHOULD GO INTO, UH, UH, EXECUTIVE SESSION. 
          WE'RE GOING TO RECESS THE GENERAL MEETING HERE AND GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. 
          YES. 
          I HAD JUST A COUPLE OF QUICK REMARKS TO MAKE ON ITEM 68, PLEASE. 
          OKAY. 
          WHICH WAS PART OF THE CONSENT BECAUSE WE'RE GOING INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. 
          GO AHEAD. 
          OKAY, GREAT. 
          THANKS. 
          I WANT TO THANK MY CO-SPONSORS, WHICH IS MAYOR ADLER, MAYOR PRO TEM ALTAR COUNCIL MEMBER, KATHY TOVO. 
          THIS IS THE FOLK BUILDING ITEM FOR THE ARCHIVES. 
          I WANT TO THANK MY CO-SPONSORS FOR JOINING ME ON ITEM 68. 
          THIS ASKS THE CITY MANAGER TO EXPLORE A SHARED ARCHIVE FACILITY AT THE FALSE LIBRARY BUILDING WITH TRAVIS. 
          THAT'S JUST A COMMENT ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. 
          [02:30:01]
YES. 
          IT'S A COMMENT ON THE CONSENT. 
          WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ALL THOSE AFTER WE COME BACK. 
          OKEY-DOKE I'LL START AGAIN LATER. 
          THAT'S OKAY. 
          AND I'LL LET YOU DO THAT. 
          I WAS JUST GOING TO SUGGEST THAT SINCE SHE ALREADY STARTED TO LET HER FINISH, I WAS REALLY LIKE ENJOYING WHAT SHE WAS SAYING. 
          YEAH. 
          I JUST DIDN'T KNOW WHETHER OTHER PEOPLE WOULD OBJECT TO ME, LETTING COUNSELOR PULLED DO THAT, HAVE TRIED TO STOP THREE OTHER PEOPLE FROM TRYING TO DO THAT ALREADY HAS ARTAUD. 
          DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING THAT YOU WANT TO RAISE? NO. 
          JUST SIMPLY WANT TO ASK IF WE COULD HAVE LIKE FIVE MINUTES TO GET UP TO OUR OFFICES SO WE CAN GRAB OUR LUNCH SO THAT WE CAN EAT DURING EXECUTIVES. 
          I THINK WE NEED MORE TIME THAN THAT. 
          AND WHEN WE LEAVE HERE, WE'RE FIRST GOING TO DO MUSIC. 
          SO IN TERMS OF WHEN WE ACTUALLY CONVENED THE, UH, EXECUTIVE SESSION, I'M GOING TO SUGGEST WE TRY TO DO THAT AT ONE 30 AND THEN LET US GO FROM ONE 30 TO TWO IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. 
          THAT'S UNREASONABLE. 
          EVERYBODY GETS A BREAK, TWO O'CLOCK WE'LL BREAK AND COME BACK OUT FOR SPEAKERS AS CLOSE TO IT AS WE CAN. 
          YES. 
          THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. 
          I THINK WE HAVE PROBABLY TOO MANY ITEMS ON EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DEAL WITH IN 30 MINUTES. 
          WELL, I THINK WE WILL, BUT I THINK WE COULD PROBABLY START AN EXECUTIVE SESSION BECAUSE I THINK THERE ARE QUESTIONS THAT PEOPLE WANT TO HAVE ANSWERED BECAUSE THAT MIGHT DICTATE HOW THEY DO OR EVALUATE SOME OF THE OTHER ITEMS THAT ARE COMING UP. 
          I'M JUST TRYING TO USE OUR TIME AS EFFICIENTLY AS POSSIBLE. 
          WE LOSE, WE LOSE A LOT OF TIME WHEN WE SHIFT FROM EXEC TO HERE BACK TO EXEC. 
          I JUST THOUGHT THAT SOME OF THOSE LEGAL QUESTIONS BY BEING NECESSARY FOR PEOPLE THAT DRAFTING THINGS FOR THE AFTERNOON, AND WE'RE GETTING SOME ODDS HERE AS WELL. 
          SO WE'LL BE ABLE TO SEE THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO YES, THERE WILL BE CONSENT COMMENTS LATER. 
          I PROMISE YOU WAS OUR KITCHEN. 
          SO WE'RE GOING TO RECONVENE AT ONE 30, RIGHT? YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          [Executive Session (Part 1 of 2)]
ALL RIGHT. 
          CITY COUNCIL, WE'RE NOT GOING TO CLOSE SESSION TO TAKE UP THREE ITEMS PURSUANT TO 5, 5, 1 0 8, 6 AND FIVE POINT 107. 
          ONE OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSED COMPETITIVE MATTERS AND LEGAL ISSUES RELATED ITEMS 65, WHICH IS THE COMMUNITY WORKFORCE AGREEMENT REQUIREMENTS IN A POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO 5, 5, 1 0 7 1 GOVERNMENT CODE. 
          WE'RE GONNA DISCUSS LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO ITEMS 66 AND 80, WHICH ARE THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, UH, UM, UH, ISSUES WITH RESPECT TO COMPATIBILITY PARKING AND THE OTHER, UH, VM YOU ITEM NUMBER 90 HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN WITHOUT OBJECTION. 
          WE'LL GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION ON THE ITEMS ANNOUNCED. 
          UH, WE'LL SEE YOU ALL IN EXECUTIVE SESSION AT ONE 30, WE'RE DOING THAT REMOTELY. 
          I URGE EVERYBODY TO, UH, IF THEY WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT HERE AND LISTEN TO, UH, UH, MUSIC, UH, WITH, UH, CYNTHIA LEE FONTAINE, UH, UH, UH, TV STAR, UH, AND OUR, UH, UH, COMMUNITY. 
          UH, SO, UH, WITH THAT, UH, WE ARE IN RECESS. 
          [Live Music: Cynthia Lee Fontaine]
SURE THAT WE BRING FIVE MUSIC INTO THIS SPACE. 
          IT'S NOT CARNEGIE HALL, BUT IT'S LIKE REALLY CLOSE TO THE CARNEGIE HALL. 
          AND I REALLY, AND I REALLY DO THINK THAT THE MUSIC GETS HIM PRESSED IN THE WALLS, UH, IN, IN, IN THIS CHAMBER. 
          UH, AND, AND THERE HAVE BEEN MULTIPLE TIMES WHEN THIS COUNCIL HAS BEEN IN SESSION AND I'M SITTING UP THERE LIKE 11 30, 12 30, 1 30, WHEN I TRY REALLY HARD TO PULL THAT MUSIC BACK OUT OF THE WALLS AND INTO MY, INTO MY HAND. 
          SO IT IS A GIFT THAT YOU BRING TO US TO BRING MUSIC, UH, HERE. 
          UH, AND, AND WE'RE JUST REALLY FORTUNATE TO HAVE WITH US TODAY. 
          CYNTHIA LEE FONTAINE. 
          YES, A SINGER SONGWRITER, ACTOR ACTIVIST, DRAG ARTIST, UH, CYNTHIA AND HER QQ WON THE HEARTS OF FANS ON SEASON EIGHT OF THE EMMY AWARD WINNING TELEVISION SHOW, RU PAUL'S DRAG RACE, WHERE SHE WAS AWARDED MISS CONGENIALITY. 
          SHE WAS A FAN FAVORITE. 
          SHE WAS ACTUALLY ASKED TO COME BACK AND BE PART OF SEASON NINE, UH, IN 2018, CYNTHIA RELEASED HER HIT SINGLE PEGA HOSA WITH AN ACCOMPANYING MUSIC VIDEO IN 2021. 
          SHE WROTE AND RELEASED A HOLIDAY SINGLE, UH, BRING ME THE HOLIDAYS. 
          AND MOST RECENTLY SHE RELEASED 
          [02:35:01]
THE SINGLE TONIGHT FEATURING AUSTIN-BASED SINGER SHANNON SIONA, CYNTHIA GRILL, IMPORTANTLY HERE, PART OF AUSTIN AND ITS CULTURE AND ITS VALUES AS A VOLUNTEER FOR THE AUSTIN COMMUNITY AIDS, RESOURCES AND EDUCATION, WHICH IS ALSO KNOWN AS THE CARE PROGRAM, UH, AS A PEER SUPPORT SPECIALIST AND OUTREACH WORKER, UH, SHE PROVIDES SERVICES TO HIV PATIENTS WHO EXPERIENCED PROBLEMS WITH SUBSTANCE ABUSE OR MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES. 
          CYNTHIA IS ALSO A NATIONAL DRAG AMBASSADOR FOR DRAG OUT THE VOTE. 
          SO WITHOUT FURTHER ADO PRESENT TO YOU ALL, CYNTHIA LEE FONTAINE  YEAH. 
           
          [02:41:16]
 MEMORIAL IOWANS OR BEES. 
          AND THIS YEAR, YOU KNOW, THAT'S MY MAIN MESSAGE AND WE FOCUS ON THE MUSIC, ESPECIALLY WITH MY GROUP. 
          SO THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          THAT WAS BEAUTIFUL. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU ALL. 
          UH, WE HAVE PEOPLE HERE. 
          WE HAVE PEOPLE THAT, UH, EVENTUALLY MAY BE WATCHING THIS. 
          SO IF THEY WANT TO BE ABLE TO FIND YOU ON SOCIAL MEDIA, I GUESS IT'S, UH, UH, AT CYNTHIA LEE FONTAINE AND MOST OF THE PLATFORMS, MY SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS THAT YOU CAN FIND ME A CDLE FONTEYN ALSO, IF YOU WANT TO KNOW WHERE I'M GOING TO BE PERFORMED AT  DOT COM THIS WEEKEND, I'M GOING TO BE, THIS IS PRIME ON FOR ALL OF US OR THE PEER COMMUNITY. 
          SO I'M GOING TO BE IN ALABAMA RIGHT AWAY THERE. 
          THEN AFTER SAN ANTONIO, THEN AT THE END OF THE MONITOR, I'M GOING TO HAVE THE PLEASURE OF PERFORMING REPRESENT AUSTIN, TEXAS IN THE NEED. 
          OUR CT PRODUCTS ARE VERY EXCITED. 
          WHEN DO PEOPLE GET TO SEE YOU HERE? NOT IN ALABAMA OR SAN ANTONIO OR IN NEW YORK, OR WE CAN ALWAYS HAVE THAT FORCE READ ALL CAN HERE OR FOR ME FRIDAYS OR SOMETHING. 
          OKAY, GREAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          WELL, WE HAVE A PROCLAMATION BE IT KNOWN 
          [Proclamation 1]
THAT WHEREAS THE CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS IS BLESSED WITH MANY CREATIVE MUSICIANS WHOSE TALENT EXTENDS TO VIRTUALLY EVERY MUSICAL GENRE. 
          AND WHEREAS OUR MUSIC SCENE THRIVES BECAUSE AUSTIN AUDIENCES SUPPORT GOOD MUSIC PRODUCED BY LEGENDS AND OUR LOCAL FAVORITES AND NEWCOMERS ALIKE. 
          AND WHEREAS WE ARE PLEASED TO SHOWCASE AND SUPPORT OUR LOCAL ARTISTS. 
          NOW, THEREFORE I, STEVE ADLER, MAYOR OF THE LIVE MUSIC CAPITAL TOGETHER WITH MY COLLEAGUES HERE PRESENT TODAY, COUNCIL MEMBER, UH, HARPER, MADISON, AND MAYOR PRO TEM, UH, ALTAR TOGETHER WITH THE ENTIRE CITY COUNCIL TO HEREBY PROCLAIM JUNE 9TH, THE YEAR 2022 AS CYNTHIA LEE FONTAINE DAY IN AUSTIN, TEXAS   GEORGE  
          [02:45:16]
   . 
          SO WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED. 
          IS THERE A TV, A FEED RUNNING GOOD. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          WE ARE, UH, UH, OUT OF A CLOSED SESSION AND CLOSED SESSION. 
          WE DISCUSSED COMPETITIVE LEGAL ISSUES RELATED ITEMS, 65. 
          WE HAVE NOT YET DISCUSSED ITEM 66 AND ITEM TWO C INTEND TO GO BACK AND, UH, ADDRESS THOSE AFTER WE HANDLE THE ZONING CONSENT, UH, AGENDA THAT'S ON OUR KITCHEN. 
          UM, IF IT'S APPROPRIATE, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION 
          [65. Approve a resolution related to inclusion of Community Workforce Agreement requirements in Power Purchase Agreements.
]
TO POSTPONE 65 TO NEXT WEEK. 
          I DON'T THINK WE ACTUALLY DID THAT YET. 
          NO. 
          UH, MOTION TO POSTPONE 65 TO NEXT WEEK. 
          SECOND BY COUNCILMAN MCKELLY THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE POST, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. 
          UM, WE HAVE, UH, SEVEN VOTES, UH, HERE, UH, VELA KELLY POOL RENT THREE, A KITCHEN, UH, UH, ALICE, UH, HARPER, MADISON AND ME KITCHEN. 
          SO THAT PASSIVE. 
          SO 65 IS POSTPONED TILL NEXT WEEK. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          LET'S UH, LET'S UH, GO THROUGH, UH, BEFORE WE GET TO SPEAKERS THAT HAVE SIGNED UP, BUT HOW MANY SPEAKERS DO WE HAVE MID SEVENTIES, MID SEVENTIES. 
          AND WE'RE GOING TO GIVE EACH SPEAKER ONE MINUTE. 
          UH, BUT BEFORE WE GET TO SPEAKERS, UH, SO THAT THE SPEAKERS KNOW ITEMS THAT MAY BE POSTPONE, THAT THEY DON'T NEED TO SPEAK ON BECAUSE THEY'LL BE BROUGHT BACK AND THEY CAN SPEAK ON THE MERITS WHEN THE CASE IS ACTUALLY BEING CONSIDERED. 
          UM, JERRY, WHAT ARE WE, WHAT ARE WE LOOKING AT? YES, PLEASE. 
          WE HAVE SLATED FOR POSTPONEMENTS TODAY. 
          OUR ITEMS NUMBER 94, WHICH WOULD BE A STEPH WAS PULLING AT THE JUNE 16TH ITEM 95, A STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO JUNE 16TH, ITEM 96, A STAFF POSTPONEMENTS, JUNE 16TH. 
          UM, LET'S SEE, CAN WE GET ON TO ITEM 1 0 6? IT WILL BE A STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO JUNE 16TH. 
          NUMBER 1 0 7 WILL BE A NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT TO JUNE 16TH. 
          NUMBER 1 0 8. 
          WHY SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA? NUMBER 1 0 9 IS THE NEIGHBORED POSTPONEMENT REQUESTS TO JUNE 16TH AS IS ONE 10 NEIGHBORED POSTPONEMENT REQUESTED JUNE 16TH, ONE 11 STAFF POSTPONE REQUESTS THAT JUNE 16TH, ONE 12 STEP WAS PART REQUESTED JULY 28TH, ONE 14 STAFF POSTPONEMENT REQUESTS TO JUNE 16TH. 
          NUMBER ONE 15 APPLICANT POSTPONE REQUESTS THAT JULY 28TH, ONE 16 APPLICANT REQUESTS POSTPONEMENT TO JULY 28TH, ONE 17 STAFF POSTPONE REQUESTED JUNE 16TH AND THE AGENDA MIGHT'VE 1 25 HAS A NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT REQUESTED JUNE 16TH. 
          SO THE ONES THAT ARE POSTPONED ARE 94 95 96  1 0 8 IS REPLACED BY ITEM 1 25. 
          ALSO POSTPONE ONE OH NINE ONE TEN ONE ELEVEN ONE TWELVE. 
          AND DOES IT SKIP THEN TO ONE 14? OKAY. 
          A ONE 14 THEN POSTPONE 1 15, 1 16, 1 17 AND 1 25. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. 
          SO THE DISCUSSION ITEMS, THE ZONING CASES ARE 92 
          [02:50:01]
TO ONE 20 AND 1 25. 
          THE DISCUSSION WHAT ACTUALLY. 
          SO THOSE ARE ALL THE POSTPONE CASES. 
          I THINK IT'S ALL WE'RE DOING NOW. 
          OKAY. 
          SO IF YOU SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON 94, 95, 96 OR ONE OH SIX, ONE OH SEVEN ONE OH EIGHT ONE OH NINE ONE TEN ONE ELEVEN ONE TWELVE, ONE FORTY ONE FIFTEEN ONE SIXTEEN ONE SEVENTEEN, AND 1 25. 
          IF YOU SIGNED UP ON THOSE CASES, PLEASE KNOW THAT, UH, UH, WE'RE NOT GOING TO REACH THE, THE, THE MERITS AND YOU CAN COME BACK NEXT WEEK. 
          MOST OF THOSE CASES, SOME SAID IN JULY, ALL RIGHT, WITH THAT, LET'S HEAR 
          [Public Comments (Part 3 of 3)]
FROM OUR SPEAKERS, UH, CALLED THE ONES PLEASE THAT ARE WITH US FIRST, AND THEN WE'LL CALL THE ONES THAT ARE A REMOTE FIRST STEP AT GER HANDLE ON DECK SUSAN ORINGER. 
           HI, I'M A RESIDENT OF EAST 13TH STREET, AND I LIVE IN MY HOME WITH MY SON WHO HAS SPECIAL NEEDS. 
          AND MY HUSBAND, I COME HERE TO SPEAK BECAUSE I'M VERY UPSET BY THE CHANGES BEING PROPOSED FOR EAST 12TH STREET WITH ZERO COMMUNITY INPUT FROM IMPACTED NEIGHBORS, UH, SPEAK FOR THE MAJORITY OF OUR NEIGHBORS ON EAST 13TH, WHO YARDS BACK UP TO 12TH, THEY CANNOT BE HERE DUE TO HAVING TESTED POSITIVE FOR COVID WORK FROM HOME WORK OR ELDERLY. 
          I'VE KNOCKED ON ALMOST ALL THE NEIGHBOR'S DOORS AND HAVE COLLECTED A PETITION THAT WILL BE IMPACTED AND SPOKE WITH THEM PERSONALLY. 
          AND NOBODY WAS AWARE OF A SURVEY THAT HAS GONE AROUND WITH ONLY EIGHT, 18% IN FAVOR OF MORE BARS. 
          MANY DO NOT EVEN USE SOCIAL MEDIA. 
          SO HOW IS THIS FAIR? WE ARE A WONDERFUL NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAS A LOT OF HISTORY AND STILL A LOT OF LONG-TIME RESIDENTS. 
          WE WANT EAST 12TH TO BE DEVELOPED. 
          WE'VE BEEN BEGGING FOR THIS FOR YEARS. 
          NO MORE EMPTY LOTS. 
          PLEASE GIVE US COMMUNITY SERVICES, HOUSING AND GREEN SPACE. 
          OUR CURRENT NEIGHBORHOODS, BIGGEST COMPLAINT. 
          NOW ARE THE BARS THAT WE DO HAVE FROM THE NOISE TRAFFIC WITH NO HELP FROM 3, 1, 1, PLEASE VOTE NO TO EXPANDING ALCOHOL USE ON THESE 12. 
          THANK YOU, EDWARD WINSTON ITEMS, 86 AND ONE 18 ON DECK CARMELLA GREEN. 
          GOOD MORNING. 
          THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO ME. 
          MY NAME IS EDWARD WINSTON. 
          I'M A RESIDENT ON 16 ON THE 1600 BLOCK OF NEW YORK AVENUE. 
          I AM HERE ON BEHALF OF, UH, MY FAMILY, UM, TO ASK THAT YOU VOTE AGAINST THE ITEMS 86 AND ONE 18, UM, SPECIFICALLY FOR EXPANDING THE USE OF ALCOHOL PERMITS ON 12TH STREET BETWEEN, UM, I 35 AND POQUITO, UH, AS FOR ME, I SAID, I LIVE ON THE 16TH HUNDRED, 1600 BLOCK OF NEW YORK AVENUE WITH MY FAMILY. 
          WE'VE BEEN THERE FOR ABOUT 10 YEARS SINCE WE MOVED BACK TO AUSTIN. 
          UM, PRIOR TO THAT, UM, I'M ACTUALLY LIVING IN MY GRANDMOTHER'S HOUSE AND I GREW UP ABOUT TWO MILES AWAY FROM, FROM THE CURRENT RESIDENTS. 
          SO I'VE, I'M ACTUALLY A NATIVE AUSTINITE AND I'VE LIVED MOST OF MY LIFE AND HE STOPPED AUSTIN. 
          UM, WE, I DON'T OPPOSE REDEVELOPMENT OF EAST 12TH STREET, BUT WE WOULD LIKE IT TO BE DEVELOPED IN SUCH A WAY THAT THE FAMILIES THAT LIVE THERE WOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE A PLACE TO, TO WALK, TO, TO ENJOY. 
          UM, THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          CARMELLA GREEN ON DECK JOE PAULO CONLEY. 
          HELLO, MY NAME IS CARMELA GREEN AND I'M A RESIDENT ON EAST 13TH STREET. 
          PLEASE SUPPORT COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER MADISON'S MOTION. 
          I'D LIKE FOR EVERYONE TO CONSIDER THE CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE AND HISTORY OF THIS AREA IN EAST AUSTIN. 
          THE IMPACT OF GENTRIFICATION TO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS INEVITABLE, BUT IF WE CAN MAINTAIN TO KEEP THE LAST VESTIGES SUCH AS COCKTAIL LOUNGES IN THE LAKE PERMITTED, THE CULTURAL IMPACT WILL WEIGH HEAVY WITHIN OUR MARGINALIZED COMMUNITIES THAT SO OFTEN FREQUENT THESE PLACES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          CIAO PALO CALMLY ON DECK RHILYN MUSK SCOUT. 
          [02:55:04]
BRIAN MAX OUT ITEM 92, EMILY  92 AND 93, SALLY GASKIN SPEAKING ON ITEMS 92 AND 93 ON DECK JOY. 
          HORIC BROWN. 
          HI, GOOD AFTERNOON. 
          I'M EMILY DRAWN, UM, IN FAVOR OF ITEMS, 92 AND 93. 
          UM, IN 2019, AUSTIN COLLECTIVELY MADE IT ILLEGAL TO CAMP OUTSIDE. 
          AND SO IT'S NOW TIME FOR US TO COLLECTIVELY MAKE ROOM FOR EVERYONE TO LIVE INSIDE PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING PROJECTS. 
          LIKE KATIE LOFTS ARE SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO INCLUDE AN ARRAY OF SERVICES AIMED AT HELPING FOLKS SUCCESSFULLY RETAIN HOUSING. 
          I HAVE ATTENDANCE SOMETHING LIKE 80 OR A HUNDRED PUBLIC HEARINGS IN MY CAREER AS A CITY PLANNER AND HAVE NEVER BEFORE SEEN THE VOICES IN SUPPORT OF A PROJECT LIKE THIS OUTWEIGH THOSE OPPOSED TO IT. 
          AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I SAW AT THE PNC HEARING. 
          UM, THE HEARTS AND MINDS OF YOUR CONSTITUENCY ARE WITH THIS PROJECT AND BASED ON THEIR COMMENTS PROJECTS LIKE THIS, GIVEN THE DUAL CRISES OF HOMELESSNESS AND HOUSING AFFORDABILITY IN TRAVIS COUNTY, EVERY PROPOSED AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS SHOULD BE CELEBRATED. 
          AND THIS PROJECT IS ONLY THE BEGINNING TO REALLY MAKE A REAL DIFFERENCE. 
          WE NEED 30 MORE PROJECTS JUST LIKE THIS IN AUSTIN. 
          THERE'S SOMETHING LIKE 3,100 PEOPLE EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS. 
          SO THIS IS ONLY THE START. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. 
          THANK YOU. 
          CIAO, PAULA SPEAKING ON ITEM 92, I'M SORRY. 
          I'M SALLY GASKIN. 
          I AM, UH, ONE OF THE PRINCIPALS AND THE CO-DEVELOPER OF THE KATIE LOFTS. 
          AND, UM, AND ONLY HERE, IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANTS, I DON'T WANT TO TAKE UP YOUR TIME. 
          THANK YOU. 
          GOOD AFTERNOON. 
          I'M JOY HORAK BROWN. 
          I'M THE PRESIDENT AND CEO OF NEW HOPE HOUSING IN HOUSTON, TEXAS. 
          I HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE HOMELESS HOUSING, THE HOMELESS AND OFFERING SERVICES SINCE 1996. 
          NEW HOPE HOUSING HAS SUPPORTIVE HOUSING IN HOUSTON, 1500 UNITS, STRONG AND 700 OF THOSE UNITS ARE DEDICATED TO PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING HOUSING, THE CHRONIC HOMELESSNESS. 
          THIS IS OUR EXPERTISE. 
          IT IS OUR FOCUS. 
          IT IS OUR MISSION, AND IT IS MY HONOR TO BE SUPPORTING KATIE LOFTS HERE IN AUSTIN, OFFERING CONSULTING AND GUIDANCE IN ASPECTS, HAVING TO DO WITH BUILDING DESIGN, WITH SERVICES AND WITH THE MANAGEMENT OF THE PROPERTY. 
          ONCE IT IS OPEN, I COMMEND THE PRIOR SPEAKER WHO, WHO SPOKE OUT IN SUPPORT. 
          IT IS A WONDERFUL AND INSPIRING THAT YOU AND ALLSTON ARE REALIZING AND TAKING ACTION. 
          THANK YOU. 
          BEFORE YOU LEAVE. 
          I REALLY WANT TO THANK YOU AND NEW HOPE FOR COMING INTO OUR COMMUNITY. 
          WE HAVE A CHALLENGE HERE AND WE HAVE MANY WONDERFUL SERVICE PROVIDERS AND PROPERTY MANAGERS, AND OUR IS ASKING EACH OF THEM TO SCALE BECAUSE WE NEED TO MEET, UH, THE, THE CHALLENGE. 
          AND WE'VE SET A GOAL TO, TO HOUSE 3000 INCREMENTAL ADDITIONAL PEOPLE IN THREE YEARS, IT'S GOING TO REQUIRE THEM TO SCALE, BUT IT'S ALSO GOING TO REQUIRE US TO BRING IN, UH, ADDITIONAL PROVIDERS, UH, AND PARTICIPANTS AND YOU COMING INTO OUR MARKET AND OUR CITY IS SOMETHING THAT'S GREATLY APPRECIATED. 
          ALSO GREATLY APPRECIATE IT. 
          HERE'S YOUR WILLINGNESS TO WORK WITH? UH, SOME OF THE ORGANIZATIONS THAT WE HAVE, UH, UH, IN TOWN LIKE THE AUSTIN AREA, URBAN LEAGUE, UH, THAT HAVE INDICATED A WILLINGNESS TO ALSO PUT THEIR SHOULDER TO THIS CHALLENGE, UH, SO THAT YOU CAN WORK WITH AND, AND MENTOR AND TEACH AND, UM, UH, AND, AND WE CAN GET TO A MORE, UM, UH, EQUITABLE COMMUNITY OF SERVICE PROVIDERS, UH, IN OUR CITY IS SOMETHING ALSO THAT, UH, I WANT TO THANK, UH, NEW HOPE FOR, FOR PARTICIPATING IN WELL, I, I VERY WARMLY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND LET ME MENTION THE ONLY WAY THIS WORKS IS AS A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT, THE ONLY WAY IT WORKS AND IN HOUSTON, NEW HOPE HOUSING WORKS WITH MORE, MORE THAN 43 SERVICES PARTNERS. 
          SO WE HAVE SOME IDEA HOW TO MAKE THAT WORK. 
          WE KNOW IT ALWAYS MUST BE ADAPTED FOR THE SPECIFIC PROPERTY AND THE CITY, AND WE'RE HERE TO DO THAT. 
          AND THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH. 
          THANK YOU. 
          CIAO PALO. 
          CONLEY'S 
          [03:00:01]
SPEAKING ON ITEM 92. 
          HI, COUNCIL MEMBERS, SORRY FOR THE CONFUSION THERE A LITTLE EARLIER, AND I'LL KEEP THIS BRIEF. 
          I JUST WANT TO THANK EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU WHO HAS, UH, WHO FROM THE BEGINNING, ADDED YOUR NAMES, UH, TO THE STATEMENT AND SUPPORT AND HELPED US FORM A RALLYING CRY AROUND THIS PROJECT IN OUR COMMUNITY. 
          WE KNOW THIS IS JUST ONE PROJECT. 
          IT'S VERY IMPORTANT. 
          IT'S A HUNDRED UNITS, AND WE NEED SO MUCH MORE, UH, BUT THE SYMBOLIC VALUE OF THIS PROJECT AND GETTING EVERYONE TO STAND BEHIND IT IS TO SAY THAT THIS IS AN ABSOLUTE PRIORITY FOR OUR COMMUNITY. 
          AND WE WON'T, UM, WE CAN'T AFFORD TO LOSE EVEN A SINGLE ONE OF THESE DEALS. 
          AND I ALSO WANTED TO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE'S BEEN SEVERAL HOUSING ITEMS ON THE AGENDA TODAY. 
          SOME BIG DISCUSSION AROUND 80 USE AROUND UPDATING OUR VMU ORDINANCE AROUND PARKING AND SETBACKS AND, AND, AND, UM, COMPATIBILITY. 
          AND I WANT TO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU LOOK AT CITIES THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY, THE CITIES THAT HAVE THE MOST CONSTRAINED SUPPLIES OF HOUSING HAVE THE WORST CRISIS AROUND HOMELESSNESS. 
          SO DON'T THINK THAT WE CAN GET OUT OF HOMELESSNESS SIMPLY BY FOCUSING ON PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING. 
          YES, WE NEED PERMIT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING, BUT WE NEED AFFORDABILITY AT EVERY TIER. 
          AND WE NEED TO THINK RADICAL. 
          WE NEED TO THINK BIG ABOUT HOW WE'RE GOING TO SERIOUSLY INCREASE OUR HOUSING SUPPLY ACROSS THE CITY. 
          IT'S MORE THAN JUST, PSH. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND MR. CONWAY, THANKS TO YOU TOO, UH, ON THIS EFFORT WITH THIS PROPERTY, WHICH I THINK WAS REALLY INSPIRING TO SEE A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT STEPPED FORWARD. 
          UH, THIS IS A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WAS ALERTING US TO CHALLENGES THEY WERE HAVING WITH ENCAMPMENTS. 
          UM, BUT THIS IS ALSO A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT STEP FORWARD, NOT ONLY TO DO THAT, BUT TO REALLY STEP FORWARD AND BE PART OF THE SOLUTION, UH, YOU, UH, AND, UH, THE AUSTIN JUSTICE COALITION HELPED ORGANIZE, UH, THAT, UH, UH, EFFORT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE COMMUNITY HAD THE AVAILABLE INFORMATION. 
          SO THANK YOU AS WELL. 
          THANK YOU, MAYOR. 
          AND I ALSO WANT TO, UH, THANK, UM, JEN CON DILLAHUNTY, THE FOLKS FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOLKS FROM HANCOCK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION FOR BEING WILLING AND OPEN TO HAVE DIALOGUE ABOUT THIS PROJECT AND FOR BEING WILLING TO RECONSIDER THEIR INITIAL POSITION ON THE PROJECT. 
          AND, UH, WE LOOK FORWARD TO HAVING MUCH MORE DIALOGUE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOODS ABOUT THESE PROJECTS IN THE FUTURE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, BRIAN LYNN AND MAX OUT ON ITEM 92, EMILY DRAWN ITEM 92 AND 93. 
          NEXT SPEAKER, MEGAN LASH ITEM 92 AND 93 ON DECK SUZANNE SHORTNER. 
          HELLO, MAYOR AND COUNCIL, MEGAN LASH. 
          I AM ALSO HERE AS THE APPLICANT FOR KATIE LOFTS. 
          UM, I DO NOT NEED TO TAKE UP MORE OF YOUR TIME AND WILL ONLY PRESENT IF THE ITEM IS PULLED, BUT I APPRECIATE YOUR CONTINUING TO SUPPORT TO ALL OF OUR EFFORTS, UM, FOR SUPPORTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND ALL THE EFFORTS THAT YOU DO ON A DAILY BASIS TO TRY TO CONTINUE, UM, ALLOWING AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO BE SOLVED IN THE CITY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          GOOD AFTERNOON, SUZANNE SCHWERTNER WITH THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN. 
          I JUST WANT TO SAY WE'RE SO EXCITED THAT WE ARE ABLE TO PARTNER ON KATIE LOPS. 
          WE NEED SO MUCH AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND ESPECIALLY PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE UNITS. 
          AND I THINK WE'VE GOT AN INCREDIBLE TEAM TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN. 
          IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS I'M AVAILABLE. 
          THANK YOU, ANDREW CRAWFORD ITEM 100 ON DECK ELLEN RAY ELLEN, RAY ITEM 1 0 1. 
          OKAY. 
          BRIAN BD. 
          I AM 1 0 3, SORRY. 
          I DON'T WANT GO TO SAME THING. 
          RIGHT? UM, I'M BRIAN BD, MY WIFE, VALERIE FOWLER, AND I LIVE AND WORK AT OUR HOME AT 1211 RAVINE DRIVE. 
          OUR PROPERTY IS 130 FEET FROM THE ONLY EXIT FOR THE BUSINESSES THAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING FOR 200 ACADEMY. 
          I KNOW WHAT WE NEED NOW IS SOME SORT OF COMPROMISE, BUT I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT WE HAVE BEEN AGREEABLE TO ALL INCREASES IN HOUSING DENSITY. 
          WE SUPPORT THE DRIVE FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          WE'VE AGREED TO A 60 FOOT OFFICE BUILDING. 
          OUR ONLY OBJECTION IS TO THE LARGE EVENT. 
          SIZE VENUE. 
          200 ACADEMY HAS A PROVEN HISTORY OF BEING A DYSFUNCTIONAL LOCATION FOR A LARGE CLUB. 
          IT'S NEVER WORKED FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE CONCERT GOERS OR THE CLUB'S FINANCIAL SUCCESS. 
          AND NOW IT'S LESS CONNECTED TO SOUTH CONGRESS THAN IT EVER WAS. 
          EVERY NEIGHBOR AND EVERY NEIGHBORING BUSINESS OBJECTS SPECIFICALLY, AND ONLY TO THE LARGE NIGHTCLUB AND THEY'RE PROJECTED NIGHTLY HOUR LONG, SLOW MOTION, DRUNKEN GRIDLOCK ON ACADEMY. 
          THIS IS PLAINLY 
          [03:05:01]
AND DISRUPTIVE, DISRUPTIVE, AND DANGEROUS IN THE MIDDLE OF A NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          I ALSO FEEL IT'S IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT THAT HISTORICALLY IN EVERY DISCUSSION ABOUT THE FUNCTIONALITY AND SAFETY OF THE OPRY HOUSE IN ALL OF ITS ITERATIONS, THE NEIGHBORS AT PROPOSED THEN MAKING THE CLUB'S ENTRANCE ON SOUTH CONGRESS WOULD RESOLVE THE PROBLEMS. AND CHRIS WALDEN HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO BUY THE EGGS, UH, THE ACCESS TO CONGRESS IN THE NINETIES, AND HE DIDN'T. 
          AND I THINK W I DUNNO WHY WE SHOULD SUFFER FOR HIS LACK OF PLANNING IN THAT WAY. 
          ERIC VAN HYPHEN ITEM 1 0 3 ON DECK. 
          WELL, BRIDGES ITEMS 1 0 2 AND 1 0 3 WILL BRIDGES ON DECK ZACH ERNST. 
          HELLO, I'M WILBUR BRIDGES, CO-OWNER OF ARLYN STUDIOS AND ANTONE'S NIGHTCLUB, AND SOME OTHER CLASSIC AUSTIN BRICK AND MORTARS LIKE CISCO'S DEEP EDDY CABARET AND LAMBERT'S. 
          AND I'M SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF ITEMS 1 0 2 AND 1 0 3. 
          I'VE GIVEN TESTIMONY SEVERAL TIMES NOW TO BOTH YOU AND THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF ADDING A 1200 CAPACITY VENUE BACK INTO OUR LOCAL LIVE MUSIC ECOSYSTEM. 
          I BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE ESTABLISHED THAT THE AUSTIN OPERA HOUSE IS OF HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE AND SHOULD BE SAVED. 
          THE ONLY QUESTION THAT REMAINS IS THAT WHAT SIZE AND CAPACITY, IF WE MAKE IT TOO SMALL, IT IS NO LONGER THE AUSTIN OPERA HOUSE IN ORDER TO DO THIS PROJECT RIGHT, AND RECREATE THE EXPERIENCE OF THE ORIGINAL AUSTIN OPERA HOUSE AS A 1200 CAPACITY MUSIC VENUE, WE NEED AT LEAST 12,500 SQUARE FEET OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE TO WORK WITH. 
          BECAUSE OF THAT FACT, I SINCERELY ASKED THAT COUNCIL RECOMMEND AND APPROVE THE VENUE, BE THAT SIZE. 
          THANK YOU, SACK ERNST ON DECK MICHELLE KI HELLO COUNCIL. 
          I AM HERE IN FAVOR OF ITEMS, 1 0 2 AND 1 0 3. 
          I AM AN AUSTIN MUSIC INDUSTRY EMPLOYEES SINCE 2007 AND A PROPERTY OWNER IN THE TRAVIS HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD SINCE 2014. 
          CURRENTLY I'M THE TALENT BUYER AT THE PARAMOUNT THEATER IN ANTON'S. 
          BUT BEFORE THAT, I WAS A WORKING MUSICIAN AS MY BAND BLACK JOE LEWIS, AND THE HONEY BEARS GREW IN STATURE IN 2008. 
          IN 2009, WE CLIMBED THE RANKS OF LOCAL VENUES FROM ROOM SEVEN, 10 ON RED RIVER, UP TO SELLING OUT THE 1200 CAPACITY LA ZONA, ROSA, WHICH IS NO LONGER AROUND HAVING BEEN USED OF EVERY SIZE THAT GIVE OPPORTUNITIES TO LOCAL MUSICIANS IS KEY TO A GREAT MUSIC ECOSYSTEM AND WAS IMPORTANT TO OUR EARLY SUCCESS. 
          IN MY CURRENT ROLE, BOOKING MULTIPLE VENUES THAT HOST LOCAL AND TOURING BANDS, I CAN SAY FIRSTHAND THAT OUR CALENDARS ARE GENERALLY FULL FROM SEPTEMBER THROUGH MAY. 
          AND WE PASS ON A LOT OF MUSIC SHOWS BY LOCAL BANDS BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE DATES AVAILABLE. 
          THERE IS A NEED FOR ANOTHER 1200 CAPACITY ROOM IN AUSTIN, ESPECIALLY ONE WITH A COMMITMENT TO LOCAL ARTISTS. 
          LIKE THE OPERA HOUSE WILL BE. 
          THANK YOU, MICHELLE. 
          K. 
          HE ALSO SPEAKING ON ITEMS 1 0 2 AND 1 0 3 ON DECK LAURA TUBES. 
          MY NAME IS MICHELLE K E. 
          I LIVE ON MELISSA LANE ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE PARKING LOT OF 200 ACADEMY. 
          I'M A NATIVE NATIVE AUSTINITE, AND I'VE LIVED IN MY 1928 BUNGALOW FOR THE PAST 20 YEARS. 
          HAVING LIVED IN AUSTIN FOR 53 YEARS. 
          NOW, I KNOW THE HISTORY OF AUSTIN AND ALL THE WONDERFUL NIGHTCLUBS. 
          I'M AN OPPOSITION OF THE PROPOSED MUSIC VENUE. 
          SO I'D HAVE FOR 200 ACADEMY, THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS BEEN INUNDATED WITH THE IMPACT OF VISITORS THAT COME TO ENJOY THE NEW DEVELOPMENT ALONG THE NORTH END OF SOCO. 
          LIVING IN THIS NEWLY DEVELOPED AREA HAS ADDED MANY CHALLENGES TO OUR DAILY COMMUTE. 
          AS WE ONLY HAVE TWO WAYS TO ACCESS OUR HOMES FROM ACADEMY AND THE OTHER FROM NOON NOONAN AND RIVERSIDE, THERE ARE CONSTANT TRAFFIC JAMS ON ACADEMY FROM PARKED TRUCKS, SERVICING THE COMMERCIAL SITES, SCOOTERS ZOOMING THROUGH AT HIGH SPEEDS AND PEDESTRIANS ON THEIR PHONE, CROSSING THE ROAD. 
          THE CONGESTION LEAVES CARS HANGING INTO ONCOMING TRAFFIC ON SOUTH CONGRESS. 
          BRINGING BACK THE OPERA HOUSE WILL ONLY ADD TO THE CONGESTION WE'RE ALREADY EXPERIENCING. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ITEMS 1 0 2 AND 1 0 3. 
          LAURA TUBES ON DECK, APRIL BROWN, GOOD AFTERNOON, LARA TOOPS REP REPRESENTING NEIGHBORHOOD WORKING GROUPS. 
          WE HAVE GONE FROM ASKING FOR NO MUSIC VENUE TO SOMETHING THE SIZE OF NEARBY LOCAL CLUBS TO NOW ACCEPTING 10,000 SQUARE FEET. 
          WE DO STILL HAVE NUMEROUS CONCERNS ABOUT THIS INCREASE SIZE TO SAFETY, TO PEDESTRIANS, EMERGENCY ACCESS AND COMPATIBILITY BASED ON THE ACCESS FROM JUST A 30 FOOT WIDE NEIGHBORHOODS STRAIGHT. 
          MOST RECENTLY, WE MET WITH PETITE PATRICE 
          [03:10:01]
PIKE, ALONG TIME MUSICIAN AND A MEMBER OF THE MUSIC COMMISSION. 
          WE WEIGHED HER INPUT AROUND THE SIZE THAT WILL SERVE LOCAL MUSICIANS VERSUS THE APPLICANT'S REQUESTS THAT WE'LL JUST SERVE LARGE NAMES. 
          WE STRUGGLED TO INCREASE OUR PROPOSED 3000 SQUARE FOOT VENUE TO OVER THREE TIMES THAT TO THE PROPOSED 10,000, IT'S DIFFICULT FOR US TO SAY WE SUPPORT THIS, BUT WE CAN SAY WE ACCEPT IT. 
          AND WE BELIEVE IT SERVES THE LOCAL MUSIC COMMUNITY AND THE DEVELOPER WHILE NOT REALLY SERVING THE NEIGHBORHOOD TODAY. 
          I ASKED YOU TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE 10,000 SQUARE FOOT CAP ALONG WITH OTHER CONDITIONS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          APRIL BROWN, SPEAKING ON ITEM 1 0 3 ON DECK MICHAEL WHELAN, MAYOR, UH, COUNCIL, APRIL MAYOR BROWN ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT. 
          UM, I'D LIKE TO TAKE A MOMENT JUST TO HIGHLIGHT A POINT OF CONSIDERATION THAT I THINK IS A LITTLE BIT LOST IN THE CONVERSATION RELATED TO 200 ACADEMY. 
          THE BIGGEST QUESTION BEFORE YOU TODAY IS THE VENUE SIZE, BUT THE CRUX OF THAT QUESTION IS REALLY THE VENUE CAPACITY. 
          SO AS YOU KNOW, THE ORIGINAL VENUE IS 17,000 SQUARE, 17,500 SQUARE FEET. 
          BUT TODAY WE'RE ASKING FOR 12 FIVE, UH, WHAT'S MOST IMPORTANT TO KNOW IS THAT THE FULL SQUARE FOOTAGE DOES NOT EQUATE TO PURE AUDIENCE AREA BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO ACCOUNT FOR THINGS LIKE THE STAGE, THE BACK OF HOUSE BATHROOMS, ET CETERA. 
          SO IN OTHER WORDS, THE OCCUPANCY IS CALCULATED DIFFERENTLY DEPENDING ON THAT USE WITHIN THIS SPACE. 
          SO FOR EXAMPLE, THE AUDIENCE AREA WOULD BE SEVEN, A ONE PERSON PER SEVEN FEET. 
          THE STAGE WOULD BE ONE PERSON FOR 15, UH, AND THEN THE BACK OF HOUSE AND THE LOUNGE AND A MUSEUM AREA WOULD BE 30 FEET PER PERSON. 
          ADDITIONALLY, OTHER AREAS ARE NOT COUNTED TOWARDS YOUR CALCULATION, ALL STAIRS, EGRESS ROUTES, BATHROOMS. UH, SO ALL THAT TO SAY IS THAT IT'S NOT AS SIMPLE SEVEN TO ONE OR NINE TO ONE CALCULATION. 
          AND EXAMPLE FOR THIS THAT WE'RE FAMILIAR WITH, UH, IS DUMONT DOWN-LOW OVER HERE ON FOURTH STREET, THE AREA'S 2,700 SQUARE FEET AND THE CAPACITY IS 63 PEOPLE. 
          SO THAT'S REALLY 42 SQUARE FEET PER PERSON. 
          SO ALL THAT TO SAY, IT'S NOT AS SIMPLE A CALCULATION OF THE VENUE CAPACITY WOULD BE SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACTED BY THE DESIGN. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          SPEAKING OF ITEM 1 0 3, MICHAEL WHELAN ON SEAN GERRITSEN. 
          THANK YOU, MICHAEL WHALEN ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, UM, LOTS OF NEGOTIATIONS GOING ON HERE WE'RE REALLY, REALLY CLOSE, MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO CLOSE THE GAP. 
          WE HAVE AGREED TO ACCEPT THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          THEY'VE ASKED US TO REMOVE SOME PERMITTED USES AND WE'VE AGREED IN OUR MINIMAL TO THOSE ALTERNATIVE FINANCIAL SERVICES, COMMUNICATION, SERVICE FACILITIES, LOCAL UTILITY SERVICES, OUTDOOR SPORTS, AND RECREATION SAFETY SERVICES. 
          WE'VE ALSO AGREED AS THEY REQUESTED THAT INDOOR ENTERTAINMENT AND OUTDOOR SPORTS AND RECREATION B UM, CONDITIONAL USES. 
          AND I THINK WHERE THIS ALL ENDS UP IS ON THE 12,070. 
          RIGHT NOW IT'S A 17,500 SQUARE FOOT VENUE. 
          UH, WITH A STAGE IN A LOBBY AREA, THE AUDIENCE AREA IS 10,000 SQUARE FOOT WERE AMENABLE TO REDUCING THAT BY ALMOST 30%, ACTUALLY 28.5% TO 12,500 SQUARE FEET WERE AMENABLE TO THAT AS A COMPROMISE TO BE DONE WITH THIS. 
          UH, AND, UH, WE KNOW THAT MID-SIZE VENUES ARE IMPORTANT IN THIS COMMUNITY. 
          WE KNOW THAT FOR LIVE MUSIC, AND I THINK THIS WILL, UH, AT LEAST PROVIDE SOME TO SOME EXTENT. 
          SOME OF THAT, THE LAST THING IS THAT THE COMPATIBILITY SETBACK BE MOVED FROM 75 FEET TO 65 FEET TO ALLOW FOR A LITTLE BIT MORE HOUSING ON THE TRACK. 
          THREE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, MR. WILSON WAS SORRY. 
          MAYOR MR. WHELAN. 
          I KNOW THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS, AS, AS MS TUBES DESCRIBED, UM, CHANGED, YOU KNOW, MOVED A GREAT DEAL FROM ASKING YOU TO CONSIDER NO VENUE TO NOW NOT SUPPORTING, BUT, BUT STANDING ALONGSIDE A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT VENUE, WHAT IS YOUR RESPONSE TO THAT PROPOSAL? WELL, I MEAN, I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          I MEAN, THE IRONY IS 10,500 IS THE MID POINT BETWEEN WHERE THEY STARTED 3000 SQUARE FEET IN THE 17,500, UM, THE WHICH A 30% REDUCTION, 12,500 MEANS THAT THE STAGE, WHICH IS 4,000 SQUARE FEET AND THE LOBBY, WHICH IS 3,500 SQUARE FEET, WILL HAVE TO BE PHYSICALLY MODIFIED AS WILL THE AUDIENCE AREA, WHICH IS CURRENTLY 10,000 TO MAKE IT WORK AT 12,500 SQUARE FEET. 
          WE'LL HAVE TO MODIFY ALL THREE OF THOSE ASPECTS IN ORDER TO MAKE IT WORK BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO INCLUDE EVERYTHING. 
          YOU HAVE TO INCLUDE THE BATHROOM, THE LOBBY, THE STAGE ALL GETS INCLUDED IN THAT 12,500. 
          BUT TO BE CLEAR, YOU DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO IT NOW. 
          SO IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT ACTUALLY REDUCTION. 
          I MEAN, AT THE MOMENT, YOU DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO HAVE THAT USE ON THAT SITE. 
          THAT'S CORRECT. 
          ABSOLUTELY. 
          THAT'S GREAT. 
          UM, SO WHAT IS, UH, YOU KNOW, I DON'T, I MEAN, WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF A COUNCIL MEETING, THERE'S A LOT GOING ON. 
          THERE'S NOT AN AGREEMENT. 
          DO YOU WANT TIME TO TALK WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO THINK, THINK THIS THROUGH, I MEAN, THERE IS A VALID PETITION AND THE VALID PETITION IS NOT SUPPORTING YOUR REQUESTS. 
          NO, I UNDERSTAND WHERE, I MEAN, I THINK WE'VE TALKED AND TALKED AND TALK. 
          WE'RE STILL TALKING, UH, YOU KNOW, MAYBE 
          [03:15:01]
WE'LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY EVEN IN THE NEXT FEW MINUTES WHILE THE REMAINING FOLKS ARE TALKING TO, FOR US TO TALK AND, AND, AND REACH THAT OPPORTUNITY. 
          I KNOW THERE'S MIXED SUPPORT AND I UNDERSTAND THERE'S A VALID PETITION. 
          I'M AWARE OF WHAT THAT MEANS FULLY AWARE OF WHAT THAT MEANS. 
          AND I APPRECIATE THE REMINDER OF COURSE, UH, BUT, UH, YOU KNOW, LIFE, LIFE IS, LIFE IS A, A BOWL OF CHERRIES. 
          YOU JUST GOT TO TAKE THEM ONE AT A TIME HERE AND THEN THROW IT AND THEN SPIT OUT THIS PIT, YOU KNOW? WELL, THANK YOU, WILLIE. 
          IT SEEMS LIKE THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS COME FORWARD WITH WHAT IS MORE THAN A REASONABLE PROPOSAL. 
          AND I WOULD, I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING IF YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT RESPONSE, A LITTLE LATER IN THE MEETING. 
          COOL. 
          THANKS. 
          THANKS VERY MUCH, MR. ROLLAND, SEAN GARRETSON ITEM 1 0 4 ON DECK JENNIFER LONG JENNIFER LONG ON DECK. 
          ROGER TAYLOR THIS IS FOR THE M FRANKLIN PROJECT. 
          IS THAT WHERE WE ARE? ARE WE IN THE RIGHT PLACE? HI, I'M JENNIFER LONG. 
          I'M THE DIRECTOR. 
          I'M A SHELTER FOR IMMIGRANTS AND REFUGEES. 
          WE'RE VERY OVERCROWDED RIGHT NOW, STRUGGLING TO FIND AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR PEOPLE TO MOVE OUT INTO THE COMMUNITY ON MOMENTA HAS BEEN AN INCREDIBLY GREAT PARTNER. 
          UM, CURRENTLY, UM, HE'S LOANED US A HOUSE RENT FREE THAT WE'RE USING FOR OVERFLOW. 
          HE'S HELPING US DEVELOP TWO NINE BEDROOM HOUSES THAT WILL HELP US GREATLY. 
          AND I FULLY SUPPORT THE IDEA OF MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN EAST AUSTIN. 
          WE HAVE BEEN STRUGGLING TO FIND MORE HOUSES TO BUY, TO DO OUR WORK, AND IT IS INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT. 
          NOTHING IS AVAILABLE REALLY UNDER $500,000 IN EAST AUSTIN. 
          SO I GREATLY SUPPORT THIS PROJECT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ROGER TAYLOR ITEMS, 1 0 4 AND 1 0 5 ON DECK. 
          CHRIS GANNON. 
          HELLO, MY NAME IS CHRIS GANNON. 
          I LIVE ON M FRANKLIN, UH, JUST DOWN THE STREET. 
          UM, I'M ACROSS THE STREET AND A FEW HOUSES DOWN TO THE SOUTH. 
          UM, I SUPPORT THIS PROJECT, UH, WHOLEHEARTEDLY. 
          I THINK THAT THE DEVELOPER HAS BEEN REALLY RESPONSIVE AND IT'S LISTENED TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, HAS DONE A GREAT JOB, UH, UH, ENCOURAGING THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO USE THE PROPERTY WHILE IT'S, UM, UH, VACANT. 
          I THINK THAT WE NEED AS MUCH AFFORDABLE HOUSING AS WE CAN GET. 
          UM, AND I THINK THAT OUR STREET IS PRETTY UNIQUE. 
          UH, IT'S AN OLD INDUSTRIAL STREET. 
          THIS IS FOUR ACRES OF, OF GREENFIELD THAT, UH, THERE'S NO DISPLACEMENT. 
          UM, I THINK IT'S A PRETTY SLAM DUNK PROJECT. 
          UH, I THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND MOM MIRA ITEM 1 0 4, 1 0 5 ON DECK CHASE. 
          RIGHT. 
          GOOD AFTERNOON. 
          MY NAME IS . 
          I'M THE DEVELOPER OF THE M FRANKLIN PROJECT AND I LIVE ON 14TH STREET IN EAST AUSTIN, JUST A MILE FROM THE SITE. 
          I WORK ON REAL ESTATE PROJECTS WITH THE SOCIAL IMPACT ELEMENT, WITH A BIG FOCUS ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING, BUT ALSO PROVIDING HOUSING FOR ARTISTS, FOR IMMIGRANTS AND REFUGEES FOR THOSE SEEKING TO STAY SOBER. 
          AND FOR THE HOMELESS, THIS PROJECT WILL PRODUCE 143 FOR SALE RESIDENCES. 
          30% OF THEM AFFORDABLE OF THE A HUNDRED MARKET RATE HOMES. 
          65 WILL BE TWO BEDROOM HOMES UNDER A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET SQUARE FEET SELLING FOR UNDER $140,000 UNDER $400,000. 
          THE ELUSIVE MISSING METAL TODAY, THERE'S ONLY ONE HOUSE FOR SALE IN ALL OF THESE AUSTIN UNDER THAT PRICE. 
          UM, THIS GREENFIELD PROJECT ON AN EMPTY LOT WILL FOCUS ON THE MIDDLE-CLASS TEACHERS, NURSES, CITY EMPLOYEES, AS WELL AS THOSE WHO ARE AT RISK OF BEING DISPLACED OR HAVE ALREADY BEEN DISPLACED. 
          THEY WANT TO LIVE CLOSE TO WHERE THEY WORK IN PLAY AND NOT DRIVE AN HOUR INTO THE CITY. 
          STUCK IN TRAFFIC, HURTING OUR ENVIRONMENT. 
          ONLY 25% OF AUSTIN HOUSEHOLDS ARE MARRIED. 
          PARENTS WITH CHILDREN. 
          WE NEED TO BUILD HOUSING FOR ALL TYPES OF AUSTIN HOUSEHOLDS. 
          SINGLE PEOPLE ARE AGING GRANDPARENTS, SINGLE PARENTS AND COUPLES WITHOUT CHILDREN. 
          NOT ALL OF THEM NEED A SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOME. 
          THANK YOU, CHASE RIGHT ON DECK FOR DEANNA BELLO. 
          HELLO, GOOD AFTERNOON. 
          MY NAME IS CHASE, RIGHT? I'M THE PRESIDENT AT THE SPRINGDALE PARK NEIGHBORS WHERE I ACTUALLY WORK WITH THE UNHOUSED RESIDENTS. 
          UH, WE'RE CURRENTLY IN THE PROCESS OF BUILDING A PILOT PROGRAM. 
          UM, EVERY DAY WE WORK ON REHABILITATION. 
          A LOT OF THESE UNHOUSED RESIDENTS SUFFER FROM MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES, CHRONICLE HOMELESSNESS, UH, LONG-TERM SUBSTANCE ABUSE, UH, AND AT THE END OF THE DAY AS WE REHABILITATING, AND THESE GUYS ARE MOVING TOWARDS STRUCTURED 
          [03:20:01]
LIVES. 
          UH, THE ONLY PROBLEM WE'RE HAVING IS THAT WE HAVE NOWHERE FOR THEM TO GO. 
          A LOT OF THEM LIVE IN TENTS AS OF NOW, SO THEY DON'T HAVE ANY HISTORY. 
          UH, SO I DO A LITTLE RESEARCH AND WE COME ACROSS PROJECTS LIKE M FRANKLIN. 
          I ACTUALLY LIVE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, I TOOL TO GREENWOOD AND, UH, IT'S A NO BRAINER. 
          WE NEED SUPPORTIVE HOUSING UNITS. 
          WE NEED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS. 
          AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, WHEN THESE UNHOUSED RESIDENTS IN THESE PEOPLE THAT ARE HIGH RISK, THIS PLACEMENT NEEDS SOMEWHERE TO GO. 
          UM, THESE ARE THE HOMES THAT ARE GOING TO USE OTHER THAN THAT RIGHT NOW, I BELIEVE ON MY BLOCK. 
          UH, THERE'S ONLY A 3000 SQUARE FOOT HOME THAT IS BEING BUILT RIGHT NOW. 
          IF WE GET A COUPLE OF THOSE, THERE'S NO MORE ROOM. 
          I THINK DENSITY AND WORRYING ABOUT, UH, GETTING THE MAXIMUM OUT OF THIS PROPERTY WOULD BE APPRECIATED. 
          WE DEFINITELY APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION. 
          I'M IN FAVOR OF BEING FRANKLIN. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ITEM ONE 20 VERIDIAN UP BELO ON DECK MARIO. 
          KENTU MARIO KENTU ON DECK. 
          BRIAN GERVIN, SPEAKING ON ITEM ONE 20 GOOD EVENING COUNCIL. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, EARLIER I WAS SPOKE TO ABOUT, UH, DISPLACEMENT AND ALSO DID SPEAK ABOUT ITEM 52 IN REGARDS TO PROMISES. 
          UH, AND WHEN PROMISES ARE MADE, I MENTIONED THAT THINGS NEED TO BE IN WRITING, UH, THESE INDIVIDUALS HERE AT THIS APARTMENT COMPLEX. 
          AND WHY AM I STANDING UP HERE SPEAKING ABOUT THESE INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE NOT EVEN IN MY DISTRICT, BUT, YOU KNOW, I WAS BORN AND RAISED IN AUSTIN AND I KNOW A LOT PART, A LOT OF THE PARTS OF AUSTIN. 
          AND SO WE HAD TO TAKE CARE OF OURSELVES HERE FOR THE ONES THAT HAVE BEEN BORN AND RAISED HERE IN AUSTIN. 
          AND I FEEL IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE TAKE CARE OF THESE INDIVIDUALS AND FIGURING OUT HOW WE DO NOT DISPLACE THESE INDIVIDUALS AND THINGS NEED TO BE IN WRITING WITH THESE INDIVIDUALS AS WELL AS CONVERSATIONS AND DISCUSSIONS WITH THE APPLICANTS AND THE BUYERS AND THE DEVELOPERS. 
          AND SO I ASK COUNCIL MEMBER CHEETO VELA TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS TAKES PLACE AND THAT IF A POSTPONEMENT IS NEEDED, THEN, UH, HONOR THAT POSTPONEMENT FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          THANK YOU, BRIAN. 
           ON DECK PAUL SALDANIA HELLO MEMBERS OF COUNCIL. 
          MY NAME IS BRIAN MCGIVERN. 
          UM, SOME OF YOU MAY KNOW ME. 
          I'M AN ATTORNEY WITH THE AUSTIN COMMUNITY LAW CENTER, AND I'M HERE. 
          I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH, UH, THE RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION ON A PRO BONO BASIS, UH, AROUND THIS ISSUE. 
          AND I THINK THE POINT AMONG THE OTHERS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO EMPHASIZE IS THAT THIS REALLY IS, ALTHOUGH AT A SUPERFICIAL LEVEL, IT COULD LOOK LIKE AN ISSUE BETWEEN DEVELOPMENT AND, UH, PRESERVATION. 
          IT REALLY ISN'T AT THIS POINT, IT'S ABOUT TENANT DISPLACEMENT. 
          UM, IT MAKES ME THINK BACK TO THE TENANT RELOCATION ORDINANCE, WHICH OF COURSE IS NOT APPLICABLE HERE. 
          NOTHING'S BEING DEMOLISHED YET, BUT I THINK THE, THE FINDINGS AND THE SPIRIT BUILT INTO THIS ORDINANCE, UH, ARE DIRECTLY APPLICABLE. 
          THEY TALK ABOUT THE HUGE BURDENS THAT ARE CAUSED TO RESIDENTS WHEN THEY ARE DISPLACED FROM THEIR HOMES AND THE RESULTING COMMUNITY-WIDE IMPACTS. 
          AND I THINK I HOPE THAT THERE IS A BROAD CONSENSUS STILL ON COUNCIL FOR HELPING RENTERS WHO ARE IN THAT POSITION. 
          I LOOK BACK AT THE VOTE ON THE RELOCATION ORDINANCE. 
          WELL, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. 
          I KNOW PAUL SALDANIA SPEAKING ON ITEM 1 23 ON DECK MEGAN PHILLIPS. 
          MEGAN PHILLIPS ITEM ONE 18. 
          GOOD AFTERNOON. 
          MY NAME'S MEGAN PHILLIPS. 
          UM, I LIVE NEAR THE 12TH STREET CORRIDOR AND I JUST WANTED TO SPEAK ON ONE 18 AND 86. 
          UM, I AM CONCERNED ABOUT MUSIC, LIVE MUSIC THAN YOU THAT HAVE OUTDOORS. 
          UM, OUR NEIGHBORS WERE NEW TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, ALMOST EVERYBODY WHO'S BEEN THERE FOR DECADES. 
          AND, UM, THEY'RE A LOT OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. 
          AND 
          [03:25:01]
IT SEEMS LIKE IF THERE'S GOING TO BE DEVELOPMENT, THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAD AGREED TO, THAT IT SHOULD BE FOCUSED ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING, UM, RATHER THAN LIVE MUSIC THINGS. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. 
          I BELIEVE THAT CONCLUDES OUR IN-PERSON SPEAKERS. 
          SORRY, ONE MORE. 
          SPEAKER LAUREN STANLEY ITEMS FOUR AND 5 94 95. 
          I'M LAUREN STANLEY. 
          I'M AN ARCHITECT. 
          I BUILD AN, UH, DESIGN FOR A LIVING. 
          UM, THIS PROJECT ENTAILS SUCH A JUMPING ZONING FROM SF THREE TO MF FOUR. 
          IT'S HARD TO IMAGINE IT AS ANYTHING BUT A SHAPE SHIFTER, BUT THE ENTIRE BLOCK AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WE ALL KNOW AUSTIN IS TRYING TO HOUSE ITSELF. 
          WE MUST ALSO TO TRY NOT TO UNHOUSED OURSELVES MANY JJC BROOK RESIDENTS ARE RIGHTLY CONCERNED THAT A SINGULAR FOCUS ON ADDING HOUSING STOCK WILL BE THE ULTIMATE DISSOLUTION OF AN HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD FABRIC, PHYSICALLY PSYCHICALLY SOCIALLY AND ENVIRONMENTALLY. 
          IF WE GET DOWN THIS PATH THAT WILL COME AT A COST AND RISK UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES AFTER MANY HOURS, CONSIDERING THIS PROJECT FOR ALMOST TWO YEARS AND FULL ACCORDANCE WITH THE NEED TO GROW, WE STILL SEE THAT THIS PROJECT IS TOO MUCH FOR THIS SITE IS PERFECT FOR GRAYFIELD CORRIDOR SITE. 
          IT'S SCRAPED NOW, BUT THREE YEARS AGO, THIS WAS A GREENFIELD LUSH WITH FRUIT AND OAK TREES AND HOSTING TINY HOMES. 
          THEIR PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS COVER WOULD INCREASE WITH GRANTED ENTITLEMENTS FROM WHAT USED TO BE 10 TO 15% TO 65 TO 75% TANNEHILL BRANCH TO A PERENNIAL SPRING-FED CREEK WOULD UNDENIABLY SUFFER IMPACTS FROM PAVEMENT PEOPLE, EXCAVATIONS AND PETS. 
          THERE'S TRAFFIC. 
          THERE'S ALREADY A THOUSAND UNITS OF INFLUX OF AFFORDABLE, AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND OTHER NEW HOUSING. 
          AND I WE'VE AGREED TO COMPROMISE TO MF LOWER MF AND THAT WE REALLY ASKED FOR MODERATION ON THIS PROJECT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I BELIEVE WE HAVE TWO MORE IN-PERSON SPEAKERS FIRST UP, MONICA GUZMAN ON DECK CARMEN TOLEDO. 
          UH, MARY TURNED TO THAT. 
          SO I KNOW YOU CALLED A SPEAKER JUST A LITTLE WHILE AGO FOR 1 23. 
          I BELIEVE 1 23 PASSED ON THAT, ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. 
          AT LEAST IT SHOULD HAVE IT'S ANOTHER ZONING ITEM. 
          IT'S THE ITEM I BROUGHT FORWARD TO FUND THE RAINY STREET, HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND. 
          THAT IS CORRECT. 
          WE MISSPOKE THINGS. 
          I, WHEN WE NOTED IT AT, AT LUNCHTIME, IT ALSO HAD AN UPDATED THAT THAT HAD PASSED, SO CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, GOOD AFTERNOON, MARIN COUNCIL. 
          I'M MONICA GUZMAN SPEAKING AS A DISTRICT FOUR RESIDENT, I SUPPORT THE OLD HOMESTEAD RENTERS IN THEIR OPPOSITION TO ITEM ONE 20. 
          THE ITEM SHOULD AND MUST BE POSTPONED UNTIL DEVELOPER JCI PROVIDES THE REQUESTED NEEDS. 
          THE RESIDENTS ARE OPEN TO NEGOTIATING IN GOOD FAITH. 
          SINCE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JCI HAS REFERENCED A TENANT RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, BUT THERE'S NO MONEY IN IT. 
          IT'S A DOORWAY TO NOWHERE. 
          JCA JCI FOLLOWED A SITE PLAN STATING ZERO, ZERO INHABITANTS ON THE PROPERTY. 
          NO VMU ZONING CHANGE NEEDED, THEREFORE NOT TRIGGERING THE TRA PROGRAM. 
          THE TRA PROGRAM IS UNFUNDED BECAUSE THE DEVELOPER HAS YET TO WRITE A CHECK. 
          ALSO WANT TO CLARIFY ABOUT THE PROGRAM, LIKING A PROCESS. 
          I WAS AN ACTIVE COMMUNITY FOR GUINNESS PARTICIPANT IN THE WORK DONE RESULTING IN THE TENANT RELOCATION ORDINANCE. 
          IT DOES HAVE A PROCESS, BUT IT'S A BROKEN PROCESS. 
          HONOR THE RESIDENTS BY LISTENING TO WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY, HAVE A DISCUSSION, BUT I DEMAND YOU NOT TAKE A VOTE TONIGHT, NOT EVEN A FIRST READING. 
          THANK YOU, CARMEN PULIDO. 
          UM, BE VERY, AS QUICK AS I CAN. 
          THERE ARE ACTUALLY AT LEAST 16 HOUSEHOLDS AT CLAYTON LANE. 
          UM, THIS IS ITEM ONE 20, THAT STAND TO BE DISPLACED. 
          UM, I WANT TO MAKE IT REALLY CLEAR THAT ON MAY 31ST, UH, THE OLD HOMESTEAD RENTERS ASSOCIATION MET WITH  OFFICE, UH, ACTUALLY HE WAS KIND ENOUGH TO COME TO THEIR PROPERTY AND THEY VERY EXPLICITLY REQUESTED THEY WANTED THIS PULLED FOR DISCUSSION AND THEY WANTED THE VOTE POSTPONED. 
          IT WAS A LOT OF CONFUSION. 
          I THINK ONE RENTER NOT SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE RENTERS ASSOCIATION, COMMUTED WITH KATIE, WITH STAFF ABOUT FIRST READING, SECOND READINGS, IT GOT REAL CONFUSING BECAUSE THE RENTERS ASSOCIATION WAS NOT ABLE TO DISCUSS THAT. 
          THEY WOULD LIKE YOU TO POSTPONE THE VOTE ON THIS ITEM. 
          IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO GIVE THEM THE LEVERAGE THAT THEY NEED SO THEY CAN GET THESE VERY MINIMAL, BASIC THINGS THAT WILL MITIGATE THE HARM. 
          [03:30:01]
BECAUSE WE HAVE YOU HEARD ABOUT VETERANS. 
          THERE'S ALSO AN ENTREPRENEUR WHO EMPLOYS AN ADDITIONAL DOZEN VETERANS. 
          THERE ARE SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS. 
          THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO TENANTS HERE WHO ARE CARING FOR ELDERLY PARENTS AND FAMILY MEMBERS WHO LIVE IN THE WINDSOR PARK AREA. 
          UH, THERE ARE IMMIGRANTS, BIPAP FOLKS. 
          AND WHAT YOU HEAR FROM JCI IS NOT A SOLUTION. 
          THEY CAN'T AFFORD THE NEW RENTS. 
          THERE IS NOWHERE FOR THEM TO GO. 
          THEY NEED YOUR SUPPORT AND A LITTLE BIT OF LEVERAGE SO THEY CAN COME TO SOME KIND OF WIN-WIN. 
          THANK YOU. 
          MOVING ON TO REMOTE SPEAKERS, CARRIE SLATER, ITEM 86. 
          HI, MY NAME IS CARRIE SLATER. 
          I LIVE ON NEW YORK AVENUE AND SHARON ALLEY WITH 12 I'VE LIVED IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD FOR OVER 20 YEARS. 
          I'M ASKING YOU TO OPPOSE CONDITIONAL USE FOR BARS LONG 12TH. 
          WE'VE BEEN WORKING FOR YEARS TO ALIGN YOU RP AND NCCD AND ALLOWING BARS LAST MINUTE, UNDERMINE THE GOOD FAITH INTENTIONS TO ALIGN THE TWO DOCUMENTS. 
          ALCOHOL WAS NEVER PERMITTED USE, WHO IS ASKING FOR IT. 
          THIS, I BEGGED YOU TO REACH OUT TO ANY NON EUREKA RESIDENTS AND ASK HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT IT. 
          IT'S BEEN IMPLIED THAT ONLY PEOPLE OPPOSING THIS ARE NEWER LIGHT-SKINNED NEIGHBORS. 
          AND I AGREE THAT LONG TIME MINORITY RESIDENTS SHOULD HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL THING AS COUNSEL ASKED THEM. 
          I HAVE. 
          AND I'VE YET TO FIND ONE NEIGHBOR AND FEATHER. 
          THIS MEASURE, THIS WON'T BE THE OLD WHITE SWAN AIRPORT LOUNGE OR LONG BRANCH WHEN IT WAS BLACK OWNED, IT'LL BE ANOTHER OVERPRICE HIPSTER HANGOUTS TRIP. 
          ALONG WITH HOUSES, CONVERTED TO AIRBNBS AND DRUNK AND BACHELOR PARTIES. 
          THE MAIN ONE BENEFITING FROM THE COCKTAIL LOUNGE EXPANSION ARE EUREKA AND THOSE WORKING ON THEIR BEHALF, IT'S DISINGENUOUS TO IMPLY THAT THE MAJORITY OF NEW OR OLD RESIDENTS SUPPORT THIS. 
          AND I'M ASKING YOU TO TAKE OUT THE CONDITIONAL USE FOR BARS, WHETHER THE INTENTION IS TO DISPLACE LONG-TIME RESIDENTS OR NOT. 
          THE RESULTS WILL BE DISPLACED. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ERIC JOHNSON, ITEM 86 AND ONE 18. 
          UH, MY NAME IS ERIC JANSSEN. 
          ISN'T IT? 1,705, UH, SORRY. 
          EXCUSE ME. 
          1,703 NEW YORK AVENUE. 
          UM, AND A RESONANCE AKILI NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          UM, I'M ASKING THE COUNCIL TODAY TO VOTE, NO ON ALLOWING COCKTAIL LOUNGE, UH, AS A CONDITIONAL USE ALONG 12TH STREET, UM, I'VE BEEN ACTIVE IN ZONING DISCUSSIONS ALONG THIS AREA, GOING BACK TO 2006 AND THE NCCD WAS STRUCTURED AS A COMPROMISE WHERE NEIGHBORS WOULD AGREE TO INCREASE DENSITY AND WERE UNDER REDUCTION AND BUILDING COMPATIBILITY PROJECTIONS EXCHANGE FOR RESTRICTED USE. 
          AS A LONG TRIAL STREET, ALLOWING COCKTAIL LOUNGES WILL FUNDAMENTALLY UNDO THE COMPROMISE THAT WE AGREED TO MANY YEARS AGO, WE JUST COMPLETED A TWO YEAR LONG COMMUNITY PROCESS TRYING TO ALIGN THE REGULATORY DOCUMENTS FOR THIS AREA. 
          NEITHER THE URBAN RENEWAL BOARD, NOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION, NOR THE CITY STAFF, NOR OCEAN RECOMMENDED THIS CHANGE. 
          I PLEASED I ASKED THE COUNCIL AND PULL YOU TO VOTE NO ON THIS AMENDMENT TO THE URBAN RENEWAL PLAN INTO THE 12TH STREET ZONING IN GENERAL, I AM FOR URBAN RENEWAL PLANS AS IT STANDS TODAY. 
          BUT AS OTHER RESIDENTS HAVE SAID, IT'S UNCLEAR TO US WHY WE NEED MORE BARS IN THIS AREA. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          LEE SHERMAN ITEMS, 86 AND ONE 18. 
          UM, I LIVE WITH MY FAMILY AND YOU'RE TALKING UP THE 12TH. 
          PLEASE SUPPORT THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM WHEN YOU ARE BEING PLANNING COMMISSION TO ALIGN THE URP AND NCCD THE MIGHT AMENDMENT STRAIGHT FROM THAT INTENT, PLEASE VOTE NO ON EXPANDING COCKTAIL USE PERMISSIONS AND THESE 12TH STREET NCCD AREA, MORE BARS ARE NOT NEEDED TO SUPPORT THE GOAL OF A VIBRANT AFRICAN-AMERICAN CULTURAL INHERITANCE DISTRICT. 
          WE HAVE SIX OR SEVEN HERE ALREADY. 
          HISTORICALLY, THERE WERE FEWER. 
          HOW MANY MORE DO WE NEED? AND WHAT'S TO STOP PROLIFERATION THAT ULTIMATELY DISTRACTS FROM BLACK ART AND HISTORY AND FAVOR OF PARTYING. 
          WHY IS IT DONE IN 1801 EAST 12TH STREET SHOWN AT  WHEN IT'S BEEN GR IN YOU UNTIL NOW SIMILAR WITH 1,806, ARE THOSE TYPOS IN 7, 8, 7 0 1, THERE WERE 186 DWI LAST YEAR WITH MOST CENTERED AROUND EAST AND RAINY STREETS. 
          WE DON'T WANT THOSE COMING TO EAST 12TH OR RESUMPTION OF THE BREED AND PEOPLE DOING AN ABBREVIATED THINGS AROUND THEIR HOMES THAT WE ALL KNOW COMES WITH. 
          CONCENTRATION OF BARS. 
          HE COULD BRING STREET. 
          IF YOU LOOK UP CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR BARS, THEY'RE ALL WERE APPROVED. 
          IT'S NOT A SIGNIFICANT CHECK. 
          THANKS FOR LISTENING. 
          TRACY WHITE ITEMS, 86 AND ONE 18 COUNSEL. 
          THIS IS TRACY WITTY TODAY. 
          SECOND READING. 
          I APPRECIATE THAT LAW GOT THE NCCD DRAFT ORDINANCE POSTED, BUT THE URP LAND USE PORTION OF THE TEXT IS YET TO BE UPDATED AMONG OTHERS. 
          THIS PROCESS HAS BEEN YEARS IN THE MAKING BILL DOES PLAINTIFF IN ALIGNMENT. 
          THERE ARE INCOMPLETE TEXT FOR REVIEW 
          [03:35:01]
AND LAST MINUTE AMENDMENTS ON FIRST READING THE UNDUE SIGNIFICANT PLANNING, COMPROMISES AROUND WHICH OUR COMMUNITY COALESCED BAPTIST INFORMED US YESTERDAY. 
          THE 20% OF THE 200 FOOT AREA AROUND THE ENTIRE NCCD MUST BE REPRESENTATIVE POSITION TO BE BALANCED. 
          IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO UNDERSTAND WHY THAT IS THE CASE AND WHETHER THERE ARE ANY SIMILAR, HIGHLY NEGOTIATED PLAN AREAS THAT WOULD FOLLOW THAT SAME LIMITATION. 
          WHY SHOULD ADJACENT OWNERS PROTEST RIGHTS BE DIMINISHED? BECAUSE CHANGES APPLY TO THE ENTIRETY OF EACH DISTRICT. 
          NEIGHBORS ARE STILL UNCOMFORTABLE WITH COCKTAILS AROUND YOUTH. 
          AND I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THAT AT LEAST SHERMAN AND KARIS LATER JUST SAID, THE NCCD LAND-USE TABLE DOES NOT CAPTURE THE INDOOR SPECIFICATIONS. 
          DISCUSS LAST TIME HAS BEEN AN OVERSIGHT. 
          PLEASE VOTE NO ON THE COCKTAIL LOUNGE P PEACE, AND PLEASE ENSURE COMPLETE TEXTS OF THE URP AND NCCD ARE POSTED WITH 10 DAYS OF ANTICIPATION FOR THIRD READING. 
          THANK YOU, MITCH ORRINGER ITEMS, 86 AND ONE 18  12TH STREET. 
          AND SHE'S SEEN THE SHOW WITH THE CURRENT VENUES AND BARS THEY HAVE THANK  BRADLEY PRICE ITEMS, 92 AND 93. 
          YES. 
          I'M DARK RETIRED OBSTETRICIAN AND HANCOCK NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENT FOUR BLOCKS FROM THE PROPOSED KITTY LOSS DEVELOPMENT SINCE 1984. 
          I'VE SUPPORTED THIS DEVELOPMENT SINCE I FIRST BECAME AWARE OF IT. 
          PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING IS THE WAY OUT OF HOMELESSNESS. 
          AS CONSULTANTS ON THIS PROJECT AT NIGGLE HOUSING HAVE PROVEN IN SIMILAR DEVELOPMENTS IN HOUSTON, GETTY LAWS WILL REDUCE THE NUMBER OF CHRONICALLY HOMELESS BY AROUND A HUNDRED. 
          SO IT'S A GREAT MOVE, NOT ONLY FOR THE TARGET POPULATION, BUT ALSO FOR THE CITY AS A WHOLE. 
          I WANT TO CONGRATULATE ALSO THE HANCOCK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION FOR RECENTLY VOTING TO SUPPORT THIS PROJECT. 
          AFTER CONSULTING WITH CITY STAFF, ELECTED OFFICIALS AND ADVOCATES FOR THE HOMELESS, THE ASSOCIATION DECIDED NOT TO BE PART OF THE PROBLEM, BUT PART OF THE SOLUTION, MY NEIGHBORS AND I LOOKED FORWARD TO ENSURING THAT KATIE LOFTS LIVES UP TO ITS PROMISE POTENTIAL MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. 
          PLEASE APPROVE KATIE LOSS, SYNOVIA JOSEPH ITEMS, 86, 1 18 AND ONE 19. 
          THANK YOU, MAYOR COUNCIL. 
          I WAS IN A VIGIL AND THEN HE WANTED TO MAKE SOME COMMENTS WITH ANNOYANCE TO 11TH AND 12TH STREET, AS I'VE MADE IN THE PAST SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO THE PRESERVATION OF EAST AUSTIN'S CULTURAL HISTORY. 
          I'M OPPOSED TO THE UNLIMITED    DEVELOPMENT, THE DENSITY OF LIQUID TO DIVERSITY. 
          I ASKED YOU ABOUT THE BLACK EMBASSY WHEN I SPOKE THE LAST TIME. 
          AND THERE'S BEEN A MEMORANDUM FROM BLIND HOMES MUCH ABOUT IN 2022, WHICH SAYS THAT HE CAN TELL THAT THE UNIVERSITY WOULD BE STUDYING THE ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS FOR AFRICAN-AMERICANS. 
          AND THERE WOULD BE A STUDY GROUP COURT IN LATE SPRAY, MORE HERE WE ARE IN THE SUMMER SAMIR. 
          I KNOW JUST LAST NIGHT WE WERE AT DATA CHAPLAIN AND I KNOW, YOU KNOW, WHERE AFRICAN-AMERICANS ARE IN EAST AUSTIN WHEN IT COMES TO THE CHURCHES. 
          SO WHATEVER YOU'VE DONE TO HELP US WITH THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, I WOULD ASK YOU TO PLEASE STOP KICKING THIS CAN DOWN THE ROAD AND DO SOMETHING FOR AFRICAN-AMERICANS WITH MY TERM EXPIRES. 
          AND LASTLY, I WOULD JUST SAY THAT AS IT RELATES TO TRANSPORTATION, I'VE SAID, BOOK ONE 12TH STREET, THE BUS THAT RUNS THERE IN OUR MINDS WITH THE 60 MINUTE BUS, THAT COULD BE AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN THING, 60 MINUTES, THE BUS LET'S GO AGAINST THEM CONTRACT WITH THE DUTIES THAT YOU'VE HAD ON AUGUST, 2020. 
          IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL GLADLY ANSWER THEM AT THIS TIME. 
          THANK YOU. 
          JOSHUA ELLINGER ITEM 92, ANY IS, UM, I'VE LIVED IN, UM, I LIVE 
          [03:40:01]
RIGHT NEXT TO THE KT LAW ELEMENT. 
          UM, I'VE ALSO PROBABLY THE NEIGHBOR WHO'S BEEN PAYING THE MOST ATTENTION TO IT. 
          UM, ORIGINALLY I WAS OPPOSED TO IT, THE BASIS FOR OPPOSING. 
          IT REALLY IS THAT IT DIDN'T, WE WERE APPROACHED LIGHT AND I DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH DETAIL, BUT OVER TIME I GOT TO WHERE I KIND OF CHANGED MY OPINION AND NOW I SUPPORT IT BECAUSE, UH, YES, I WANT MY BACKYARD, UH, BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO BE AWESOME. 
          UM, I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF CONCERNS LEFT. 
          THE FIRST ONE IS THAT THE DEVELOPERS DO NOT OWN THE PROPERTY. 
          AND IF THE ZONING CHANGE GOES THROUGH AND THE TAX CREDITS, DON'T, UH, THERE'S A RISK THAT IT WILL GET TURNED AT THE MARKET, UH, DEVELOPMENT. 
          UH, I'D LIKE YOU TO SHUT THE ACTUAL, LIKE HAKA TO SHUT DOWN THAT RISK BY MOVING AHEAD WITH THE PROPERTY PURCHASE, THE LAND PURCHASE. 
          UM, THEY'RE PLANNING TO DO THAT ANYWAY. 
          UH, THE SECOND THING, IF I MAY BE SO BOLD IS I WOULD ASK, UM, THE MAYOR TO GIVE A CALL TO MICHAEL AND SHANNON WONG, WHO ARE THE TWO DOCTORS WHO OWN A LOT OF PROPERTY NEAR THIS DEVELOPMENT. 
          UM, WE COULD HAVE HAD A BIGGER DEVELOPMENT, UH, IF WE KIND OF WORKED TOGETHER SIX MONTHS AGO, POTENTIALLY, BUT I'D LIKE TO HIM TO CALL THEM AND SEE IF THEY'RE INTERESTED IN SELLING THAT PROPERTY FOR A PHASE TWO OF KT LOSS. 
          SO ANYWAY, IT'S GOING TO BE AWESOME. 
          UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S GOING TO BE BEHIND DEAD. 
          UH, IT'S TAKEN US A WHILE TO GET THERE, BUT, UH, WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD COHEN DILLAHUNTY ITEM 92. 
          HI EVERYONE. 
          I'M THE PRESIDENT OF THE HANCOCK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. 
          UM, ON JUNE 2ND 95% OF MEMBERS ADOPTED A NEW RESOLUTIONS STATING IT WE'RE NO LONGER OPPOSE THE FLOODING AMENDMENT AND ZONING CHANGE FOR KATIE LOSS. 
          THESE HUNDRED UNITS WOULD HELP ADDRESS THE NEED FOR 3000 PSH SRO UNITS IN AUSTIN. 
          AND THE END OF FOUR ZONING CURRENTLY REQUESTED IS MORE COMPATIBLE THAN THE ORIGINALLY PROPOSED ENOUGH SIX, AND KATIE LOSS WOULD ONLY BE 48 FEET TALL. 
          WE'D REQUEST A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY LIMITING MARKET RATE DEVELOPMENTS. 
          IF 50 FEET, IF THIS PROJECT IS NOT BUILT, WE HAVE A FEW OUTSTANDING CONCERNS WITH THE PROJECT. 
          KATIE LOFTS NEEDS A PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND TRAFFIC ANALYSIS TO MAKE IT SAFE. 
          SINCE 39TH STREET IS A NARROW CUT-THROUGH STREET TO  WITH NO SIDEWALKS AND PARKING ON BOTH SIDES, MAKING IT DIFFICULT TO REACH TRANSIT NETWORKS ON RED RIVER, THREE BLOCKS AWAY. 
          THIS SHOULD BE PROACTIVELY ADDRESSED. 
          ALSO THE PROJECT TO BUILD PSH PRIMARILY RELIES ON DEVELOPERS TO IDENTIFY SITES. 
          THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THIS LESS CONTENTIOUS BY WORKING WITH NEIGHBORHOODS ACROSS AUSTIN DISTRICTS, TO ACCELERATE THE BUILDING OF UNITS, H AND M LOOKS FORWARD TO WORKING WITH KATIE LAW, SOME OF THE SITE PLAN AND ENSURING THE BEST POSSIBLE OUTCOME FOR THIS HIGH PROFILE PROJECT IN CENTRAL AUSTIN. 
          THANK YOU. 
          CHIP HARRIS ITEM 100 MAYOR MAYOR APPROACHED HIM COUNCIL MEMBERS. 
          MY NAME IS CHIP HARRIS. 
          I'M REQUESTING THAT YOU DENY THE FREE ZONING THAT ALLOWS ADDITIONAL VEHICULAR ACCESS TOMORROW STREET AGENDA ITEM 100 CURRENT TRAFFIC COUNTS DONE BY THE CITY SHOW, 1,990 VEHICLE TRIPS PER DAY ON MORROW ALREADY OVER 50% HIGHER THAN THE SEAS DESIRABLE OPERATING LEVEL OF 1200 VEHICLE TRUTHS PER RESIDENTIAL STREET, BASED ON THE CITIES AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS 25 6 1 6 FEET, THE PRESS, YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION HAS ALWAYS BEEN OPPOSED TO OPENING MORROW TO MORE TRAFFIC DUE TO CONCERNS THAT TRAFFIC WILL REVERT TO PRIOR LEVELS OF OVER 9,000 VEHICLE TRIPS PER DAY. 
          PLEASE PAUSE THIS PROCESS OF CHANGING THE ORDINANCE IN ORDER TO ENGAGE WITH THOSE MORROW RESIDENTS WHO WILL BEAR THE BRUNT OF INCREASED TRAFFIC IN ORDER TO DEVELOP AND APPROVE THE CITY PLAN THAT MONITORS THE TRAFFIC VOLUME AND OUTLINES SPECIFIC ACTIONS THE CITY WOULD TAKE TO REDUCE VOLUME AND PROTECT THE RESIDENTIAL INTEGRITY OR MARLA STREET BY IDENTIFYING ROADWAY MODIFICATIONS TO BE MADE SHOULD TRAFFIC VOLUMES ON MORROW EXCEEDS CERTAIN THRESHOLD. 
          THANK YOU, SARAH CAMPBELL ITEM 1 0 2. 
          HELLO. 
          CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, WELL, MY NAME IS SARA CAMPBELL AND I'M THE CHAIR OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE, UH, UH, SRC DC NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. 
          UM, I'M SPEAKING ABOUT THE 200 ACADEMY OLD OPRY HOUSE PROJECT. 
          UM, THIS PROJECT IS WITHIN, 
          [03:45:01]
UM, SOUTH RIVER CITY CITIZENS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION BOUNDARIES, AS WELL AS THE GREATER SOUTH RIVER CITY COMBINED NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. 
          THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN CONTACT TEAM HAS WORKED DILIGENTLY, TRYING TO PROTECT A PART OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN GREATLY IMPACTED BY THE SUCCESSES OF SOUTH CONGRESS. 
          REJUVENATION AT THIS CRITICAL, THE SUBCOMMITTEE IS FIGHTING FOR A COMPROMISE FOR A MAXIMUM 10,000 SQUARE FOOT CONCERT VENUE IN THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AS CRCC SUPPORTS. 
          AND I ASK YOU TO PLEASE SUPPORT THEM ON THIS LAST POINT OF NEGOTIATION, A MAXIMUM OF A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT CONCERT VENUE. 
          THANK YOU FOR SERVING. 
          I KNOW IT'S NOT ALWAYS A PIECE OF CAKE AND THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO ME TODAY. 
          SARAH WELCH ITEMS 1 0 4 AND 1 0 5 THAT'S THE SOUTHERN EDGE OF MR. MARRIAGE PROPERTY ON ANNE FRANKLIN AND I AM IN FULL SUPPORTIVE HAS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND THE REQUIRED REZONING, THIS KIND OF THOUGHTFULLY DESIGNED MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING IS MUCH NEEDED EVERYWHERE IN AUSTIN. 
          AND PARTICULARLY IN JJC BRICK, WHICH HAS BECOME OUT OF REACH FOR THE AVERAGE AUSTINITE. 
          THIS IS A NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE WE OFTEN SEE HOMELESS PEOPLE LIVING IN THEIR CARS NEXT TO THE PARK WHERE OUR FRIENDS HAVE HAD TO LEAVE TO AFFORD ENOUGH SPACE, TO START A FAMILY WHERE 50% OF THE HOMES CURRENTLY ON ZILLOW ARE LISTED AT OVER A MILLION AND ALL AT MORE THAN $500 PER SQUARE FOOT. 
          THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS A SHOE IN FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS LIKE MR MAREZ, WHICH PROMOTES SUSTAINABILITY ON BOTH THE MICRO AND THE MACRO LEVEL, AIMING TO REDUCE SPRAWL BY ENABLING TEACHERS, MUNICIPAL WORKERS, ARTISTS, HEALTHCARE WORKERS, AND NON-PROFIT WORKERS TO LIVE NEAR WHERE THEY WORK AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE VIBRANCY OF THE EAST SIDE. 
          OVER MORE THAN 18 MONTHS, MR. MARA HAS WORKED WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO ENSURE HIS DESIGN TAKES INTO ACCOUNT OUR VALUES OF SUSTAINABILITY COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER. 
          WE COULDN'T ASK FOR A MORE CONSCIENTIOUS DEVELOPER TO BE IN CHARGE OF THIS PROPERTY. 
          AND I HAVE GREAT RESPECT FOR THE PROJECT MR. MARA HAS CREATED. 
          I HOPE THE CITY COUNCIL WILL SEE FIT TO GRANT HIM THE PROPOSED REZONING. 
          THANK YOU, LAYLA SHAMS ITEMS, 1 0 4 AND 1 0 5 I'M CALLING IN SUBJECT ON IAN FRANKLIN AT THEIR WATCHES. 
          THAT'S ABOUT, I LIVE ON ANNE FRANKLIN, MY HUSBAND AND I ARE BOTH ARCHITECTS AND WE'RE PASSIONATE ABOUT PROJECTS THAT ARE RESPONSIBLE AND WORK TO SOLVE OUR HOUSING CRISIS HERE IN AUSTIN. 
          OUR STREET IS A UNIQUE STREET THAT THAT'S A PRESCHOOL ON IT. 
          A BEHIND CENTER OF MEDICAL FACILITIES, THE RED CROSS CENTER, AND IT'S LOCATED BETWEEN TWO HIGH DENSITY CORRIDORS RIGHT NEXT TO THE UNIQUE MUELLER DEVELOPMENT. 
          WE HAVE LOVELY NEIGHBORS THAT ARE SUPPORTIVE OF DIVERSITY AND INCLUSIVENESS. 
          AND SO MANY I'VE TALKED TO ARE IN FAVOR OF THIS PROJECT. 
          I THINK WE'RE IN A UNIQUE POSITION TO HAVE THIS TYPE OF PROJECT. 
          I'M SO EXCITED ABOUT IT. 
          DEVELOPER AND MOMENTUM HAS BEEN VERY OPEN-MINDED AND RECEPTIVE TO TALKING TO RESIDENTS AND MAKING THIS SPACE INTO A COMMUNITY TO BENEFIT EVEN BEFORE IT'S BEING DEVELOPED. 
          BUT I THINK HE'S A UNIQUE, GOOD FAITH DEVELOPER THAT WILL BE RESPONSIBLE WITH THE HOUSING CRISIS WE FACED IN AUSTIN. 
          I'D LIKE TO WELCOME DENSITY AND LOOK FORWARD TO THIS OPPORTUNITY TO WELCOME NEW NEIGHBORS FROM ALL SORTS OF RACIAL HISTORICAL SOCIOECONOMIC BACKGROUNDS. 
          I HOPE THAT YOU VOTE IN FAVOR. 
          THANK YOU, JOHN HAGAR ITEMS 1 0 4 1 0 5. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I AM ALSO SPEAKING TODAY IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. 
          I MEAN, FRANKLIN, I AM A RESIDENT USED THE MOST EIGHT BY THE PLANNING AREA AND WOULD SHARE THE CONTENT TEAM. 
          SO THAT'D BE IN THAT ROLE IN ANIMAL APPROACHES ABOUT THIS PROJECT TWO YEARS AGO, I SUPPORTED IT BECAUSE IT WILL BRING AFFORDABLE HOME OWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES TO AN AREA THAT HAS GOOD JOB TRANSIT BIKES AND PEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE AND WONDERFUL NEIGHBORS. 
          IF IT OFTEN THE PEOPLE WHO WORK IN AREA A CHANCE TO NOT ONLY LIVE NEAR WORK, BUT ALSO BEGIN TO BUILD SOME WEALTH FOR THEMSELVES ARE NATURALLY OCCURRING. 
          AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS DISAPPEARING QUICKLY IN THE AUSTIN HOUSING MARKET AND MOST NEW AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPTIONS ARE FOR RENT. 
          ADDITIONALLY, THE INTERNAL EDU'S PROPOSE COULD OFFER OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL THE RESIDENTS TO AGE IN PLACE AND STAY NEAR THEIR FAMILY. 
          THIS IS EXACTLY THE TYPE OF PROJECT WE NEED TO ENCOURAGE IN AUSTIN. 
          AND I HOPE THAT YOU'LL MOVE TO GOOD THINGS. 
          STEPHANIE'S SHOCKED. 
          ITEM ONE. 
          OH, ITEMS 1 0 4 AND 1 0 5. 
          MY NAME IS DR. 
          STEPHANIE SHOCKED IN FAVOR OF ITEMS 1 0 4 AND 1 0 5. 
          I'M A SOCIOLOGIST BY TRAINING A CONSULTANT TO SOCIAL ENTERPRISES. 
          AND I'VE BEEN WORKING AT THIS SITE WITH THE DEVELOPER SINCE FEBRUARY OF LAST YEAR TO ACTIVATE GMT LOT. 
          DURING THESE PAST 16 MONTHS, WE'VE OPENED THE SPACE TO COMMUNITY USE OFFERING A LITTLE FREE LIBRARY, PICNIC TABLES, AND BENCHES, COMMUNITY GARDEN, SEVERAL COMMUNITY EVENTS AND UPCOMING ARTISTS RESIDENCY IN PARTNERING TO PRODUCE A MURAL HONORING LOCAL HISTORICAL FIGURES. 
          I SEE THIS PROJECT AS 
          [03:50:01]
PART OF THE SOLUTION TO PROVIDING BADLY NEEDED AFFORDABLE HOUSING, NOT JUST MORE OF THE SAME MILLION DOLLAR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND SEPARATE RENTAL GHETTOS FOR LOW INCOME FOLKS, BUT INTEGRATED HOUSING WHERE PEOPLE OF DIFFERENT INCOMES COULD AFFORD TO LIVE TOGETHER. 
          THIS PROJECT EMBRACES RIGHT TO RETURN AND RIGHT TO REMAIN AN EFFORT TO RESIST THE EFFECTS OF DISPLACEMENT HAPPENING THROUGHOUT USE. 
          OFTEN, THIS IS AN UNUSUAL PROJECT, AND I THINK ONE THAT AUSTIN COULD USE MORE OF A PROJECT RUN BY A NON-TRADITIONAL DEVELOPER WHO WANTS TO FOSTER COMMUNITY AND BUILD AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR PURCHASE CONNECTED TO NATURE AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION. 
          I IN FAVOR MATT WELCH ITEMS 1 0 4 AND 1 0 5, GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCIL. 
          MY NAME IS MATTHEW WELCH AND I'M YOUR STEAK ON ITEM FOUR AND 1 0 5 REGARDING 2011 AND THREE 15 ON FRANKLIN. 
          I LIVE IN FRANKLIN GROW, WHICH IS A 27 HOME COMMUNITY THAT DIRECTLY ABUTS 20:11 AM FRANKLIN. 
          I'M ALSO THE PRESIDENT OF THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION WITH FRANKLIN GROVE. 
          AND SPEAKING TO DAVE EXPRESSED THE NEIGHBORHOODS HAVE FULL SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED REZONING, THE DEVELOPER SEEKING THE ZONING CHANGE. 
          MR. MIRA APPROACHED OUR NEIGHBORHOOD NEARLY TWO YEARS AGO TO BEGIN SHARING HIS PROJECT. 
          FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, WE WERE IMPRESSED NOT ONLY WITH HIS VISION FOR THE PROPERTY, BUT ALSO WITH HIS SINCERE COMMITMENT TO CONSISTENTLY ENGAGING WITH US. 
          TAKE CARE HERE, TO LISTEN TO OUR HOPES AND OUR CONCERNS AS A RESULT OF THIS CONSTRUCTIVE DIALOGUE IN THIS RAMIREZ, WILLINGNESS TO COMPROMISE IN ORDER TO HELP PROTECT THE THINGS THAT WE VALUE, INCLUDING THE CREEK THAT RUNS ALONGSIDE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          WE VOTED OVERWHELMINGLY IN FAVOR OF SUPPORTING MR. MYRA'S PROJECT. 
          WE HOPE YOU WILL VOTE TO APPROVE, TO BE GONE AND NECESSARY TO BRING IT TO LIFE. 
          THANK YOU, MICHELLE HOGAN, ITEM ONE 18. 
          HI IN OUR HAWKINS FOR 20 YEARS AND OUR HOUSE EXCEPT TO THE ALLEY THAT IS BETWEEN 12TH AND 13TH STREET. 
          SO ANY BARS OR A LIVE MUSIC VENUES WOULD LITERALLY FEEL LIKE THEY'RE IN OUR BACKYARD HERE'S AGO, THERE WAS A LOT OF ILLICIT ACTIVITY IN THE ALLEY AND THAT SCENARIO HAS IMPROVED. 
          BUT NOW THAT THIS PROPOSAL A FORMER PROBLEM WITH JUST THE REPLACED BY A NEW ONE. 
          SO WE FEEL THIS WOULD BE A BIG STEP BACKWARD FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          AND WE ASKED YOU TO PLEASE VOTE NOW ON THE PROPOSAL TO PUT BARS AND LIVE MUSIC VENUES ON EAST COAST. 
          THANK YOU, CARL MILLIGAN ITEM ONE 18. 
          HELLO. 
          MY NAME IS CARL MILLIGAN AND I'M GOING TO SUPPORT WHAT THE CITY STAFF'S U R B RECOMMENDATION FOR THE VISION OF MY COMMUNITY. 
          THIS IS IN REGARDS TO ITEMS 86 1 18 1 19. 
          I'M IN DISTRICT ONE AND I'VE LIVED IN EAST AUSTIN FOR MORE THAN THREE DECADES. 
          NOW I'VE BEEN IMPACTED WITH THE CHANGES IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD, AND I WILL DO ALL THAT I CAN TO MAKE SURE THAT THE SUPPORT GOES WHERE IT NEEDS TO GO. 
          THAT BEING SAID, I'M IN SUPPORT OF A EUROPEAN INITIATIVE AND HOPE THAT EVERYONE ELSE IS ON BOARD. 
          PLEASE SUPPORT COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER MADISON'S MOTION. 
          THANK YOU, DANIEL NELSON, ITEM ONE 18 AND COUNCIL. 
          UH, THANKS FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK. 
          MY NAME IS DANIEL NELSON, MY WIFE AND I LIVE IN A HOUSE THAT WE OWN ON EAST 13TH STREET. 
          WE'VE BOTH HAD CAREERS TEACHING IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN EAST AUSTIN, AS WELL AS BEING THE ARTIST AND MUSICIAN COMMUNITIES. 
          UM, I'VE LIVED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD SINCE 1992. 
          WHEN I RENTED A HOUSE NEARBY ON SAN BERNARD STREET IN 2002, WE WERE FORTUNATE TO BE ABLE TO PURCHASE A PROPERTY ON HIS 13TH STREET, WHERE WE'VE LIVED FOR THE PAST 20 YEARS. 
          OUR PROPERTY SHARES AN ALLEY WITH PROPERTIES ON EAST 12TH THAT WOULD BE DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES. 
          I AM AGAINST ANY PROPOSALS THAT WOULD ALLOW BARS, COCKTAIL, LOUNGES, OR LIVE MUSIC VENUES ON EAST 12TH STREET. 
          UM, ONE THING THAT I CAN SAY, I HAVE NEVER HEARD ANY OF MY NEIGHBORS EXPRESS. 
          MY 30 YEARS IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS A NEED FOR MORE BARS ON EAST 12TH STREET. 
          AGAIN, UH, BARS ARE NOT SOMETHING THAT ARE IN AUSTIN IN GENERAL. 
          THEY'RE NOT SOMETHING THAT ARE LACKING IN EAST AUSTIN, SPECIFICALLY, AND BARS ARE NOT SOMETHING THAT ARE CONDUCIVE TO THE FAMILY FRIENDLY NEIGHBORHOOD THAT THIS HAS BEEN IN THE PAST. 
          AND I HOPE WE'LL CONTINUE TO BE IN THE FUTURE. 
          UM, SO, UH, PLEASE VOTE NO ON THIS PROPOSAL. 
          THANK YOU, JANE WEBER, ITEM 20 THAT'S JAKE WEBER. 
          THANK YOU, COUNCIL FOR LETTING ME SPEAK. 
          UH, I HAVE BEEN ASKED TO RELAY THAT 
          [03:55:01]
AND VELA HAS, UM, PROMISED TO POSTPONE THE VOTE UNTIL THIRD READING ON THE 16TH. 
          UM, PAST THAT I AM AN ORGANIZERS AND WORKING WITH THE OLD HOMESTEAD RENTERS FOR A FEW WEEKS. 
          NOW, THERE ARE SEVERAL RENTERS WHO WILL BE DISPLACED, UH, TO THE LEVEL OF HOMELESSNESS WITH SOME THE ASSISTANT EXTREMELY IMPORTANT, UH, ISSUE. 
          IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT, UM, PRESERVING THE PROPERTY. 
          IT'S THERE IS NEED FOR HOUSING IN THE AREA, BUT IT CANNOT BE DONE AT THE RISK OF CAUSING MORE HOMELESSNESS. 
          SO AS THE DEAL IS A $5.5 MILLION DEAL, UH, WITH ALL OVER $1 MILLION IN PARKLAND DEDICATION FUNDS AND OVER A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS TO REMOVE TWO, UH, HERITAGE TREES, WE ARE ASKING FOR LESS THAN A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS FROM DEVELOPERS. 
          UM, SO WE ASK THAT YOU VALUE HUMAN BEINGS AND PLEASE, UH, DEMAND THE DEVELOPERS, KEEP THEIR CURRENT PROMISE AND PUSH THEM TO OFFER MORE FOR THESE DISPLACED TENANTS. 
          IF THE CITY IS NOT WILLING TO ALLOCATE FUNDS TO TENANT RELOCATION, THE DEVELOPER HAS TO STEP UP AND OFFER COMPENSATION TO DISPLACED TENANTS IN THIS CASE. 
          SO PLEASE STEP UP TO BAT FOR TENANTS WHO ARE BEING DISPLACED. 
          UPROOTED MADE HOMELESS. 
          I MYSELF WAS PRICED OUT OF AUSTIN THIS YEAR. 
          MY RENT WENT UP BY 40% IN OAK HILL AND I HAD TO LEAVE THE CITY THAT I GREW UP IN. 
          UM, AND I, THIS IS A CAUSE VERY DEAR TO MY HEART BECAUSE OF THAT. 
          I BELIEVE THAT AUSTIN NEEDS MORE HOUSING, BUT NOT AT THE RISK OF CAUSING MORE HOMELESSNESS. 
          SO PLEASE COUNCIL, STEP UP. 
          THANK YOU, MAYOR. 
          JUST, UH, JAKE. 
          UH, IS HE STILL IN THE LINE? NO. 
          WHEN HE'D LIKE US TO GET IT BACK? NO, THAT'S ALL RIGHT. 
          THAT'S WHERE I JUST WANTED TO TELL THEM THANK YOU FOR HIS EFFORTS, UH, WITH REGARD TO, UH, THE TENANTS. 
          AND I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT IT IS MY INTENTION TO, UH, UH, HEAR THE PRESENTATION DISCUSSION, BUT, UH, POSTPONE, UH, THE, UH, TO REQUEST A POSTPONEMENT OF THE ITEM WITHOUT A VOTE. 
          I JUST WANTED TO LET, UH, COUNCIL AND THE AUDIENCE DOWN. 
          I DIDN'T WANT 20 ZACHARY ZEHR ITEM ONE 20. 
          AH, YES. 
          HELLO CITY COUNCIL. 
          MY NAME IS BACK THERE. 
          I LIVE ON HILLCREST DRIVE IN THE WINDSOR PARK NEIGHBORHOOD NEAR THE PARCEL OF LAND CONSIDERED FOR ITEM ONE 20. 
          I FIRSTLY SUPPORT A DELAY OF THE READING OF HIS PROPERTY TO PROVIDE MORE TIME FOR THE CURRENT RESIDENTS TO WORK THROUGH DETERMINING A PLAN FOR RELOCATION. 
          IF THIS IS A ZONING CHANGE IS EVENTUALLY APPROVED IT ORIGINALLY, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THIS PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY THINKING FEE IN LIEU RATHER THAN PARKLAND DEDICATION. 
          WINTER PARK IS A PARKLAND DEFICIENT AREA AND THE MOST DIRECT WAY TO AMELIORATE THAT IS BY UTILIZING THE DEVELOPMENT. 
          WE'RE USING OUR NEIGHBORHOODS TO ACQUIRE PARKLAND DEDICATION WHEN IT IS REQUIRED RATHER THAN ALLOWING FEE IN LIEU BEING THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE IF WE HAD PARKS TO MAINTAIN, BUT CURRENTLY OUR CONCRETES, OUR 11 NEIGHBORHOOD IS IN NEED OF PARKLAND TO ACTUALLY MAINTAIN AS PART THE DENSITY. 
          THIS PROJECT IS BRINGING AND WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF THE PROJECT. 
          IF, UM, IF IT CAN BE WORKED OUT WITH THE CURRENT RESIDENTS AND INCLUDED PARKLAND DEDICATION. 
          THANK YOU, KEN PURCELL, ITEM ONE 20. 
          SO MEMBERS, THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK WITH YOU TODAY. 
          MY NAME IS KEN PURCELL AND I AM A RESIDENT OF THE OLD HOMESTEAD APARTMENTS AT 1124 CLAYTON LANE. 
          JUST A SHORT VIEW OF MYSELF. 
          I SPENT 20 PLUS YEARS IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY. 
          I DID TWO TOURS IN IRAQ, FIVE AND AFGHANISTAN IN 2015. 
          UPON MY LAST TOUR OF AFGHANISTAN. 
          I RETURNED HOME TO AUSTIN, TEXAS, WHERE I IMMEDIATELY GOT A JOB AT THE STATE HEALTH AGENCY HERE IN AUSTIN. 
          WHEN I'M FORCED OUT OF MY HOME. 
          AFTER CHRISTMAS, THIS YEAR WITH MY STATE PAYCHECK, I CANNOT AFFORD TO LIVE IN AUSTIN. 
          I'M BEING FORCED TO LOOK NORTH OF ROUND ROCK WHERE SPICEWOOD MARBLE FALLS AREA. 
          ALL WE, THE OLD HOMESTEAD APARTMENT RESIDENTS ARE LOOKING FOR OUR BOTTOM LINE UP FRONT IS WE'RE LOOKING FOR FAIR AND COMPASSIONATE ASSISTANCE FROM JCI, THE PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY AND THE NEW BUDGET. 
          BELPER WE'RE ASKING FOR ASSISTANCE IN OUR TRANSITION FROM OUR HOMES. 
          WE'RE LOOKING TO POSSIBLY MOVE, PUSH OUR MOVE-OUT DATES TO FEBRUARY 28TH. 
          UH, WE'RE ASKING THAT AFTER THE SALE ON THE PROPERTY, JCI DOES NOT CHARGE RENT THE DAY OF THE SALE. 
          FEBRUARY 28TH. 
          THIS WILL ALLOW US TO SAVE UP MONEY FOR APARTMENTS, UH, DOWN PAYMENTS TO BRING DOWN THE PRICES OF APARTMENTS. 
          WE'RE ASKING THE CITY COUNCIL TO, TO ASK JCI, TO NEGOTIATE WITH RESIDENTS AND OUR, UH, REQUESTS FOR ASSISTANCE. 
          [04:00:01]
WE'RE ASKING COUNCIL TO PLEASE AGREE TO POSTPONE TODAY'S VOTE UNTIL JUNE 16TH TO GIVE JCI TIME TO SPEAK WITH THE RESIDENTS AND TO NEGOTIATE WITH US. 
          LASTLY, MY GREATEST FEAR IS THAT WHEN I'M FORCED OUT OF THIS APARTMENT, I WILL FACE, I WILL BE THE FACE THAT YOU SEE ON THE OVERPASS. 
          I, WHEN THE APARTMENT CLOSES DOWN, THREE VETERANS WILL BE FORCED OUT OF THEIR HOMES HERE. 
          THANK YOU AGAIN FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK WITH YOU. 
          HAVE A GOOD DAY. 
          LORETTA TUBS ITEM ONE 20 GOOD AFTERNOON, AND LORETTA TUFTS CO-CHAIR FOR THE OLD HOMESTEAD RENTERS ASSOCIATION. 
          ALONG WITH KEN, I HAVE LIVED HERE FOR 15 YEARS AND THE WINDSOR PARK NEIGHBORHOOD, SHIFTY YEARS, I MOVED HERE TO BEING HERE. 
          MY PARENTS ARE CAREGIVER. 
          THIS HAS BEEN AN OASIS IN THE HEART OF THE CITY, AND VERY MUCH FEELS LIKE HOME. 
          I AGREE WITH WHAT KEN STATED THAT WE ARE ASKING. 
          AND ALSO I'M NOT AGAINST FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY THAT THE SIZE PROPOSED WOULD BRING HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE AND HUNDREDS OF CARS ALREADY STRESSED AND NARROW BLOCK OF QUITE WILLING AFFECTING HUNDREDS OF WIVES. 
          AND SO WE HAVE, UH, REQUESTED JUST COMPENSATION OF MORE MONTHS OF RENT WAIVED AND MOVING COSTS COVERED SINCE THERE IS, YOU KNOW, FUND. 
          AS WE MENTIONED TO JCI IN OUR PROPOSAL SAYING THAT PRESTON HAVE COMPASSION FOR UPROOTING, A COMMUNITY WOULD GO A LONG WAY IN HELPING AUSTIN GO FORWARD WITH DEVELOPMENT WHILE STILL RECOGNIZING THE HUMANITY INVOLVED IN FORCED DISPLACEMENT. 
          I AM BEING PRICED OUT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD I GREW UP IN I'M CURRENTLY ON SIX WAITING LIST FOR APARTMENTS. 
          I HAVE NO IDEA WHEN R F I WILL QUALIFY. 
          THANK YOU FOR ATTENTION. 
          AND PLEASE CONSIDER POSTPONING NANCY HARRIS ITEM 100 NANCY HARRIS. 
          CAN YOU PLEASE SPEAK UP? CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES. 
          GO AHEAD. 
          HELLO. 
          MY NAME IS NANCY HARRIS. 
          I'M SPEAKING ON ITEM 100. 
          THIS INTERSECTION WAS NEVER MEANT TO BE A STREET. 
          WHEN THE TOD WAS BEING PLANNED PARTY, THE AGREEMENT WAS THAT ONLY AN EMERGENCY ACCESS WOULD BE ALLOWED ON MAURO. 
          THE BAD BEHAVIOR STARTED ALMOST IMMEDIATELY. 
          WHEN THE DEVELOPER PUT IN A FULL BLOWN STREET, WHEN THEY BEGAN TO SELL HOMES, THEY WERE TOLD, TOLD BUYERS THAT THE GATE WAS ONLY TEMPORARY. 
          THEN SOCIAL MEDIA GOT INVOLVED. 
          AS PEOPLE MADE UP THEORIES OF WHY THE GATE WAS THERE, MOCKING AND RIDICULING THE PEOPLE WHO ONLY WANTED TO PROTECT THEIR HOMES AND FAMILIES. 
          THE BAD BEHAVIOR CONTINUED TO SOME PEOPLE BEGAN TO RESORT TO VANDALISM, THEN COMPLAINED THAT THE MONEY THE CITY SPENT TO REPAIR IT RATHER THAN FINDING OTHER WAYS TO DEAL WITH IT. 
          THE CITY DECIDED TO BREAK THEIR PROMISE TO THE RESIDENTS OF CRESTVIEW AND REMOVE THE GATE. 
          A STUDY WAS DONE DURING AND A HOLIDAY SEASON WITH BRENTWOOD ELEMENTARY CLOSED. 
          AND BEFORE ANYONE IN THE CITY WAS REALLY AWARE OF THE GATE WAS OPEN. 
          HOW DOES THIS STORY END? NO ONE CAN SAY FOR SURE, BUT ALREADY AT CERTAIN TIMES OF THE DAY, CARS BACK UP FOR BLOCKS AND PEOPLE ARE SUBJECTED TO THE POLLUTION OF IDLING CARS AND BLOCKED DRIVEWAYS. 
          IT DOESN'T BODE WELL. 
          YOU'RE STRIPPING US. 
          ONE OF THE FEW THINGS WE WERE ABLE TO NEGOTIATE WITH THIS DEVELOPER, IF HIS COUNCIL VOTES TO RESEND THE ORDINANCE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD NEGOTIATED, IT WILL BE REWARDING PAST BAD BEHAVIOR, AND WE'LL JOIN THE LONG LINE OF DECEITFUL CRIMINAL PROMISE, BRIGHT BREAKERS. 
          PLEASE DON'T DO THAT. 
          AND I HOPE THAT YOU WILL READ MY FULL SPEECH BECAUSE ONE MINUTE IS REALLY NOT ENOUGH TO GO INTO A LOT OF THE DETAILS THAT GO INTO THIS CASE. 
          THANK YOU, MAYOR. 
          THAT CONCLUDES REMOTE SPEAKERS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, COLLEAGUES. 
          THOSE ARE ALL THE SPEAKERS. 
          LET'S SEE IF WE 
          [ Zoning Consent Agenda]
CAN DO THE CONSENT, UM, ITEMS. JERRY WILL TAKE US THROUGH THOSE. 
          THE CONSENT AGENDA APPEARS TO BE A SONY CASES, 92 THROUGH ONE 20 AND 1 25. 
          UH, PERFECT. 
          TELL US WHICH TWO WANT YOU TO TAKE US THROUGH THEM? WHAT NEEDS TO BE PULLED? SURE. 
          UM, WHEN YOUR COUNSEL JERRY REST OVER THE HOUSING PLAN DEPARTMENT ITEM 92 IS CASE NPA 2020 2 0 0 1 9 0.01 DOT S H. 
          THIS CASE I CAN OFFER FOR CONSENT APPROVAL ON ALL THREE READINGS. 
          I DID REMEMBER 93 IS KC 14, 2020 2 0 0 1 NINE.SH. 
          I CAN OFFER THIS FOR CONSENT APPROVAL ON ALL THREE READINGS, 
          [04:05:02]
ITEM, 90 FORESTS CASE NPA 2020 1 0 0 25 0.02. 
          THIS IS A POSTPONEMENT REQUEST BY THE STAFF DID JUNE 16TH. 
          I'M NUMBER 95, KC 14, 2020 1 0 1 30. 
          THIS IS SUPPOSED TO PULLMAN REQUEST BY STAFF THAT JUNE 16TH, I HAVE NUMBER 96, C 1485 TO 88 DOT 23 PARENTHESES RCA. 
          THIS IS POSTPARTUM REQUESTS BY STAFF TO JUNE 16TH. 
          I DIDN'T KNOW MANY 97 IS KC 14, 2022 ZEROS 0 33. 
          I CAN OFFER THIS CASE FOR CONSENT APPROVAL ON ALL THREE READINGS I'VE NAMED THE AID IS CASEY 14, 2020 2 0 0 26. 
          I CAN OFFER THIS FOR CONSENT OR APPROVAL ON ALL THREE READINGS. 
          I'VE NEVER BEEN A NINE NIGHT IS KC 14, 2020 2 0 0 24 0 0 24. 
          CAN OFFER THIS FOR CONSENT APPROVAL ON ALL THREE READINGS ITEM NUMBER 100 IS KC 14, 2020 2 0 0 31. 
          I CAN OFFER THIS CASE FOR CONSENT APPROVAL ON FIRST READING, ONLY IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION FOR THE COUNCIL. 
          WE CAN BRING THIS BACK FOR A SECOND AND THIRD ON THE 16TH ITEM. 
          NUMBER 1 0 1 IS K C 14, 2020 2 0 0 45. 
          I CAN OFFER THIS FOR CONSENT APPROVAL ON ALL THREE READINGS. 
          I HAVE NUMBER 1 0 2 AND 1 0 3 OR THE 200 ACADEMY CASES AS WE HEARD EARLIER, THERE'S STILL NEGOTIATIONS ON. 
          AND SO I'LL HOLD THOSE FOR DISCUSSION ITEM. 
          NUMBER 1 0 4 IS CASE 2011. 
          I'M SORRY, CASE NPA 2020 0 0 1 5 DOT OH TWO.SH. 
          THIS BASIC OFFER FOR CONSENT APPROVAL. 
          ON FIRST READING ONLY ITEM 1 0 5 IS K C 14, 2020 2 0 0 0 8 DOT S H A. 
          THIS CASE DOES HAVE A VALID PETITION, BUT I CAN OFFER IT FOR CONSENT APPROVAL ON FRITZ READING ONLY I HAVE NUMBER 1 0 6, CASEY 14, 2020 ZERO. 
          ONE 50. 
          I CAN OFFER THIS CASE WITH OUR STAFF WAS WE REQUESTED JUNE 16TH, ITEM NUMBER 1 0 7 CASE MPA 2021 ZEROS OR ONE FIVE DOT OH THREE. 
          THIS IS POSTPONEMENT REQUESTS BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO JUNE 16TH. 
          ITEM NUMBER 1 0 8 HAS BEEN REPLACED BY ITEM NUMBER 1 25 ON YOUR AGENDA. 
          SO 1 0 8 IS WITHDRAWN BY THE STAFF. 
          1 0 9 IS CASE NPA 2020 100 0 1 5 0.04. 
          THIS IS POSTPONEMENT REQUEST BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT JUNE 16TH I HAVE NUMBER ONE, 10 IS KC 14, 2020 1 0 1 57. 
          THIS IS A POSTPONEMENT REQUESTED BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT JUNE 16TH, I DIDN'T WANT 11, C 14, 2020 1 0 1 94. 
          THIS IS A POSTPONED REQUEST BY THE STAFF TO JUNE 16TH. 
          ITEM NUMBER ONE, 12 IS C 14, 2020 0 1 43. 
          THIS IS A POSTPONEMENT REQUEST BY THE APPLICANT TO JUNE, JULY 28TH. 
          I HAVE NUMBER ONE 13, KC 14, 2020 1 0 1 79. 
          I CAN OFFER THIS CASE FOR CONSENT APPROVAL ON ALL THREE READINGS ITEM NUMBER ONE 14, KC 14, 2020 2 0 0 1 3. 
          THIS IS A POSTMAN REQUEST BY THE APPLICANT TO JUNE 16TH. 
          I'M NUMBER ONE 15  2020 1 0 1 61. 
          DISPOSABLE AND REQUESTS BY THAT JULY 28TH, ITEM NUMBER ONE, 16, THIS CASE C 14 AND 2020 1 0 180 9. 
          THIS IS A POSTPARTUM REQUEST BY THE APPLICANT TO JULY 28TH. 
          MAY I LIKE TO MOVE INTO THAT FOR INDEFINITE AND OPPOSING POSTPONEMENT ON THAT ONE ON WHICH ONE? ON ONE 16. 
          SO INDEFINITELY POSTPONEMENT ON ITEM NUMBER ONE 16. 
          I REMEMBER ONE 17 CASEY 14, 2020 1 0 180 8. 
          THIS IS POSTPONE REQUESTS BY THE STAFF TO JUNE 16TH. 
          I DIDN'T WANT 18 C 14, 2020 1,837. 
          I CAN OFFER THIS CASE FOR CONSENT READING ON SECOND READING ONLY. 
          UM, THIS CASE DOES HAVE A VALID PETITION. 
          THIS IS ONE OF THE 11TH AND 12TH STREET CASES. 
          SO SECOND, ONLY ON ONE 18 ITEM ONE 19 C 14, 2020 ONE HUNDRED, A HUNDRED THIRTY THREE. 
          SAME STORY OFF OF THIS FOR CONSENT APPROVAL. 
          ON SECOND READING ONLY THERE IS A VALID PETITION. 
          I DON'T REMEMBER ONE 20 IS A C 14 IN 2020 2 0 0 0 3. 
          I BELIEVE THAT A CUSTOMER AVAILA WOULD LIKE US TO DISCUSS THAT CASE. 
          AND FINALLY, ITEM NUMBER 1 25 ON THE ADDENDUM, THE C 14, 2020 1 0 1 58. 
          THIS IS THE POSTPONE REQUESTED BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE JUNE 16TH. 
          OKAY. 
          I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT. 
          WE WENT THROUGH. 
          SO I'M SAYING THAT YOU TOLD US DISCUSSION ITEMS ARE 1 0 2, 1 0 3 A AND ONE 20. 
          THAT IS CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          ON ONE 16, WE HAD SAID EARLIER, WE'RE GOING TO POSTPONE THAT TO JULY 28TH. 
          IS EVERYBODY IN AGREEMENT? UH, THAT'D BE POSTPONED INDEFINITELY. 
          I'M HAPPY TO EXPLAIN. 
          THIS IS THE THIRD POSTPONEMENT REQUEST BY, UM, THE APPLICANTS. 
          THEY HAVE DONE NOTHING IN THE INTERIM AND I THINK IT IS TIME TO POSTPONE IT AND DEFINITELY THEY CAN STILL READ, START THEIR ZONING CASE AND PAY THE $300. 
          BUT THEY'RE WASTING OUR TIME RIGHT NOW BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT, 
          [04:10:01]
UM, FOLLOWING THROUGH ON THINGS. 
          ARE THEY HERE WITH US? THEY'RE HERE. 
          OKAY, GOOD. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          CAN WE, OKAY, SO WE'RE GOING TO PULL ONE 16, MAKE THAT DISCUSSION ITEMS. SO THEY HAVE A CHANCE TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL. 
          THAT'S FINE. 
          OKAY, SO THEY'LL PULL THE ITEMS ARE 1 0 2, 1 0 3, 1 16 AND ONE 20. 
          MY NEXT QUESTION IS WE HAD PULLED THE ITEMS, UM, ITEM 86. 
          WE'RE NOT MOVING ON UNTIL WE HEAR 1 18 1 19. 
          THAT CORRECT. 
          WE'RE GOING TO BE POSTPONING THOSE I'M SORRY, BUT WE'LL BE POSTPONING 1 18 1 19. 
          OKAY. 
          I DON'T THINK SO. 
           86. 
          IT'S 86. 
          WE'LL HAVE A STAFF POSTPONEMENT REQUEST TO 7 28. 
          OKAY. 
          I'M CONFUSED WHEN 18 ONE TIME SEEN ARE, ARE, HAVE A VALID PETITION, SECOND READING, BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT POSTPONING 1 18 1 19. 
          YES, MAYOR THE, SO THE ONE IS THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          OKAY. 
          FOR THE URBAN PLAN, RIGHT? URBAN RENEWAL PLAN. 
          THE OTHER TWO ARE THE ZONING CASES. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO DO RIGHT NOW IS TO PROVE THE TWO ZONING CASES ON SECOND READING, OLD LAKE, RIGHT. 
          AND TO POSTPONE THE URBAN RENEWAL PLAN PUBLIC HEARING AGAIN, AND WHAT WE CAME BACK FOR THE CASE ON, UM, THIRD READING FOR THE ZONING CASES, WE WOULD OFFER UP THE URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR ALL THREE READINGS. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          YOU HAD SOME YES. 
          AS AREN'T THERE YET. 
          YEAH. 
          ON MY ONE 13, I RECOMMEND THAT WE JUST A BOAT ON THE FIRST REVIEW. 
          NOW ME, UH, WE GOT SOME LAID BACK UP, UH, SOME, SOME CONCERNS FROM, UH, CAPITAL METRO. 
          UM, AND, UH, I JUST WANNA HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH THEM TO SEE WHAT IS THEIR CONCERN. 
          SO ONE 13 BEING JUST ON FIRST READING ONLY IS THE APP GROUP. 
          IS THE APPLICANT HERE? YES. 
          THEIR HERE. 
          BUT IS IT, ARE THEY OKAY WITH THAT OR WANTED THIS POLL FOR DISCUSSION? THEY'RE OKAY. 
          THEY'RE OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          SO A ONE 13, IT WOULD BE JUST FIRST READING ON LIKE ONE 18 AND ONE 19 OR CONSENT. 
          SECOND READING ONLY. 
          OKAY. 
          SO MAYOR WITH REGARD TO THE GO VALLEY CASE THAT WE JUST DISCUSSED A ONE 13 CAME BACK FOR FIRST READING ONLY. 
          YES. 
          UH, WENT TO RIO. 
          WOULD YOU LIKE US TO BRING THAT CASE BACK ON THE 16TH FOR SECOND AND THIRD? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          BACK ON THE 16TH OF JUNE MAYOR PRO TEM HMM. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER INTERVIEW, I APPRECIATE YOU MAKING THAT FOR FIRST READING. 
          I'M UNCOMFORTABLE WITH VOTING ON THIS WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE DAYCARE. 
          SO I'D LIKE TO BE SEEN AS VOTING NO ON THAT FOR NOW. 
          AND, AND I WILL ALSO LIKE TO GET, YOU KNOW, ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR THAT CASE FOR NEXT WEEK. 
          YES. 
          WE DID RECEIVE THE ACAT METRO ALERT TODAY AND WE UPLOADED IT TODAY. 
          SO IT'S IN THE BACKUP RIGHT NOW. 
          SO IS THERE ANY EMOTION WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO DISCUSS IT? IS THERE A VOTE, IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA? SO WHEN YOU CAN SEND US ITEMS 92 TO ONE 20 AND 1 25, AND WHAT WE'RE PULLING FROM THAT, OR ONE OR TWO, ONE OF THE THREE, UH, ONE 16 AND ONE 20, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER HOPPER. 
          MADISON MAKES THAT MOTION. 
          IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION OVER IN 30 SECONDS? ALL RIGHT. 
          FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. 
          HOWEVER, TOA, YEAH, THIS, THIS MAY NECESSITATE GOING BACK TO THE MINUTES THAT WE APPROVED THIS MORNING, BUT I'M LOOKING AT, I'M LOOKING AT HOW ONE 18 AND ONE 19 WERE CAPTURED IN THE MINUTES HERE. 
          AND IT DOES NOT REFLECT MY VOTE AGAINST ADDING AGAINST ONE OF THE AMENDMENT. 
          I UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S, UM, THAT IT WAS PASSED ON APPROVAL AND IT WAS AN AMENDMENT. 
          BUT IF THERE'S A WAY TO MAKE THE MINUTES REFLECT MY, MY DISAPPROVAL ON FIRST READING OF, UH, OF THE AMENDMENT THAT WAS OFFERED FOR COCKTAIL LOUNGE, ALLOWING COCKTAIL LOUNGES ON 12TH, I'D LIKE THAT TO BE REFLECTED. 
          AND, AND MAYOR, I'M GOING TO VOTE AGAINST THAT PORTION OF THIS ITEM AS WELL. 
          THIS TIME I AGREE WITH, WITH THE SPEAKERS AND WITH THE OTHER COMMENT, THE OTHER FOLKS WHO HAVE COMMENTED THAT ADDING IN, ADDING IN COCKTAIL LOUNGE, UM, AS A CONDITIONAL USE ALONG 12TH STREET IS JUST NOT SOMETHING I CAN SUPPORT. 
          OKAY. 
          BECAUSE OVER TOE IS BEING RECORDED AS BEING A NO-VOTE ON 1 18, 1 19 FOR THE DISCUSSION. 
          NO VOTE JUST ON THE, ON THE PIECE OF THAT, THAT, UM, REFLECTS COCKTAIL LUNCHES ON ONE 18, WHICH IS 12TH STREET, WHICH IS THE 12TH STREET PIECE. 
          OKAY. 
          I'M NOT PUTTING AGAINST AN ENTIRELY, 
          [04:15:01]
BUT I'M REGISTERING MY FORMAL OBJECTION TO THE PIECE OF IT THAT WAS ADDED IN AS AN AMENDMENT LAST TIME ON THE DYESS FOR A COCKTAIL LUNCH. 
          RIGHT? SO THE RECORD WILL REFLECT THAT THERE JUST ONE VOTE ON THIS, NOT IN PIECES. 
          I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS CONTENTIOUS ENOUGH THAT I WOULD LIKE TO, I WOULD LIKE TO VOTE AGAINST THAT PORTION OF WHAT WE'RE APPROVING HERE TODAY. 
          I MEAN, I COULD SPLIT THE DIFFERENCE. 
          I MEAN, I COULD SPLIT, I COULD SPLIT IT OUT. 
          I COULD MAKE AN AMENDMENT, BUT IT, UNLESS THERE'S, UM, OTHER SUPPORT ON THE DIASPORA REMOVING THAT PORTION, I'M SIMPLY GOING TO ASK THAT THE MINUTES REFLECT MY OPPOSITION TO THE COCKTAIL LOUNGE USE ON 12TH STREET. 
          CAUSE WE'RE KELLY IT'S OKAY. 
          I'D LIKE TO ASK COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO IF SHE COULD HELP US UNDERSTAND HOW SHE GOT TO THAT CONCLUSION. 
          I KNOW THAT YOU MENTIONED IT'S CONTENTIOUS, BUT JUST FOR MY OWN UNDERSTANDING AND THAT OF OUR CONSTITUENTS, THAT MIGHT CHANGE MY MIND AS WELL. 
          YEAH. 
          I TALKED ABOUT IT A LITTLE BIT MORE LAST TIME AND, UM, CAN CERTAINLY TALK ABOUT IT MORE BETWEEN SECOND AND THIRD MEETING WITH YOU OFF THE DIOCESE. 
          BUT, YOU KNOW, AS I MENTIONED LAST TIME, I THINK THERE'S, I MEAN, AS, AS THE COUNCIL MEMBER WHO REPRESENTS SEVERAL ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICTS, I ALSO SHARE THE CONCERN THAT SOME OF THE NEARBY NEIGHBORS HAVE EXPRESSED THAT ALLOWING THAT, YOU KNOW, THE ORIGINALLY THE NCCD DID NOT HAVE THAT AS A HEDGED ON THERE. 
          THE ENCOURAGEMENT IS FOR, UM, NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES FOR OTHER KINDS OF THINGS, SUPPORTING, SUPPORTING, UM, THE RESIDENTS OF THAT AREA. 
          AND THAT, THAT THERE'S A STRONG INTEREST IN AND MAKING SURE THAT THIS AREA DOES NOT TURN INTO AN ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT AND I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THAT AND THE ORIGINAL PLANNING OBJECTIVES FOR THAT AREA. 
          AND WE ALSO HAD A SPEAKER, I THINK IT WAS MR. JANSEN WHO TALKED ABOUT THE FACT THAT THAT WAS NOT, YOU KNOW, THAT WAS AN AMENDMENT THAT WAS ADDED NOT BY THE URBAN RENEWAL BOARD OR THROUGH ANY OF THE OTHER, UM, APPROVAL PROCESSES THAT HAPPENED BEFORE IT CAME TO THE DIOCESE. 
          THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS ADDED IN THAT WAS AN INTERESTING DEBATE. 
          AS I RECALL, SOME OF THE RESIDENTS OF THAT AREA THAT GO BACK A LITTLE BIT EARLIER THAN THE CURRENT RESIDENTS ON THAT TALKED ABOUT THE CULTURE AND THE HISTORY OF THAT AREA, HAVING A SMALL CLUBS IN THAT AREA AND HAVING OUR OWN AND WAS ASKING THAT, UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD BE ALLOWED TO RETURN TO, UH, WHAT A TRADITIONALLY HAD BEEN. 
          UM, SO WE HAVE, WE HAVE DIFFERENT GENERATIONS OF RESIDENTS, UH, SPEAKING OF, OF SAVING DIFFERENT NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS, COUNCIL MEMBER POOL. 
          I WAS OUT OF TOWN WHEN THIS WAS FOR FIRST READING. 
          SO I WASN'T HERE FOR THAT CONVERSATION, BUT I, I TEND TO AGREE WITH, UM, COUNCIL MEMBER TOBO WITH REGARD TO THE ENTERTAINMENT ASPECTS. 
          UM, IF MAY OR THERE WERE A WAY THAT WE COULD ENSURE THAT IN FACT, HOW THESE SMALL OWNERS, IF THEY ARE SMALL OWNERS, I THINK THERE'S A BIG, A BIG OWNER THAT OWNS ALL OF THOSE PROPERTIES. 
          IT'S NOT IN FACT MOM AND POPS OWNING THOSE PROPERTIES ANYMORE, BUT IF THERE WERE A WAY TO ENSURE THAT YOU GET BACK TO THE WAY IT WAS, UH, THAT, THAT THE RESIDENT WAS DISCUSSING, THAT MIGHT BE, THAT MIGHT REALLY BE SIGNIFICANT. 
          AND I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW HOW WE DO THAT. 
          UM, BUT I JOINED MY COLLEAGUE AND EXPRESSING CONCERNS, UM, ABOUT THE, THE POTENTIAL FOR THE ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT THAT CIRCLES AROUND HAVING A PROLIFERATION OF, OF BARS. 
          AND I KNOW THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS ON SIXTH STREET, FOR EXAMPLE, AND WE'VE GOT SOME CASES IN FRONT OF US THAT WILL, THAT WILL BE ATTEMPTING BY THEIR USE OF THOSE PROPERTIES TO, UM, MAKE THE AREAS, UM, LESS VIOLENT AND MA MAYBE MORE FAMILY FRIENDLY. 
          SO I, IN THE CONTEXT OF SOME OF THESE OTHER CASES THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, I, I TEND TO AGREE WITH COUNCIL MEMBER TOMA. 
          SO FOR THAT PORTION, I WOULD LIKE TO ALSO REGISTER MY OBJECTION. 
          I DON'T HAVE A CONCERN WITH THE, I DON'T, I'M NOT VOTING AGAINST THE ENTIRE CASE, JUST RECORD OR NOTE YOUR OPPOSITION TO THE ALCOHOLIC THERE AS WELL. 
          REMEMBER HARPER, MADISON. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I APPRECIATE IT. 
          UM, COUNCIL MEMBER KELLY, I'D LIKE VERY MUCH TO EXPAND UPON SOME OF THE CHARACTERIZATION THAT'S TAKING PLACE. 
          CURRENTLY. 
          I WOULD SAY THAT RESPECTFULLY IT'S IT'S INACCURATE, UM, INCLUDING, UH, YOU KNOW, THE OVER 500 PEOPLE THAT COMPLETED THE SURVEY WE DISTRIBUTED. 
          UM, I'D LIKE VERY MUCH TO PUT SOME EMPHASIS ON THE FACT THAT THERE WAS IN FACT, SOME DEEP COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT. 
          AND I'VE HEARD FROM SOME FOLKS HERE TODAY THAT, UM, NEIGHBORS ON 13TH STREET HAD THEIR DOORS KNOCKED DOWN AND I CAN ASSURE YOU, I DIDN'T GET MY KNOCKED ON. 
          UM, I THINK SOME FOLKS WHO LIVE ON THE SAME STREET WITH ME LITERALLY DON'T KNOW THAT THEY'RE MY NEIGHBORS, UM, WHICH IS INTERESTING. 
          UM, THAT SAID THOUGH, I, UH, I, I WANNA JUST MAKE SURE TO PUT EMPHASIS ON FACT THAT WHAT WE'RE SAYING WE'RE GOING TO DO HERE IS THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. 
          THERE'S LITERALLY NOBODY ASKING CURRENTLY TO TURN AN ESTABLISHMENT ON 12TH STREET, INTO A BAR OR A COCKTAIL LOUNGE. 
          UM, WHAT WE'RE ATTEMPTING TO DO WITH THIS ADDITION IS OPEN UP THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO, WHICH ALSO INCLUDES A PROCESS, A PUBLIC PROCESS, 
          [04:20:01]
AND A PROCESS WHERE COUNCIL HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAY YES OR NO. 
          UM, AND THIS IS THE SAME, IT REFLECTS WHAT'S HAPPENING ON 11TH STREET, AND THERE'S LITERALLY ONLY ONE BAR OF 11TH STREET. 
          SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE AREN'T CONFUSING, UM, THE OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE TO HAVE THIS CONDITIONAL USE AS A CARTE BLANCHE PERMISSION FOR, UM, FOR ESTABLISHMENTS ON EAST 12TH STREET TO BECOME BARS. 
          IT DIDN'T HAPPEN ON 11TH AND IT WON'T HAPPEN ON 12TH EITHER. 
          SO I, I REALLY DO THINK, YOU KNOW, AS, AS TIME PROGRESSES AND MY M I HOPE THAT THIS ITEM PASSES AND I THINK AS TIME PROGRESSES PEOPLE, THEIR FEARS WILL BE ASSUAGED. 
          I THINK THEY'LL RECOGNIZE THAT THAT WHAT THEY WERE AFRAID OF IS NOT, WHAT'S GOING TO MATERIALIZE THAT'S AND COLLEAGUES, THANK YOU FOR YOUR FEEDBACK ON THIS NOW THAT I, YOU KNOW, COMPLETELY HAVE A PICTURE OF WHAT'S GOING ON. 
          I THINK THERE IS THAT FEAR THAT WHAT'S HAPPENING IN OUR CURRENT ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICTS COULD HAPPEN IN OTHER PLACES, BUT WE'RE NOT EVEN AT THE POINT WHERE THAT COULD HAPPEN. 
          AND I THINK AS A CITY, ONCE WE GET TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY HAVING, WE CAN USE THAT AS A WAY TO PREVENT IT FROM HAPPENING IN OTHER AREAS. 
          AND SO I REALLY APPRECIATE THE CONVERSATION HERE ABOUT THIS. 
          YOU GUYS ARE AT THE RIO THINKING MARIJUANA AT THE PERSON THAT I'M ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, UH, YOU KNOW, GREW UP IN THAT AREA AND, AND KNOW THAT EVERYWHERE VERY WELL, UH, YOU KNOW, RIGHT THERE ON 12TH. 
          AND SHE GONE TWO BLOCKS EITHER WAY, WHAT THE ENTERTAINMENT AREA OF THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          AND, UH, I HATE TO SEE IT DISAPPEAR. 
          I THINK THAT WE SHOULD, YOU KNOW, PROVIDE THE OPTIONS FOR THAT, FOR THAT COMMUNITY TO HAVE THE ENTERTAINMENT AND ACTIVITY THAT THEY HAD BEFORE. 
          AND I THINK IT WOULD BE, UH, A REAL BIG POSITIVE STEP. 
          I MEAN, WHERE DID WE HAVE THESE BARS THERE ON, UH, ON, UH, ON 11TH STREET, YOU GOT BIG CREEK WHEEL AND YOU DON'T HEAR ANYBODY THERE'S HOUSES RIGHT BEHIND THERE, AND WE DON'T HEAR THAT KIND OF PROTEST OR SO I THINK WE'D BE BIG AND A BIG MISTAKE. 
          WE DON'T ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN. 
          OKAY. 
          COUNSEL, MAPPER, TEMP. 
          UM, THANK YOU. 
          UM, I'M GOING TO VOTE FOR THIS TODAY, BUT I DID WANT TO JUST ASK IF I COULD GET SOME CLARITY FROM, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER, HEPPER MADISON. 
          UM, I THINK LAST TIME I HAD ASKED YOU, I BELIEVE IT'S ON 12TH STREET, IT'S LIMITED TO 3,500 SQUARE FEET, BUT 11TH STREET DOESN'T HAVE THAT LIMIT. 
          AND I WAS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHY THAT CHOICE WAS MADE, UNDERSTAND THAT IN BOTH CASES, IT'S THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, WHICH I APPRECIATE PROVIDES, UM, THE OPPORTUNITY AND, UM, PROCEEDED TO BELIEVE WITH THE REST OF THE CHANGES. 
          THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE MORE USES THAN SIMPLY BARS IN THIS AREA. 
          SO IT'S A DIFFERENT TYPE OF AREA THAT, THAT, THAT RESULTS. 
          UM, BUT COULD YOU EXPLAIN THAT DIFFERENCE OR, AND IF YOU DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE EXPLAINING IT TODAY, CAN YOU PLEASE BE SURE TO HAVE THAT READY FOR WHEN IT COMES BACK FOR THIRD READING? I WOULD ABSOLUTELY APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO, TO EXPLAIN AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS WHEN IT COMES BACK. 
          I'M HESITANT TO CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION NOW BECAUSE THE OVER A DOZEN PEOPLE WHO WANTED TO COME TODAY AND SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE ITEM, I ENCOURAGED THEM NOT TO. 
          UM, BECAUSE WE RECOGNIZE THAT THE ITEM WAS GOING TO COME BACK AGAIN ON THE 26TH, IN WHICH CASE, UM, I THINK THE ROBUST DISCUSSION AND DIALOGUE SHOULD HAPPEN THEN. 
          YEAH, THAT'S FINE. 
          IF YOU WANT TO ANSWER IT, THEN I JUST, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I DO GET AN ANSWER BEFORE WE HAVE EVEN I KNOW ABOUT THANK YOU. 
          IT'S BEEN POSTED. 
          OKAY. 
          RECORD WE'LL NOTE THAT THERE'S BEEN A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, AND LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A, VOTE THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. 
          PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. 
          THOSE OPPOSED THAT UNANIMOUS WITH THE NOTATIONS OF, UH, UH, UH, INTENT ON SPECIFIC ITEMS, NOTED, UH, COLLEAGUES, UH, LET'S, 
          [executive Session (Part 2 of 2)]
UH, TAKE A BREAK HERE NOW AND, UH, GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS THE LAST ITEMS. WHAT ARE GOING TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION TO TAKE UP TWO ITEMS PURSUANT TO FIVE AUTO SEVEN, ONE OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSED LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO ITEM 66 AND 80, WHICH ARE THE, UH, RELAXED COMPATIBILITY AND THE, UH, BMU ITEM NUMBER 90, UH, HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN ITEM NUMBER 65 WAS ADDRESSED THIS MORNING. 
          HOW WITHOUT OBJECTION, WE'LL GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. 
          WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT REMOTELY. 
          LET'S SEE IF WE CAN ALL BE ONLINE IN FIVE MINUTES. 
          [Proclamation 2]
          [04:25:22]
SO WE ARE, WE'RE IN, WE'RE IN THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING ALL DAY, AND WE PROBABLY HAVE ANOTHER 20 THINGS TO GET, TO START A LITTLE ABOUT 10 O'CLOCK AND WHO KNOWS HOW LATE WE'RE GOING TO GO, BUT IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT FOR US TO STOP WHAT WE'RE DOING TO, TO RECOGNIZE REAL SIGNIFICANT, UH, ACHIEVEMENTS HAPPENING IN OUR CITY. 
          AND WE HAVE A TEAM HERE THAT JUST MADE, UH, MADE, MADE THE ENTIRE CITY PROUD. 
          UH, WE WERE ALL FOLLOWING ALONG AS, AS, AS YOU WERE WORKING YOUR WAY THROUGH. 
          UH, AND WE WANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT HERE TODAY, COACH, WHEREAS LIKE TRAVIS HIGH SCHOOL IS A TRAVIS COUNTY SCHOOL THAT PRIDES ITSELF ON ACHIEVING ACADEMIC AND ATHLETIC EXCELLENCE. 
          AND WHEREAS THE CITY OF AUSTIN VALUES THE PROMOTION AND SUPPORT THE STUDENT ATHLETES IN THE COMMUNITY THAT REPRESENT FAIR, PLAY, HARD WORK AND ACHIEVEMENT. 
          AND WHEREAS THE CITY OF AUSTIN IS HOME TO THE PROFESSIONAL SOCCER CLUB, AUSTIN FCC, WHICH IS SUPPORTED BY THE MOST VIBRANT, PASSIONATE, AND DIVERSE SOCCER FANS IN THE COUNTRY. 
          AND WHEREAS LAKE TRAVIS HIGH SCHOOL MEN'S SOCCER TEAM HAS BEEN ONE OF THE MOST CONSISTENTLY SUCCESSFUL HIGH SCHOOL'S SOCCER PROGRAMS IN THE HIGHEST SOCCER DIVISION IN THE STATE OF TEXAS OVER THE PAST DECADE. 
          AND WHEREAS LAKE TRAVIS HIGH SCHOOL MEN'S SOCCER TEAM, THE CAVALIERS UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF COACH DAVID BAMMO AND HIS COACHING STAFF WENT 24 AND THREE DURING THE 2022 REGULAR SEASON WINNING THE DISTRICT AND REGIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP AND WINNING THE 2022 UIL SIX, A TEXAS STATE CHAMPIONSHIP AND WHEREAS LAKE TRAVIS KAVALIER MEN'S SOCCER TEAM BECAME THE FIRST AUSTIN AREA BOYS TEAM IN THE HISTORY OF UIL HIGH SCHOOL SOCCER TO WIN A STATE CHAMPIONSHIP AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF HIGH SCHOOL SOCCER. 
          AND WHEREAS 15 VARSITY PLAYERS ON THE LAKE, TRAVIS CAVALIER MEN'S SOCCER TEAM EARNED ALL STATE ACADEMIC HONORS AND 21 VARSITY PLAYERS EARNED ALL DISTRICT ACADEMIC HONORS. 
          AND WHEREAS THE LAKE TRAVIS CAVALIERS, HISTORIC ACHIEVEMENT SERVES AS AN INSPIRATION FOR YOUNG STUDENTS AND SOCCER PLAYERS ACROSS THE CITY THAT HAS UNITED THE CITY AND SUPPORT OF THE TEAM AND THEIR SUCCESS, BOTH ON THE FIELD AND OFF OF IT. 
          NOW, THEREFORE I, STEVE ADLER MAYOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS, TOGETHER WITH MY COLLEAGUE COUNCIL MEMBER,  OTHER MEMBERS COLLEAGUES ON THE CITY COUNCIL DO HEREBY PROCLAIM, JUNE 9TH, 2022 AS LAKE TRAVIS HIGH SCHOOL CAVALIERS MEN'S SOCCER TEAM DAY IN AUSTIN, TEXAS. 
          SURE. 
          UM, THANK YOU SO MUCH, MAYOR AND C COUNCIL IS, UH, IT'S AN HONOR TO BE ABLE TO BE UP HERE AND TO BE ABLE TO REPRESENT THE AUSTIN SOCCER COMMUNITY, UH, IN SUCH A POSITIVE MANNER. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, I, I CAN'T SAY THANK YOU ENOUGH TO THE ATHLETES AND ALL THEIR HARD WORK, UM, ACADEMICALLY AND OUT THERE ON THE FIELD. 
          UM, AND THANK YOU TO THEIR PARENTS FOR ALL OF THEIR TIME AND EFFORTS OF MAKING SURE THAT THESE, THESE GUYS HAVE STAYED DEDICATED OVER THE YEARS AND HAVE, UM, COME TO ME WITH, UM, THE DRIVE AND DEDICATION TO WANT TO BE SUCCESSFUL. 
          AND SO I COULD BE MORE PROUD AS A COACH TO BE ABLE TO REPRESENT THEM AND TO BE ABLE TO, UM, LEAD THEM THROUGH SUCH A, A GREAT, UH, MONUMENTOUS OCCASION AND THE SUCCESS OF THIS SEASON. 
          AND WE HOPE THAT, UM, THE LEGACY THAT WE'RE LEAVING IS SOMETHING THAT, UM, CAN CONTINUE ON DOWN THE ROAD AND THAT EVERYBODY CAN BE PROUD OF. 
          SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH TO EVERYBODY FOR THEIR SUPPORT. 
          [04:30:03]
 GOOD. 
          HANG ON A SEC. 
           PERFECT. 
          PERFECT. 
          SURE. 
           THAT'S ALL RIGHT. 
          THEY CAN COME OVER HERE. 
           GOOD 
          [Proclamation 3]
EVENING. 
          IF YOU'RE HERE FOR GUN VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH, IF YOU WANT TO COME JOIN US UP HERE, PLEASE. 
           MORE AND MORE PEOPLE HERE. 
          OKAY, GOOD EVENING. 
          MY NAME IS ALISON ALTER AND I'M PROUD TO SERVE AS MAYOR PRO TEM OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, AND TO REPRESENT DISTRICT 10 CENTRAL NORTHWEST AUSTIN ON THE CITY COUNCIL. 
          UM, TODAY AND TONIGHT, WE ARE GOING TO MARK, UH, GUN VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH IN AUSTIN. 
          UM, THIS HAS BEEN A CHALLENGING TIME, YOU KNOW, THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS HAVE BEEN CHALLENGING. 
          UM, BUT THE LAST SEVERAL WEEKS HAVE BEEN REALLY HEAVY FOR THOSE OF US WHO ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE PROLIFERATION OF GUNS AND INCREASED GUN VIOLENCE IN OUR COMMUNITY AS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL, I'M STUNNED BY THE FACT THAT I CAN NO LONGER NAME THE NUMBER OF MASS SHOOTINGS, WHERE I'VE HAD TO OFFER CONDOLENCES FOR THE OTHER CITIES. 
          AND I'VE ONLY BEEN IN OFFICE A LITTLE OVER FIVE YEARS. 
          MY FIRST WEEK AT CITY HALL, ONE OF MY STAFF MEMBERS LOST A CLOSE RELATIVE IN A HORRIBLE GUN AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RELATED INCIDENT. 
          AS A FRIEND, I'VE HAD TO FIND THE WORDS TO CONSOLE AFTER A MENTALLY ILL PARENT, TWICE MANAGED TO GET A GUN. 
          AND WITH THE SECOND PURCHASE HURT HER HUSBAND BEFORE TAKING HER OWN LIFE. 
          AS A MOTHER, I'VE HAD TO HOLD MY BREATH WHEN MY TEENAGE DAUGHTER STEPPED OUT OF MY CAR IN THE SCHOOL PARKING LOT, AS I FIGURED OUT HOW TO LET GO AFTER AN ACTIVE SHOOTER THREAT AT HER HIGH SCHOOL, THE LAST SEVERAL WEEKS WITH THE MASS SHOOTINGS WITH EVOLVE DAY AND BUFFALO 
          [04:35:01]
AND THE DOZENS ARE THERE. 
          I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY OVER THE LAST WEEKEND. 
          UM, IT'S BEEN TOUGH. 
          IT'S BEEN REALLY, REALLY TOUGH TO LOOK AT THE GUN VIOLENCE. 
          UM, BUT I AM CHOOSING HOPE AND I AM CHOOSING ACTION AT THE LOCAL LEVEL. 
          EACH OF US HAS COMMITTED AND WILL CONTINUE TO ADVOCATE AT THE STATE AND FEDERAL LEVEL FOR GUN RESPONSIBILITY AND FOR GUN SAFETY. 
          BUT WE ARE GOING TO KEEP MARCHING ON THE PATH THAT WE HAVE SET FOR OURSELVES AS A COMMUNITY OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS AND TAKE LOCAL ACTION YESTERDAY. 
          I TOOK HOPE IN THE 65 PLUS ELECTED OFFICIALS, LAW ENFORCEMENT, UM, MEMBERS AND COMMUNITY LEADERS WHO JOINED US DURING THE, FOR A SUMMIT ON GUN VIOLENCE THAT I HOSTED WITH DA GARZA, WHO IS WITH US WITH MAYOR ADLER AND JUDGE BROWN. 
          WE TALKED FOR HOURS, FRANKLY, ABOUT THE CHALLENGES THAT WE HAVE IN OUR COMMUNITY, UM, AND THE OPPORTUNITIES THAT WE HAVE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A STRATEGY BASED IN DATA GROUNDED IN OUR SURVIVORS, LOOKING TO WHAT WE CAN DO TO INTERRUPT VIOLENCE AND MAKING SURE THAT OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS TO, UH, AFFECT GUN VIOLENCE ARE STRONG AND MOVING FORWARD, EVERYONE IN THE ROOM, WE HAD THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. 
          WE HAD SEVERAL COUNCIL MEMBERS. 
          WE COULD NOT INCLUDE EVERYONE, BUT I'M SURE THAT ALL OF MY COLLEAGUES WOULD HAVE BEEN THERE. 
          COURT COMMISSIONERS, JUDGES. 
          UM, WE HAD COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM OTHER CITIES IN TRAVIS COUNTY. 
          WE HAD, UM, THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, UM, LOTS AND LOTS OF FOLKS WERE TOGETHER AND EVERYONE IS UNITED IN OUR EFFORTS THAT WE NEED TO BUILD UP OUR ECOSYSTEM. 
          WE EACH HAVE OUR PART, BUT WE ALSO NEED TO DO IT COLLECTIVELY. 
          AND I'M PROUD THAT WE AT THE CITY OF AUSTIN ARE LEADING THE WAY WITH OUR OFFICE OF VIOLENCE PREVENTION, UM, WHICH WAS LAUNCHED AFTER RECOMMENDATION OF OUR GUN TASK FORCE FROM 2019, A PROCESS THAT I INITIATED WITH MY COLLEAGUES IN THE 2020 BUDGET. 
          WE'RE ALREADY MAKING THOSE INVESTMENTS. 
          WE ARE POISED TO GET A GUN PROBLEM ANALYSIS BACK IN THE NEXT SEVERAL MONTHS THAT WILL GUIDE OUR STRATEGIC PLAN. 
          SO WE CAN BE FOCUSED STRATEGIC ABOUT GUN VIOLENCE IN OUR COMMUNITY. 
          AND THE THING ABOUT GUN VIOLENCE IN OUR COMMUNITY IS IT LOOKS MORE LIKE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, SUICIDE, UH, INTERPERSONAL CONFLICT THAT ESCALATES TO A SHOOTER LEADING TO A DEATH OR A ACCIDENTAL DISCHARGE OF A GUN. 
          THOSE ARE PROBLEMS THAT WE CAN BEGIN TO TACKLE CAN CONTINUE TO TACKLE. 
          YES, IT WOULD BE EASIER IF THERE WEREN'T ACCESS TO GUNS, BUT THERE'S STILL MUCH REALLY IMPORTANT WORK THAT WE CAN DO. 
          SO TODAY I WANT TO OFFER, UM, THIS PROCLAMATION, BE IT KNOWN THAT WHEREAS GUN VIOLENCE, THE AFTERMATH OF GUN VIOLENCE AND THE THREAT OF GUN VIOLENCE IMPACT EVERY MEMBER OF AN EFFECTED COMMUNITY. 
          AND WHEREAS AS OF JUNE OF 2022, THERE'VE BEEN MORE MASS SHOOTINGS IN THE UNITED STATES THAN DAYS IN THE YEAR, INCLUDING THE MAY 24TH SHOOTING AT ROBB ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IN  TEXAS, THAT CLAIMED 21 LIVES. 
          AND WHEREAS IMPROPER HOUSEHOLD GUN STORAGE CAN LEAD TO SUICIDE, ACCIDENTAL GUN, DEATH, AND MURDER. 
          AND WHEREAS HALF OF FEMALE HOMICIDES COMMITTED BY AN INTIMATE PARTNER, I BY FIREARM. 
          AND WHEREAS WE DON'T HAVE TO LIVE LIKE THIS TOGETHER, WE CAN, AND WE WILL. 
          AND GUN VIOLENCE. 
          NOW, THEREFORE I MAYOR PRO TEM, ALISON ALTER ON BEHALF OF STEVE ADLER, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, MY COLLEAGUES ON THE CITY COUNCIL, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, THE CHIEF OF POLICE AND THE MANY OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE HERE TODAY TO RECOGNIZE THIS DO HEREBY PROCLAIM JUNE, 2022 AS GUN VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH IN AUSTIN. 
          I'D NOW LIKE TO INVITE UP KIMBERLY GUTIERREZ FROM COMMUNITY JUSTICE ACTION FUND, TO SAY A FEW BRIEF REMARKS, SHE'LL BE FOLLOWED BY ROBIN BREED OF MOMS DEMAND ACTION AND NICOLE GOLDEN OF TEXAS GUN SENSE. 
          ALL OF WHOM ARE GOING TO BE BRIEF. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          MAYOR PRO TEM ALTAR MAYOR ADLER AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FOR HAVING ME HERE TODAY. 
          MY NAME IS KIM GUTIERREZ AND I WORK FOR THE COMMUNITY JUSTICE ACTION FUND. 
          I LIVE IN AUSTIN AND 
          [04:40:01]
OUR WORK AT CJSF IS TO BUILD POWER WITH, AND FOR COMMUNITIES OF COLOR TO END GUN VIOLENCE. 
          I WANT TO FIRST THINK MAYOR PRO TEM FOR HER LEADERSHIP AND CONSTANT SUPPORT FOR THE ISSUE OF GUN VIOLENCE OVER MANY YEARS, OUR TEAM IS HONORED TO WORK WITH YOU AND THE CREATION OF THE OFFICE OF VIOLENCE PREVENTION IN 2022. 
          AND WE'RE GRATEFUL FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE EFFORTS THAT WE ARE STARTING TO PUT FORTH. 
          AS YOU WILL KNOW, VIOLENCE HAVE BEEN CONSTANT IN BLACK AND LATINEX COMMUNITIES. 
          THE MASSACRES OF RECENT WEEKS IN VALDA AND BUFFALO ARE EXAMPLES OF THIS DISEASE ON THE RISE COMMUNITY JUSTICE ACTION FUND WORKS AROUND THE CLOCK TO ENSURE THAT THE FOLKS MOST IMPACTED BY GUN VIOLENCE BY THE GUN VIOLENCE EPIDEMIC ARE CENTERED AND ARE ELEVATING THE CURES. 
          AND SPECIFICALLY HAVE WORKED HAND IN HAND WITH PARTNERS LIKE THE AUSTIN OFFICE OF VIOLENCE PREVENTION TO SUPPORT THEIR EFFORTS AND ADVOCATE FOR LOCAL STATE AND FEDERAL DOLLARS TO BUILD AN ECOSYSTEM OF COMMUNITY SAFETY THROUGH CVI AND OTHER COMMUNITY LED STRATEGY STRATEGIES. 
          WE DO SO BECAUSE WE ARE GROUNDED IN THE LIVED EXPERIENCE TO KNOW THAT DOING NOTHING HAS NEVER BEEN AN OPTION FOR PEOPLE WHO LOOK LIKE ME AND MY COMMUNITY, EXCUSE ME, DOING NOTHING HAS NEVER BEEN AN OPTION FOR COMMUNITIES THAT ARE DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPACTED BY GUN VIOLENCE. 
          THANK YOU COUNCIL FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS FOR CONTINUING TO MEET THE MOMENT AND RESOURCING THE CITY OF AUSTIN WITH THE OFFICE OF VIOLENCE PREVENTION AND CVI SPECIFIC SUPPORT, WE LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING TO WORK AND PARTNER WITH YOU ALL TO INCREASE THE COLLECTIVE EFFORTS TO BUILD THIS ECOSYSTEM OF PUBLIC SAFETY. 
          HELLO, THANK YOU. 
          MAYOR ADLER, MAYOR PRO TEM ALTAR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FOR PROCLAIMING JUNE IS GUN VIOLENCE PREVENTION MONTH IN AUSTIN. 
          MY NAME IS ROBIN BREED. 
          I'M A MOTHER OF TWO AND A VOLUNTEER WITH THE LOCAL CHAPTER OF MOMS DEMAND ACTION FOR GUN SENSE, WHICH IS PART OF EVERY TOWN FOR GUN SAFETY, THE LARGEST GUN VIOLENCE PREVENTION GROUP IN AMERICA, JUNE IS ALSO NATIONAL GUN VIOLENCE, WHERE IT IS A TIME TO DEMAND A FUTURE FREE FROM GUN VIOLENCE AND HONOR, THE 110 AMERICANS KILLED BY GUN VIOLENCE. 
          EVERY DAY IN THIS COUNTRY, THE WORLD IS WATCHING WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THE AFTERMATH OF THE TRAGIC SHOOTINGS AND YOU'VE ALL DAY IN BUFFALO AND WE CANNOT LOOK AWAY FROM THE PAIN AND HEARTBREAK. 
          WE ARE ALL FEELING. 
          WE APPLAUD THE EFFORTS THAT THE CITY AND LOCAL LEADERS HAVE TAKEN TO HELP PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE IN AUSTIN AND SAVE LIVES. 
          FOR EXAMPLE, THE GUN VIOLENCE COMMUNITY MEETING YESTERDAY WAS A POSITIVE STEP IN COMMUNICATING ACROSS ORGANIZATIONS TO REDUCE GUN VIOLENCE IN OUR CITY. 
          BUT WE ALSO KNOW IN MANY WAYS, YOUR HANDS ARE TIRED, TIED BY STATE PREEMPTION LAWS. 
          SO IT FORCES YOU TO BE INNOVATIVE IN THE WAKE OF MASS SHOOTINGS AND DAILY GUN VIOLENCE THAT RAVAGES OUR COMMUNITIES. 
          WE MUST TELL OUR STATE AND FEDERAL LAWMAKERS, ESPECIALLY THOSE IN THE U S SENATE IT'S TIME TO DO YOUR JOB. 
          WE ARE CALLING ON THE SENATE NOW TO TAKE REAL MEANINGFUL ACTION THAT WILL SAVE LIVES FOR MY FELLOW. 
          AUSTINITES I SAY, DON'T LOOK AWAY FROM THE TRAGEDIES THAT HAVE RECENTLY HAPPENED. 
          OUR COUNTRY IS EXPERIENCING A GUN VIOLENCE CRISIS AND WE CANNOT LET OUR LAWMAKERS CONTINUE TO DO NOTHING. 
          GUN VIOLENCE IS NOW THE NUMBER ONE CAUSE OF DEATH FOR CHILDREN. 
          THIS CANNOT BE OUR NEW NORM. 
          WE DESERVE BETTER. 
          OUR CHILDREN DESERVE BETTER. 
          IT'S GOING TO TAKE ALL OF US TO ENACT MEANINGFUL CHANGE. 
          THANK YOU AGAIN, THE CITY OF AUSTIN FOR DOING YOUR PART TO HELP END GUN VIOLENCE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU EVERYONE FOR BEING HERE TO, UH, TO BE A PART OF THIS WITH US. 
          I'M NICOLE GOLDEN. 
          I'M THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF TEXAS GUN SENSE. 
          WE ARE THE ONLY STATEWIDE GUN VIOLENCE PREVENTION NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION FOUNDED HERE IN TEXAS. 
          WE HAVE BEEN FIGHTING ON THIS ISSUE FOR NEARLY 10 YEARS. 
          WE WERE FOUNDED IN THE WAKE OF THE SANDY HOOK SCHOOL SHOOTING, AND I BECAME AN ADVOCATE AT THAT TIME. 
          AND SO I KNOW, UM, MANY OF YOU MAY BE REALLY WONDERING, YOU MAY BE FEELING RIGHT NOW, LIKE THIS COUNTRY IS BROKEN AND I HAVE BEEN THERE AND THAT'S WHAT MADE ME STAND UP TO GET INVOLVED. 
          AND, AND THERE IS A SYSTEM THAT'S BROKEN AND WHEN SOMETHING IS BROKEN, IT CALLS US TO STAND UP AND, AND FIX IT. 
          AND THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN COMMITTED TO. 
          AND THAT'S WHAT TEXAS GUN SENSE IS COMMITTED TO. 
          UM, WE, WE, WE WORK PRIMARILY AT THE STATE LEGISLATURE, APPLYING PRESSURE THERE, UM, LETTING THEM KNOW THAT AN ACTION IS NOT AN OPTION THAT WE HAVE A CRISIS THAT REQUIRES THEM TO ACT IMMEDIATELY, BUT WE ALSO WORK IN COMMUNITIES. 
          UM, WE WORK TO END GUN VIOLENCE, THE DAILY GUN DEATHS THAT 
          [04:45:01]
YOU DON'T ALWAYS HEAR ABOUT SUICIDES AND DEATHS THAT DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPACT COMMUNITIES OF COLOR, UNINTENTIONAL SHOOTINGS, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, GUN VIOLENCE HAS A LOT OF FACES AND WE'RE HERE TO APPLY STRATEGIES TO END ALL OF THOSE. 
          UM, THE MEETINGS THAT TOOK PLACE YESTERDAY THAT I GOT TO PARTICIPATE IN REALLY GAVE ME HOPE THAT EVEN THOUGH WE, UM, WE HAVE A LONG WAY TO GO WITH THE LEGISLATURE TO SEE THE CHANGE THAT WE NEED, UH, TO END THIS CRISIS, UM, COMMUNITIES LIKE AUSTIN WITH LEADERSHIP FROM MAYOR PRO TEM ALTAR, AND HER COLLEAGUES HERE AT THE COUNCIL AND DA GARZA AND OTHERS LOCALLY, UM, ARE BANDING TOGETHER TO, TO HAVE A COORDINATED EFFORT TO END GUN VIOLENCE HERE IN OUR COMMUNITY WHERE IT'S HAPPENING THE MOST. 
          AND I THINK IT COULD BE A MODEL FOR OTHER CITIES AND I'M, I'M HERE TO DO WHATEVER I CAN TO MAKE SURE THAT, THAT, THAT, THAT SPREADS ALL ACROSS TEXAS. 
          IT ALSO SENDS THE MESSAGE TO OUR STATE AND FEDERAL LAWMAKERS THAT WE'RE GOING TO ACT EVEN WHEN THEY WON'T AND THAT THIS IS WHAT OUR COMMUNITIES WANT AND DESERVE, AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO WAIT. 
          UM, SO I, I REALLY, REALLY THANK MY FRIEND, UM, MAYOR PRO TEM ALTAR. 
          SHE'S BEEN COMMITTED TO THIS FOR A LONG TIME. 
          UM, AND, AND I, AND I'M, SO I'M HOPEFUL TO STAND WHAT THIS GROUP, WHICH I THINK SHOWS THE GROWING INTERSECTIONALITY OF THE MOVEMENT, SOMETHING I'M COMMITTED TO AT TEXAS GUN SENSE. 
          AND, UM, AND, UM, YOU KNOW, I'M JUST, I'M HOPEFUL. 
          AND, UM, WE'RE GOING TO KEEP MOVING AHEAD. 
          SO THANK YOU FOR HONORING GUN VIOLENCE PREVENTION AWARENESS MONTH TODAY. 
            IN HER THIRD ROW FROM THE BACK ON THE SIDE, CLOSEST TO THE ISLAND. 
          CAN YOU SHOW ME OKAY. 
          I CAN INTRODUCE YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH, THAT'S FINE. 
          AWESOME. 
          COME ON UP. 
          THANK YOU. 
          GOOD EVENING, 
          [Proclamation 4]
EVERYONE. 
          MY NAME IS MACKENZIE KELLY. 
          I AM THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ELECTED TO REPRESENT DISTRICT SIX IN FAR NORTHWEST AUSTIN. 
          AND TODAY I'M PRESENTING SOMETHING PRETTY SPECIAL. 
          UM, I'M ACTUALLY REALLY EXCITED ABOUT THIS ONE. 
          UM, WE ARE PRESENTING A DISTINGUISHED SERVICE AWARD TO OFFICERS WHO RAY SCANLAN, UM, PRESENTED BY ME. 
          I'VE HAD THE HONOR OF KNOWING OFFICER SCANLAN FOR A FEW YEARS, EVEN BEFORE I WAS ELECTED TO REPRESENT DISTRICT SIX. 
          BUT HER HISTORY AT THE AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT ACTUALLY STARTED LONG BEFORE I GOT TO KNOW HER. 
          THE FIRST CITIZENS POLICE ACADEMY WAS LAUNCHED IN ORLANDO IN 1985. 
          AND THE IDEA IS SPREAD THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES, REACHING AUSTIN AROUND 1987, SINCE THEN MORE THAN 2,700 AUSTINITES HAVE COMPLETED EPDS COURSE. 
          I HAPPEN TO BE ONE OF THOSE THAT COMPLETED THE COURSE AND HAD THE HONOR OF COMPLETING THE 100TH CLASS WITH OFFICER SCANLON AS THE LEAD INSTRUCTOR DURING THE 14 WEEK LONG AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT, CITIZENS POLICE ACADEMY. 
          I LEARNED QUITE A BIT ABOUT WHAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT DOES AND HOW EACH DEPARTMENT IS INTEGRAL TO THE OVERALL SUCCESS OF THE MISSION OF THE AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT. 
          I GOT ELECTED BY MY PEERS IN THAT CLASS AS THE CLASS PRESIDENT, WHICH WAS A SURPRISE TO ME. 
          I DIDN'T THINK ANYBODY LIKED ME. 
          UM, BUT, BUT WITH THAT CAME THE OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE A SPEECH AT GRADUATION, 
          [04:50:01]
WHICH I'D NEVER SPOKEN IN FRONT OF A GROUP THAT LOUD. 
          SO IT WAS VERY NERVE WRACKING. 
          AND OFFICER SCANLON ACTUALLY HAD TO APPROVE MY SPEECH AHEAD OF TIME. 
          UM, NOW THAT I'M ELECTED, NOBODY REVIEWS MY SPEECHES. 
          I GET TO SAY WHATEVER I WANT, BUT I CAN SAY THAT OFFICER SCANLON WAS ABLE TO GIVE ME FEEDBACK THAT I CARRIED WITH ME INTO WHAT I DO HERE TODAY FOR THAT I AM ETERNALLY GRATEFUL. 
          UM, IT'S CLEAR TO ME THAT WITH OFFICER SCANLON'S RETIREMENT, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT IS REALLY AT A LOSS AS WE CELEBRATE THIS MOMENTOUS OCCASION. 
          SO ON BEHALF OF THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL, I WANT TO PRESENT THIS DISTINGUISHED SERVICE AWARD TO OFFICER SCANLON. 
          AND I'LL READ IT. 
          I'LL READ IT OUT LOUD FOR YOU. 
          UM, OFFICER RAY SCANLON IS DESERVING OF PUBLIC ACCLAIM AND RECOGNITION FOR HER DEDICATION TO THE AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE CITIZENS POLICE ACADEMY, HAVING SERVED FOR MORE THAN 20 YEARS AS A POLICE OFFICER FOR APD AND A DRIVING FORCE BEHIND THE SUCCESS OF THE CITIZEN POLICE ACADEMY. 
          OFFICER SCANLON IS A PERSONIFICATION OF A PUBLIC SERVANT. 
          THIS CERTIFICATE IS PRESENTED IN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND APPRECIATION THEREOF THIS NINTH DAY OF JUNE IN THE YEAR 2022. 
          AND IT IS ON BEHALF OF THE ENTIRE CITY COUNCIL, BUT IT IS SIGNED BY THE MAYOR OF OUR GREAT CITY. 
          SO PLEASE JOIN ME IN APPLAUSE IN RECOGNIZING OFFICER SCANLON. 
          I WANT TO SAY A COUPLE OF WORDS. 
          AND BEFORE THAT, I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE HAVE SOME PAST GRADUATES OF THE PROGRAM HERE BEHIND US TODAY IN SUPPORT OF THIS. 
          BUT IF OFFICER SCANLON WOULD LIKE TO SAY A FEW WORDS, ABSOLUTELY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          MY ONLY REGRET THIS EVENING IS THAT I'M NOT WEARING OUR UNIFORM RIGHT NOW. 
          I AM, I AM RETIRED, BUT I JUST LIKE TO SAY THANK YOU TO MAYOR AND COUNCIL. 
          AND THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER KELLY, UH, FOR INITIATING THIS AWARD AND FOR ACKNOWLEDGING THE CITIZEN POLICE ACADEMY, THE CITIZEN POLICE ACADEMY IS A PROGRAM THAT FOSTERS UNDERSTANDING THROUGH EDUCATION AND IT HELPS TO BUILD RAPPORT AND RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS OF AUSTIN. 
          IT HAS BEEN A PRIVILEGE TO SERVE AS AN AUSTIN POLICE OFFICER AND TO WEAR THE UNIFORM. 
          AND I'M PROUD TO SAY, NOW THAT I AM A RETIREE WITH 23 YEARS OF SERVICE UNDER MY BELT, I HAVE GREATLY VALUED SERVING AS THE COORDINATOR OF THE CITIZEN POLICE ACADEMY AND WORKING CLOSELY WITH SO MANY PARTICIPANTS AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS AND ALL THE FOLKS HERE THIS EVENING ARE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ALUMNI FOR THE CPA. 
          THE PROGRAM WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AS SUCCESSFUL AS IT HAS BEEN WITHOUT THE EFFORTS OF ALL OF THESE COMMUNITY MEMBERS, VOLUNTEERING FOR CPA. 
          SORRY, I LOST MY SPOT. 
          I HOPE TO BE ABLE TO CONSULT AND ASSIST WITH CPA IN THE NEAR FUTURE. 
          AND I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING THE PROGRAM BECOMING EVEN MORE SUCCESSFUL, UM, IN THE FUTURE. 
          FINALLY, THERE ARE SO MANY OFFICERS OF THE AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT THAT DO THEIR JOB DAILY WITH SERVITUDE AND EXCELLENCE. 
          MY HOPE IS THAT THE AUSTIN COMMUNITY CONTINUES TO SEE MORE AWARDS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT LIKE THIS ONE THIS EVENING PRESENTED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL. 
          THANK YOU ALL. 
          THANK YOU GUYS. 
          THAT'S MY HOPE TOO. 
          SO WE'LL TAKE A PICTURE REAL QUICK AND THEN WE'LL GET THE NEXT PROCLAMATION GOING. 
          THANK YOU. 
           NEXT. 
          IF THE HANDBURY FAMILY COULD JOIN ME  
          [04:55:04]
THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          WE'VE GOT EVERYBODY BACK HERE. 
          Y'ALL COME CLOSER. 
          I DON'T BITE. 
          WOW. 
          [Proclamation 5]
UM, THIS IS A VERY SPECIAL PROCLAMATION. 
          UM, THE PROCLAMATION FROM THE CITY OF AUSTIN IS ONE OF THE HIGHEST HONORS THAT CAN BE BESTOWED UPON ANYONE. 
          UM, BUT BEFORE I GET STARTED, I WANT TO SAY HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO MCKAYLA CARPENTER, WHO I IS THE SISTER OF THE INDIVIDUAL WE'RE PRESENTING THIS PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF HER BIRTHDAY WAS YESTERDAY. 
          UM, AND IT'S, THIS IS NEAR AND DEAR TO MY HEART BECAUSE I ATTENDED MIDDLE SCHOOL WITH THE HANDBURY FAMILY. 
          AND, UM, THAT WAS IN WHAT IS NOW DISTRICT SIX. 
          UM, WHEN I LEARNED ABOUT THEIR FAMILY'S LOSS, IT WAS, IT WAS VERY HEARTBREAKING. 
          AND AS SUCH, I WANTED TO BRING FORWARD ACTION, UM, WHICH IS WHY I'M BRINGING FORWARD THIS RESOLUTION TODAY AND PRESENTING IT TO THE FAMILY IN HONOR OF BEN HANBERRY. 
          UM, I COULD THINK OF NO GREATER WAY TO SHOW HONOR TO BEN'S MEMORY THAN DOING THIS. 
          AND, UM, I'LL JUST READ THE PROCLAMATION HERE. 
          IT SAYS PROCLAMATION, VIETNAM, THAT WHEREAS LOYAL ARE THOSE WHO ENJOY BEING AROUND THE MAJESTIC SCENERY THAT NATURE PROVIDES US TO EXPERIENCE. 
          AND WHEREAS OBSERVATIONS OF SUCH EXQUISITENESS IS ONLY ENHANCED WHEN ACCOMPANIED BY THE ENJOYMENT OF OUR NATURAL SPRINGS, WATERWAYS, LAKES, AND OCEANS. 
          AND WHEREAS VARIOUS OUTSIDE ACTIVITIES ARE ENJOYED BY MILLIONS OF PEOPLE EACH YEAR, ALLOWING FOR THE EXPERIENCING OF SUCH BEAUTY AND WHEREAS EXISTENCE OF SAFETY MEASURES WHILE ENJOYING OUR ENVIRONMENT IS ONE OF THE UTMOST OF IMPORTANCE FOR THOSE IN OUR COMMUNITY. 
          AND WHEREAS BROAD LANDSCAPES SHOULD BE ACCOMPANIED BY BROAD SAFETY AWARENESS. 
          AND WHEREAS EMBRACING THIS EMPOWERMENT IS HOW WE WILL REMEMBER BENJAMIN JAMES HANBURY AND WHEREAS NOTORIOUSLY KNOWN FOR HIS LOVE OF FAMILY, SMOKED BRISKET MUSIC AND NATURE'S WATERWAYS. 
          AND WHEREAS THIS PROCLAMATION WILL SERVE AS A MEMORIAL TO BEN AND A REMINDER TO THOSE THAT WILL ALSO ENJOY NATURE'S BEAUTY. 
          AND NOW THEREFORE I MACKENZIE KELLY AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL MEMBER FOR DISTRICT SIX, ALONG WITH THE OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS AND THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS DO HEREBY PROCLAIM, JUNE 9TH, 2022 IS WATER SAFETY DAY IN HONOR OF BEN HANBERRY. 
          I'D LIKE TO SHOW SOMETHING VERY SPECIAL ABOUT THIS PROCLAMATION TO THE FAMILY. 
          UM, IN DRAFTING IT, WE WERE ABLE TO PUT A MESSAGE FROM BEN IN THERE. 
          AND SO EVERY OTHER LINE, IF YOU LOOK AT THE FIRST LETTER OF THE WORD THAT STARTS THE PROCLAMATION SENTENCE RIGHT BELOW, WHEREAS IT SPELLS OUT LOVE BEN, AND I'VE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT BEFORE. 
          AND I REALLY WANTED YOU ALL TO HAVE IT AS A SPECIAL MEMORY OF HOW SPECIAL PEN WAS. 
          SO ABSOLUTELY IF SOMEONE FROM THE FAMILY WOULD LIKE TO COME UP NOW SO THAT I CAN TRY MY EYES AND WE'LL FIND SOME TISSUES, THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME DO THIS. 
          UM, WE MISSED SPINS, EXPLOSIVE, LAUGH THE WAY HE MADE US EACH FEEL UNQUESTIONABLY SEEN AT HIS PRESENCE AT EVERY FAMILY GATHERING. 
          THERE'S NOTHING THAT COULD EVER MAKE LOSING BEN WORTH IT, BUT BEING ABLE TO GIVE OUR PAIN ANY SORT OF PURPOSE AND POSSIBLY KEEP OTHERS FROM FEELING THE SAME PAIN HELPS SUE THAT HOLE. 
          THAT'S BEEN LEFT IN OUR FAMILY. 
          I'M AN EXCERPT FROM A MERIT MALLOY POEM READS. 
          SO WHEN ALL THAT'S LEFT OF ME IS LOVE. 
          GIVE ME AWAY. 
          WE'RE HONORED TO BE ABLE TO GIVE PART OF BEN AWAY WITH THIS LOVING REMINDER TO STAY SAFE OUT THERE ON THE WATERWAYS, EVEN THE FAMILIAR ONES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          LET'S GET A PICTURE VERY MUCH. 
          [05:00:05]
 WE'RE READY WITH, UH, THE PUBLIC FEED. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND RECONVENE THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL MEETING HERE JUNE 9TH, 2022. 
          UH, IT IS 7 0 9. 
          UM, THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF OUR MEETING. 
          WE ARE OUT OF, UH, EXECUTIVE SESSION, UH, IN CLOSED SESSION. 
          WE DISCUSSED LEGAL MATTERS RELATED TO ITEMS 66 AND 80. 
          WE HAD PREVIOUS IN THE DAY DISCUSSED ITEM 65 AND ITEM NUMBER 90 WAS WITHDRAWN. 
          ALL RIGHT, SO NOW WE ARE BACK COLLEAGUES. 
          WE HAVE A SERIES OF PULLED ITEMS AND FIRST THEY WERE GOING TO DO IS GO THROUGH THE POLL ITEMS LIST FOR THOSE THINGS THAT PEOPLE THINK CAN BE HANDLED, UM, UH, REALLY, REALLY QUICKLY, REALLY, REALLY QUICKLY MEANS WE THINK WE CAN GET THEM UP AND DOWN IN LIKE THREE OR FOUR MINUTES. 
          AND WE HAVE SEVERAL OF THOSE. 
          SO KIND OF OCTOBER, DO YOU WANT TO TAKE US THROUGH ITEM 1 0 3? UM, SO EARLIER DON'T HANG ON ONE SECOND. 
          YES. 
          COULD YOU PLEASE REVIEW THE LIST OF THE PULLED ITEMS WITH US BEFORE WE BEGIN? SURE. 
          I'LL GIVE YOU, I'LL GIVE YOU THE UNIVERSE. 
          THE UNIVERSE AT THIS POINT IS, UM, THE POLE ITEMS WERE 3 10, 3 IS THE ARR RULES. 
          10 WAS THE DOWNTOWN PAD. 
          14 WAS THE CONVENTION CENTER GARAGE LEASE. 
          52 IS ASM P 56 57 WERE SPEED LIMITS 59 WERE E-BIKES 61, ENVIRONMENTAL 66, UH, CORRIDOR. 
          UH, 1 24 IS A SIXTH STREET. 
          UH, WE ALSO HAVE PUBLIC HEARINGS, 79 NEEDS TO BE RECONSIDERED. 
          WE JUST LEFT OUT A WORD. 
          SO WE'RE GOING TO PULL THAT BACK UP AND GET THAT DONE RIGHT. 
          80 IS VMU 81 IS DOWNTOWN PETTY GOES WITH ITEM NUMBER 10. 
          WE HAVE THREE ZONING CASES, 1 0 2, 1 0 3 ACADEMY, WHICH NOW HAS BEEN RESOLVED. 
          SO THAT WILL BE FAST SPICEWOOD SPRINGS RESOLVED. 
          SO THAT'LL BE ASKED AND WE HAVE ONE 20 CLAYTON LANE. 
          YES. 
          AND COMMENTS ON THE CONSENT AND COMMENTS ON INCEST. 
          WE WILL MAKE SURE WE GET THAT TO AS LEAD SOME STAFF GO HOME. 
          [103. C14-2020-0147 - 200 Academy - Approve third reading of an ordinance amending City Code Title 25 by rezoning property locally known as 146 ½, 200, 200 ½ and 204 ½ Academy Drive; and 1006 and 1020 Melissa Lane (East Bouldin Creek Watershed). Applicant Request: To rezone from commercial-liquor sales-neighborhood conservation-neighborhood plan (CS-1-NCCD-ZNP) combining district zoning to commercial-liquor sales-mixed use-neighborhood plan (CS-1-MU-NP) combining district zoning on Tract 1, from general commercial services-neighborhood conservation-neighborhood plan (CS-NCCD-NP) combining district zoning to general commercial services-mixed use-neighborhood plan (CS-MU-NP) combining district zoning on Tract 2 and from multifamily residence moderate-high density-neighborhood conservation-neighborhood plan (MF-4-NCCD-NP) combining district zoning to multifamily residence moderate-high density-neighborhood plan (MF-4-NP) combining district zoning on Tract 3. On January 27, 2022, first reading approved for commercial-liquor sales-mixed use-neighborhood conservation-neighborhood plan (CS-1-MU-NCCD-NP) combining district zoning for Tract 1, general commercial services-mixed use-neighborhood conservation-neighborhood plan (CS-MU-NCCD-NP) combining district zoning for Tract 2, and multifamily residence moderate-high density-neighborhood conservation-neighborhood plan (MF-4-NCCD-NP) combining district zoning for Tract 3, with conditions. Vote: 11-0. On May 5, 2022 second reading approved conditions of 1st Reading for commercial-liquor sales-mixed use-neighborhood conservation-neighborhood plan (CS-1-MU-NCCD-NP) combining district zoning for Tract 1, general commercial services-mixed use-neighborhood conservation-neighborhood plan (CS-MU-NCCD-NP) combining district zoning for Tract 2, and multifamily residence moderate-high density-neighborhood conservation-neighborhood plan (MF-4-NCCD-NP) combining district zoning for Tract 3, with conditions. Vote: 9-0, Council Member Kelly and Council Member Pool-off the dais. Owner: Spearhead Academy LTD (Chris Wallin). Applicant: Weiss Architecture Inc (Richard Weiss). City Staff: Sherri Sirwaitis, 512-974-3057. A valid petition has been filed in opposition to this rezoning request. ..De Lead Department Housing and Planning]
ALL RIGHT. 
          SO, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO I THINK HAS TAKEN US THROUGH ITEM 1 0 3. 
          THANK YOU, MAYOR. 
          UM, SO I HAVE DISTRIBUTED ON THE DYESS AND AMENDMENT SHEET FOR EMOTION SHEET FOR ITEM ONE OF THREE, AFTER SOME ADDITIONAL CONVERSATION BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND THE NEIGHBORS. 
          UM, THERE IS A RESOLUTION ON THE 200 ACADEMY SITE. 
          AND SO I WILL, UH, MOVE THE ORDINANCE AS IT IS UNDER PART THREE, A REMOVING THE FOLLOWING USES. 
          UM, AND I JUST REALIZED, I DON'T KNOW THAT I HAVE ENOUGH COPIES TO DISTRIBUTE, BUT I WILL MAKE SURE YOU ALL GET ONE. 
          I SEE SOME OF OUR, OUR NEIGHBORS ARE STILL HERE. 
          UM, MOVED TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE, UH, UNDER A PART THREE, A REMOVE THE FOLLOWING USES ALTERNATIVE FINANCIAL SERVICES, COMMUNICATION, SERVICE FACILITIES, LOCAL UTILITY SERVICES, TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER, URBAN FARM SAFETY SERVICES, OUTDOOR ENTERTAINMENT UNDER PART THREE B ADD ENTERTAINMENT, INDOOR ENTERTAINMENT TO THE CONDITIONAL USES DELETE PART C UNDER PART THREE D CHANGE THE SENTENCE TO READ COCKTAIL LOUNGE AS A CONDITIONAL USE ON TRACT ONE AND THE COMBINED SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ANY COCKTAIL LOUNGE THEATER OR INDOOR ENTERTAINMENT USES ON TRACKS ONE AND TWO MAY NOT EXCEED 10,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA. 
          AND I KNOW WE DO HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE APPLICANT HERE, UM, AS WELL AS THERE SHE IS APRIL. 
          UM, AND WE DO STILL HAVE SOME OF THE NEIGHBOR NEIGHBORING PARTIES, BUT IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT, UM, THERE'S AGREEMENT FROM, FROM ALL ON THIS. 
          OKAY. 
          IT'S GOOD TO SEE EVERYBODY HERE. 
          DOES ANYBODY WANT TO OBJECT TO THIS? DOES EVERYBODY, ANYBODY HERE NOT FEEL THAT THAT IS THE AGREEMENT CAME. 
          THANK YOU FOR THAT COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO MOVES PASSAGE 1 0 3 WITH THE, UH, UH, CONDITIONS THAT WERE RED JURY. 
          YOU WANT TO CALL THEM AND TAKE US THROUGH THAT. 
          LET ME GET THE MOTION FIRST AND THEN WE'LL GET A SECOND, JERRY. 
          SURE. 
          UM, SO ALL I'M HERE TO DO IS JUST TO MAKE SURE WE DO ITEM NUMBER 1 0 3 WOULD BE ON THIRD READING WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT WERE JUST READ IN, AND THEN I DIDN'T, OR TWO WOULD BE TO PREVENT THIRD READING AS WELL. 
          THAT'S 
          [05:05:01]
THE MOTION SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER, PAUL AND HE'S DISCUSSION. 
          LET'S TAKE A, VOTE THOSE IN FAVOR. 
          PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. 
          THOSE OPPOSED, WHO ARE WE MISSING? WE'RE MISSING, UM, NATASHA. 
          SHE HASN'T SIGNED ON YET. 
          OKAY. 
          OTHER THAN WITH NATASHA OFF THE DIETS THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY AND MARY, I JUST WANT TO EXPRESS MY, UH, REAL GRATITUDE TO THOSE OF, UM, TO ALL INVOLVED. 
          THIS HAS BEEN A GOING ON FOR SEVERAL MONTHS. 
          I APPRECIATE REALLY THE, THE VERY LARGE CONCESSIONS THAT THE NEIGHBORS MADE TO, TO WORK, UH, WORK TOWARD A PROJECT THAT THEY COULD NOT OBJECT TO. 
          SO, AND THANK YOU TO THE APPLICANT AS WELL. 
          SO 1 0 2 AND 1 0 3 OR BOTH, THEN I THINK WE CAN ALSO RESOLVE 
          [116. C14-2021-0189 - 4833 Spicewood Springs - Conduct a public hearing and approve an ordinance amending City Code Title 25 by rezoning property locally known as 4833 Spicewood Springs Road (Bull Creek Watershed). Applicant Request: To rezone from limited office (LO) district zoning and family residence (SF-3) district zoning to limited office-mixed use-conditional overlay (LO-MU-CO) combining district zoning, as amended. Staff Recommendation: To grant limited office-mixed use (LO-MU) combining district zoning. Zoning and Platting Commission Recommendation: To deny the rezoning. Owner/Applicant: Spicewood Canyon, LP (Juan Creixell). Agent: Keepers Land Planning (Ricca Keepers). City Staff: Sherri Sirwaitis, 512-974-3057.]
ONE 16. 
          WE PRO TIME. 
          WAS THAT YOURS? UM, YES. 
          SO I WOULD MOVE TO POSTPONE INDEFINITELY ONE 16, UM, SPOKE TO THE APPLICANT A LITTLE BIT EARLIER AND THEY'RE NOT OBJECTING TO POSTPONING INDEFINITELY. 
          OKAY. 
          IS THE APPLICANT OR ANYONE HERE ARE WANTING TO TESTIFY HEARING NONE? UH, THE MOTION IS TO POSTPONE INDEFINITELY ITEM ONE. 
          SIXTEENS ARE SECOND TO THAT MOTION, COUNCILMEMBER KELLY SECONDS, AND DISCUSSION THOSE IN FAVOR. 
          PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. 
          THOSE OPPOSED UNANIMOUS ON THE DYES WITH COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER, MADISON OFF. 
          UM, AGAIN, NOW WE ARE LOOKING FOR THINGS THAT THAT WILL BE RESOLVED LIKE REALLY, REALLY QUICKLY CASTLEBERRY VALLA. 
          YOU THINK NUMBER THREE IS IN THAT GROUP? I BELIEVE SO, YOUR HONOR, I JUST HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS THAT STRIPE AND SOME IMAGES. 
          YEAH, IT WAS CALLED AND I 
          [3. Approve amendments to Austin Resource Recovery’s Solid Waste Services Administrative Rules, related to the use of City services for certain residential units and the Universal Recycling Ordinance.
]
DIDN'T REMEMBER THREE. 
          OKAY. 
          IF, IF, UH, MR. SNIPES, IT DIDN'T MEAN MAYOR COUNCIL, COUNCIL MEMBER BAILEY. 
          UH, MRS. . 
          I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THIS, UH, UH, ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGE IS JUST TO, UH, WERE, IF YOU COULD JUST BRIEFLY EXPLAIN THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGE, THAT, THAT ITEM NUMBER THREE. 
          SURE. 
          I DON'T KNOW. 
          ITEM NUMBER THREE. 
          I THINK THERE'S A BIT OF CONFUSION AROUND THE INTENDED PURPOSE OF THAT, OF THAT PARTICULAR ITEM. 
          IT IS ONLY AN ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGE. 
          IT DOES NOT CHANGE SERVICE DELIVERY AT ALL. 
          BASICALLY WHAT WE HAVE OR WHAT WE DISCOVERED AS PART OF OUR GOOD GOVERNANCE WORK IS, UH, THROUGHOUT SEVERAL OF OUR DOCUMENTS, A CODE AND ALSO ADMINISTRATIVE RULES. 
          UH, WE REFER TO THE SAME PRACTICE OR THE SAME, UH, TOPICS USING DIFFERENT LANGUAGE. 
          AND WE'RE JUST CHEWING UP THE LANGUAGE. 
          UH, FOR EXAMPLE, UH, IN THIS CASE, UM, CITY CODE 15, 6 11, REFERS TO THE BREAK BETWEEN, UH, WHAT CITY SERVICES COVER IN TERMS OF MULTI-FAMILY DWELLINGS AND WHAT THE PRIVATE SECTOR COVERS AS FIVE OR LESS. 
          THE ADMINISTRATIVE RULES SAYS ONE THROUGH FOUR DWELLINGS. 
          AND SO WE'RE JUST APPLYING CONSISTENT LANGUAGE TO REFER TO THE SAME ITEMS. OKAY. 
          AND WITH REGARD TO THE, UH, THE, THE, THE FOURPLEXES THAT, THAT, UH, AUSTIN RESOURCE RECOVERY SERVICES, I KNOW WE'VE HAD SOME DISCUSSIONS WITH, UH, THE DUMPSTER SERVICE THAT, THAT SOME OF THEM GET. 
          AND I WAS WONDERING WHAT STAFF HAVE THE VIDEO, IF YOU COULD SHOW IT ON THE SCREEN, THE THING IT'S A 1 0, 0 1, UH, BROWNIE, THERE WE GO. 
          SO RIGHT NOW I'M ON BROWNIE AND I BELIEVE ON RAYBURN RIGHT NOW, UH, IS AUSTIN RESOURCE RECOVERY IS SERVICING THOSE, UH, FOURPLEXES WITH, UH, THOSE DUMPSTERS THAT ARE IN THE PICTURE RIGHT NOW. 
          THAT IS CORRECT. 
          AND, UH, AS PART OF THE WORK THAT WE'RE DOING, UH, TO REVIEW THOSE PARTICULAR COMMUNITIES, WE ARE LOOKING AT OPTIONS TO REMOVE THOSE DUMPSTERS BY SWITCHING THOSE, UH, THOSE COMMUNITIES OVER TO, UH, CAR SERVICE SO THAT THEY CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF RECYCLING AND POTENTIALLY A COMPOSTING SERVICES. 
          OKAY. 
          AND UNDERSTAND THAT YOU'VE STARTED A PILOT PROGRAM ON SAM RAYBURN, ANOTHER STREET, VERY CLOSE TO BROWNIE WITH, UH, UH, WITH REGARD TO RECYCLING, YOU'RE PROVIDING RECYCLING, UH, CANISTERS. 
          NOW THAT IS CORRECT. 
          WE STARTED THE PILOT IN DECEMBER OF 2021. 
          UH, AND SO, UH, THE 23RD OF THIS MONTH WOULD ACTUALLY WOULD ACTUALLY BE THE SIX MONTH, UM, MARK FOR THAT PARTICULAR PILOT. 
          GREAT. 
          AND HOW'S THE PILOT GOING? IT'S GOING EXTREMELY WELL. 
          UH, I WOULD TELL YOU THAT THE RESIDENTS HAVE A VERY LOW CONTAMINATION RATE. 
          UH, SO WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT WE'RE PROUD OF IS THEY'RE ACTUALLY, UH, IN THEIR CARTS, THEY'RE PUTTING ITEMS IN THEIR CARS THAT ARE RECYCLABLE. 
          SO NOT SAYING A LOT OF CONTAMINANTS IN THEIR, IN THEIR CARDS. 
          THAT'S EXCELLENT. 
          AND IF STAFF COULD JUST, UH, WALK US UP BROWNIE, JUST A COUPLE OF, UH, I JUST WANTED TO SHOW COUNSEL, CAUSE AGAIN, YOU SEE THESE, THESE, UH, THERE ARE FOURPLEXES 
          [05:10:02]
AND THEY HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE IN THE, UH, YOU, THE YOU'RE GOING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. 
          THERE YOU GO. 
          THERE'S ANOTHER ONE. 
          AND HONESTLY, MOST OF THESE RIGHT NOW THAT WE'RE CAPTURING IN HERE ARE, IT'S A GOOD DAY FOR THEM WHERE THERE'S NOT A LOT OF TRASH SURROUNDING THEM, BUT OFTENTIMES LOOK THAT ONE IS BLOCKING THE SIDEWALK, BLOCKING THE RIGHT AWAY. 
          THAT'S ALSO A COMMON SITUATION. 
          A LOT OF TIMES PEOPLE WILL GO AND THROW OLD MATTRESSES AND TV. 
          YOU KNOW, THEY SEE THE DUMPSTERS THERE AND THEY FIGURE, YOU KNOW, THEY JUST GO RIGHT THROUGH THERE. 
          SO IT'S AGAIN AN ONGOING CONCERN. 
          THIS IS IN DISTRICT FOUR. 
          UH, AND I JUST WANTED TO, TO HIGHLIGHT THAT ASPECT. 
          I KNOW IT'S NOT NECESSARILY DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE ITEM, BUT I KNOW WE'VE BEEN HAVING ONGOING DISCUSSIONS AND I WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE AUSTIN RESOURCE RECOVERY, YOU KNOW, AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE MOVING THOSE, UH, FOURPLEXES OVER TO THE CANS. 
          UH, I JUST, YOU KNOW, IT'S SUCH A NEGATIVE SYMBOL, YOU KNOW, TO HAVE THAT DUMPSTER, YOU KNOW, IT'S LIKE, YOU KNOW, IT JUST DESTROYS THE, THE CHARACTER. 
          AND I THINK IT REALLY KIND OF CREATES A, AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE, UM, YOU KNOW, A LACK OF RESPECT, REALLY KIND OF A LACK OF DIGNITY FOR THOSE FOLKS. 
          UH, AND, UH, SO ANYWAY, THAT'S A GOOD ONE RIGHT THERE WHERE YOU CAN SEE A BUNCH OF TRASH RIGHT AROUND THE DUMPSTER. 
          UH, IT'S A, IT'S A DIFFICULT SITUATION AND I JUST WANTED TO, UH, TO HIGHLIGHT IT. 
          AND, UH, UH, I APPRECIATE THE, THE PILOT PROGRAM THAT ARE ON SAM RAYBURN. 
          AND I WOULD JUST ENCOURAGE AUSTIN RESOURCE RECOVERY AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO MOVE THEM OVER TO THE, THE NORMAL CANS THAT JUST ABOUT EVERYBODY ELSE USES. 
          AND ONE FINAL QUESTION ARE OUR OTHER FOURPLEXES ARE SERVED WITH CANS, IS THAT THE, SO SOME ARE, AND SOME AREN'T, IT JUST DEPENDS ON THE LAYOUT. 
          AS YOU KNOW, SOME OF THEM ARE REALLY DIFFICULT, UM, A FOURPLEX LIKE THIS, OR WHERE YOU SEE A QUAD OR A BANK, UH, LIKE THIS, IF WE WERE TO PROVIDE ALL, UM, CARTS. 
          SO THAT WOULD BE THREE CARTS PER UNIT. 
          SO, UH, FOR, LET'S SAY A POD OF FOUR THAT'S 48 CARDS AND YOU'D HAVE ON THE STREET ON COLLECTION DAYS. 
          SO WE'RE KIND OF WORKING OUR WAY THROUGH THAT. 
          UM, TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW DO WE GET CUSTOMERS TO SHARE CARTS AS WE WOULD MOVE OVER TO A PROGRAM LIKE THAT. 
          BUT ONE QUICK NOTE ABOUT THIS, UH, IS THAT, UH, TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES WITH BLIGHT AND THESE COMMUNITIES, UM, WE HAVE INCREASED THE COLLECTION SERVICE, UH, IN THESE COMMUNITIES FROM, UH, TWICE PER WEEK TO THREE TIMES PER WEEK. 
          AND THEN WE'VE DOUBLED BULK COLLECTION AS WELL IN THESE COMMUNITIES FROM, UH, TWICE PER MONTH TO ONCE PER WEEK, AS WELL, TO HELP ADDRESS THE ISSUES WITH THE BLIND AS WE LOOK AT THE CART, UH, PROGRAM. 
          WELL, AGAIN, THAT'S ALL I HAVE. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH DIRECTOR STAMPS. 
          I REALLY APPRECIATE, UH, YOUR, UH, INFORMATION AND, AND YOUR EFFORTS AND WITH THAT, UH, MAYOR, I WOULD MOVE A MOVE PASSAGE FOR THREE ON ITEM THREE, COUNCILMEMBER TOVO SECONDS. 
          THEN IN DISCUSSION, WE START ON HAVE COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER, MADISON WITH US. 
          SHE HAS TECHNICAL ISSUES. 
          I THINK IT WAS TRYING TO GET IN, UH, I T UH, BUT SHE'S ASKED US NOT TO WAIT FOR HER. 
          I THINK SHE'S STILL GOING TO BE TRYING THOUGH. 
          UH, SO TAKE A, VOTE THOSE IN FAVOR, ITEM THREE, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. 
          THOSE OPPOSED ANONYMOUS ON THE DIOCESE WITH, UH, UM, COUNCILMEMBER HARPER, MADISON OFF. 
          ALRIGHT, COLLEAGUES, UH, UM, WE'RE GOING 
          [79. Conduct a public hearing to consider an ordinance authorizing an amendment to the Land Development Standards Agreement with Manor Independent School District to extend the expiration of the agreement by a period of five years.
]
TO RECONSIDER, UH, ITEM NUMBER 79 IN THE FINE DAYS. 
          A NUMBER C ITEM C SAID THE CITY AND THE DISTRICT DESIRE TO EXTEND THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT AS AMENDED BY FIVE YEARS BY EXECUTING. 
          AND THAT'S WHERE IT STOPPED. 
          WE SHOULD HAVE THE WORDS, A FIRST AMENDMENT THAT WERE NOT INCLUDED. 
          SO NOW WE'RE GOING TO RECONSIDER IT. 
          SO AS TO ADD THE WORDS, HEY, FIRST AMENDMENT, SO WE CAN COMPLETE THE SENTENCE. 
          IS THERE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER ITEM NUMBER 79 COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO MAKES THE MOTION COUNCIL MEMBER RENT THEIR REYES SECONDS. 
          ANY DISCUSSION THOSE IN FAVOR OF RECONSIDERING, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. 
          THOSE OPPOSED IT'S UNANIMOUS ON THE DYESS COUNCIL MEMBER, HARPER, MADISON OFF. 
          SO OUR MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM NUMBER 79, VERSION TWO, WHICH ADDS AT THE END OF PART ONE FINDINGS. 
          SEE A FIRST AMENDMENT AT THE END COUNCIL MEMBER. 
          TO-GO MAKES THE MOTION. 
          IS THERE A SECOND COUNCIL MEMBER, RENTER, MARIA SECONDS, ANY DISCUSSION THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HANDS. 
          THOSE OPPOSED UNANIMOUS ON THE DIAS WITH, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER, MADISON OFF. 
          UH, WHAT ABOUT THE ITEM NUMBER 10 AT THIS POINT? IS THAT GOING TO TAKE US A WHILE? I DON'T THINK IT WILL. 
          SO WE'RE GOING TO BE PROBABLY HEARING, UH, 81. 
          WE HAVE NOW, UH, UH, HAD, UM, 
          [05:15:04]
WHEN IT SAYS CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE A RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THAT REV REV REVOLUTION IS WHAT ITEM NUMBER 10 IS, IS THAT CORRECT? I MEAN, RE RESOLUTION, WE WILL NOT BE A REVOLUTION. 
          IT WILL, IT WILL DEFINITELY BE A RESOLUTION. 
          AND IS THAT NUMBER 10?  FOR NUMBER 81? I, I, UH, I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL TO TAKE UP ITEM ANY ONE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING SO THAT WE CAN CONSIDER ITEM 10 AFTER, UH, AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING, RIGHT. 
          81 IS TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE A RESOLUTION. 
          IS THE RESOLUTION CALLED OUT IN 81 ITEM NUMBER 10 OR IS THERE TWO RESOLUTIONS TO RESOLUTION, SIR. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO LET'S FIRST PICK 
          [81. Conduct a public hearing and approve a resolution to authorize the Downtown Austin Public Improvement District and designate Austin DMO, Inc., doing business as Downtown Austin Alliance, as its management entity. Related to Item #10.]
UP THEN ITEM NUMBER 81. 
          WHAT IS THE RESOLUTION ASSOCIATED WITH? OKAY. 
          UH, THE RESOLUTION ITEM 81 ON 81 OR ON 10, I'M SORRY, 81. 
          IT'S ON OUR AGENDA. 
          AND IT SAYS TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE A RESOLUTION. 
          LET ME, LET ME GO THROUGH MY TALKING POINTS HERE TO OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING, IF THAT WOULD HELP BECAUSE THE REST OF YOUR TALKING POINTS. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          SO NUMBER 81, THIS IS A FORMAL OPENING OF THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          SO MAYOR COUNCIL, I'M CHRISTINE MCGUIRE WITH THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, 81 VIALS TWO COUNCIL ACTIONS. 
          SO ONE IS TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE DOWNTOWN PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT OR D PIT WITH ITS NEW GEOGRAPHIC BOUNDARIES. 
          THE SECOND IS TO APPROVE IS NOW YOU HAVE ME DOING IT AND APPROVE A RESOLUTION, AUTHORIZING THE D THE DOWNTOWN PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT DESIGNATING THE DOWNTOWN AUSTIN ALLIANCE TO BE THE MANAGEMENT ENTITY FOR THE DOWNTOWN PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT STATE LAW REQUIRES COUNCIL HOLD THIS HEARING TO GIVE A PUBLIC AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON THE DOWNTOWN PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT. 
          PIT NOTICE REQUIRED BY STATE LAW WAS MAIL MAILED TO PROPERTY OWNERS AND PUBLISHED IN THE AUSTIN AMERICAN STATESMAN AT THE REQUEST OF PROPERTY OWNERS COUNCIL CREATED THE DOWNTOWN PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT IN 1993 AND DESIGNATED THE AUSTIN DMO INC, DOING BUSINESS TO AS DOWNTOWN AUSTIN ALLIANCE AS ITS MANAGEMENT ENTITY, THE DOWNTOWN PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT HAS BEEN REAUTHORIZED THREE TIMES. 
          THE LAST IN 2012, AND THE PID BOUNDARIES HAVE BEEN INCREMENTALLY EXPANDED OVER THE YEARS AT THE REQUEST. 
          THE PROPERTY OWNERS TODAY'S ACTION WAS TRIGGERED BY PETITIONS FROM PROPERTY OWNERS SUBMITTED BY THE DOWNTOWN AUSTIN LIONS. 
          LAST MARCH WITH THE CLERK HAS CERTIFIED AS MEETING THE STATE REQUIREMENTS IN APRIL WITHOUT COUNCIL ACTION. 
          THE DOWNTOWN PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT EXPIRES ON OCTOBER 11TH, 2022. 
          THE OWNERS PETITION TO CONTINUE THE DOWNTOWN PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT IS STRUCTURED AS A SIMILAR TO IN THE PAST ASSESSMENT RATE OF 10 CENTS PER A HUNDRED DOLLARS AN HOUR, A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS IN ASSESSED VALUE THE EXEMPTION ON THE FIRST 500,000 OF VALUE OF ALL PROPERTIES. 
          ALIGNABLE FOR ASSESSMENT EXEMPTION OF HOMESTEAD, CIVIC NON-PROFIT AND RELIGIOUS PROPERTIES. 
          AND AS THE DOWNTOWN AUSTIN ALLIANCE, AS THE MANAGEMENT ENTITY PER THE PETITION, FOLLOWING THE PUBLIC HEARING, COUNCIL WOULD CONSIDER ITEM 10 FOR APPROVAL TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE A MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE DOWNTOWN AUSTIN LIONS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT SERVICES FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS. 
          IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL BE HANSARD HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM. 
          IF NOT, WE ARE READY TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND WE DO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT, UM, THAT CONVERSATION WOULD BE, UM, UH, THAT THAT STAFF WOULD BE OPEN TO NEGOTIATE, UH, THE CONTRACT, THE MANAGEMENT SERVICE CONTRACT, AND BRING BACK THE CONTRACT FOR CONSIDERATION TO EXECUTE. 
          SO I JUST WANTED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT CONVERSATION. 
          OKAY. 
          SO TO CLARIFY, JUST A COUPLE OF THINGS. 
          THE FIRST IS WE OPENED UP THE PUBLIC HEARING THIS MORNING AND WE OPENED IT UP AT 10 O'CLOCK AND WE'VE CALLED EVERYBODY WHO SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, UH, JUST TO DOUBLE CHECK. 
          IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT DID NOT SPEAK, UH, WHEN WE HAD A SPEAKER THAT WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS ISSUE, HEARING NONE AS PART OF THE RESOLUTION, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          SO IS THE RESOLUTION ASSOCIATE FORGET ITEM NUMBER 10, WHICH WE'LL GET TO IN A SECOND, BUT FOCUSING JUST ON ITEM NUMBER 81, ARE WE APPROVING, UM, UH, AND AUTHORIZING, IMPROVING A RESOLUTION THAT AUTHORIZES THE DOWNTOWN AUSTIN PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT TO BE THE DESIGNATE THE END ITS DESIGNATED AUSTIN DMO, INC. 
          DOING BUSINESS AS THE DOWNTOWN AUSTIN ALLIANCE TO BE THE MANAGEMENT ENTITY? CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          IS THERE A 
          [05:20:01]
SECOND TO THE MOTION TO APPROVE THAT RESOLUTION, UH, TOGETHER WITH THE CLOSING OF THE PUBLIC HEARING COUNCIL MEMBER POOL MAKES THAT MOTION. 
          IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION COUNCIL MEMBER RENDER RHEA SECOND SENTENCE AND DISCUSSION THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. 
          AND IT WAS UNANIMOUS ON THE DYESS WITH COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER, MADISON OFF. 
          I MAY HAVE COUNTED THAT VOTE WRONG. 
          I WAS OVER TOVO. 
          HOW DO YOU WISH TO BE RECORDED? UM, I MENTIONED COUNTS. 
          REMEMBER HYPER MEDICINE IS HERE. 
          OKAY. 
          AND AS I INDICATED EARLIER TODAY, UM, BEFORE WE VOTED, I FILED AN AFFIDAVIT WITH THE CITY CLERK, UM, BECAUSE I'M A MANAGER OF A COMPANY THAT OWNS PROPERTY IN THE NEWLY EXPANDED PID AND AT THE ADVICE OF LAW AND WE'RE ACCUSING ON THESE TWO ITEMS. OKAY. 
          YEAH. 
          IT'S MAYOR PRO TIME. 
          HOW MANY VOTED ON 80? WE HAVE NOT VOTED ON HERE. 
          I'M TRYING TO CALL THE VOTE ON 80. 
          I NEEDED ONE RATHER. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SO COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO IS RECUSING HERSELF ITEM NUMBER 81. 
          UH, CALLIE VOTES APPEARS TO BE UNANIMOUS. 
          THIS IS JUST AUTHORIZING THE, UH, THE, UH, ENTITY AND THE, UH, IDENTIFYING THE, UH, MANAGEMENT AS, AS WELL AS THE CREATION OF THE ACTUAL PID. 
          OKAY. 
          IT CREATES THE PID, UH, AUTHORIZES THAT ENTITY TO BE ITS MANAGEMENT ENTITY AND IT CLOSES THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          RIGHT. 
          MY COUNT OF IT WAS UNANIMOUS WITH COUNCIL MEMBER. 
          TOVO RECUSING HERSELF THAT PASSES. 
          NOW LET'S GO TO ITEM 
          [10. Authorize negotiation and execution of a management agreement with Austin DMO, Inc. doing business as Downtown Austin Alliance for management of services funded by the Austin Downtown Public Improvement District for a period of five years for a total contract amount of $79,115,646.00. Related Item #81.]
NUMBER 10. 
          OKAY. 
          YES. 
          UH, MAYOR PRO TEMP. 
          UM, SO AS I UNDERSTAND, ITEM NUMBER 10, IT IS A MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT. 
          UM, AND THEY ARE STILL WRITING THAT. 
          UM, MY REQUEST IS THAT WE, UM, MOVE TO JUST NEGOTIATE, UM, WHICH DOESN'T SLOW ANYTHING DOWN AND HAVE THEM COME BACK, UM, WITH THE MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT FOR OUR APPROVAL FOR EXECUTION. 
          OKAY. 
          STEPH, OKAY. 
          WITH JUST AUTHORIZING NEGOTIATION WITHOUT EXECUTION. 
          YES. 
          OKAY. 
          SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KELLY, AND THE DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM. 
          NUMBER 10, I WOULD RAISE THE ISSUE. 
          THERE'S SOMETHING ON THIS. 
          THAT'S BEEN POINTED OUT TO ME THAT I HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO FOLLOW UP ON. 
          SO I JUST WANT IT TO BE DISCUSSED DURING THAT NEGOTIATION AND EXPLAINED TO THE COUNCIL. 
          UH, WE, WE HAD THE HOMELESS WELLNESS CENTER PARTNERSHIP THAT THE DA HAD, UH, INITIATED THAT, UM, I WAS BEING SUPPORTED BY THIS AND CERTAINLY THE DA'S DOING A LOT OF GREAT WORK WITH RESPECT TO HOMELESSNESS IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA. 
          UH, BUT I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENS TO, TO THAT INITIATIVE. 
          UM, UH, AS WELL AS THE OTHER INITIATIVES THAT OUR DA'S TAKING WITH RESPECT TO HOMELESSNESS, SO THAT WE'RE ABLE TO, UH, UH, ELEVATE AND CELEBRATE THOSE EFFORTS. 
          MAYOR, IF I MAY, WE DO HAVE REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE DOWNTOWN AUSTIN ALLIANCE HERE THAT COULD ADDRESS THAT QUESTION IF YOU WOULD LIKE, OR TO JUST HIGHLIGHT THAT PERHAPS IN A MEMO, UM, WITH, TO HOW IT'S GOING TO BE FINE. 
          I'M JUST ASKING HIM WHEN IT COMES BACK BEFORE WE VOTE ON THIS, I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO DO IT TONIGHT. 
          WE HAVE A LOT OF THINGS ON THE AGENDA. 
          WE CAN, WE CAN HANDLE THAT. 
          I'M JUST IDENTIFYING THAT AS AN OUTSTANDING ISSUE. 
          SOUNDS GOOD. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, YES, MAYOR PRO TEM. 
          SO I WANTED TO DO, UM, NEGOTIATE, NOT BECAUSE I'M EXPECTING ANY PROBLEM WITH THE MANAGEMENT PLAN. 
          IT JUST SEEMS WITH RESPECT TO TRANSPARENCY. 
          UM, THIS ISN'T A LOT OF MONEY THAT WILL BE SPENT IN OUR DOWNTOWN. 
          UM, AND WE'RE, WE'RE DELEGATING A LOT TO, UM, THIS PID. 
          SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE SEE THE MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT WHEN IT COMES BACK. 
          UM, WHEN IT COMES BACK, IF YOU CAN PROVIDE, UM, A MEMO THAT DETAILS WHAT'S CHANGED FROM THE PRIOR CONTRACT, UM, SO THAT WE CAN BE AWARE OF, OF THINGS THAT MAY BE CHANGING BESIDES THE BOUNDARIES OF, OF THE PIG. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YES, WE'LL DO. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, LET'S TAKE A VOTE ON ITEM NUMBER 10. 
          IT WAS EVERYBODY'S RAISE YOUR HAND. 
          OH, NO. 
          SORRY. 
          THOSE OPPOSED. 
          I'M SHOWING IT TO PASS 10 ZERO WITH, UH, UM, CATHERINE METOVA, UH, RECUSING HERSELF. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          UM, COLLEAGUES, WHAT ELSE DO WE HAVE? THAT'S REALLY FAST AS 14 FAST. 
          THIS IS THE 
          [05:25:01]
GARAGE QUESTION. 
          I THINK 59 WOULD BE FAST IF WE HAVEN'T DONE THAT. 
          MY PERSONAL, I AGREE. 
          I THINK THAT SOUNDS GOOD. 
          UH, LET'S GO TO, I'M SORRY. 
          SAY THAT AGAIN. 
          59. 
          I THINK 59 SHOULD BE FAST. 
          OKAY. 
          LET'S DO 59, 
          [59. Approve a resolution directing the City Manager to take action to accelerate adoption of electric bicycle (e-bike) ownership, access, and usage by Austin residents]
UH, COUNCILOR ELISHA AND MAKE A MOTION. 
          I MOVE PASSAGE OF VERSION TWO OF ITEM 59 THAT INCORPORATES THE AMENDMENTS FROM THE MAYOR PRO TEM AND COUNCIL MEMBER FLOOD TEZ. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, THAT'S WHERE LS WAS PASSAGE OF 59, WHICH HAS INCORPORATED THE FUENTES AND ALTER, UH, AMENDMENTS. 
          IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT AS WELL? WHAT THIS SECOND SET AND DISCUSSION, TAKE A, VOTE THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. 
          IT WAS OPPOSE. 
          I'M SHOWING THAT AS BEING UNANIMOUS ON THE DIET. 
          SO 59 PASSES COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO 
          [14. Authorize negotiation and execution of an amended and restated lease agreement for an initial term of three years with two five-year renewal options with East Holly, LLC, for approximately 3,580 square feet of retail space located at 417 Red River St., on the ground floor of the Austin Convention Center parking garage.]
ARE YOU SET ON, UH, THE GARAGE 14? I'M GETTING, I THINK I AM. 
          SO MAYOR FIRST I'LL MOVE PASSAGE. 
          IS THERE A SECOND TO THE MOTION PASSED? I'D REMEMBER 14 COUNCIL MEMBER, UH, VELEZ SECONDS. 
          UM, AND I HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO SIT WITH OUR REAL ESTATE AND GOT SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. 
          THERE WERE, THERE WERE A COUPLE, UM, INTERESTING ELEMENTS OF THIS THAT I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT. 
          AND I WOULD ASK, HAVE ASKED BOTH OUR REAL ESTATE STAFF, BUT ALSO AM ASKING THE CITY MANAGER BY WAY OF THESE COMMENTS TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS KIND OF INFORMATION IS, IS PROVIDED IN THE FUTURE. 
          SO AS PART OF, UM, AS PART OF THEIR NEWLY NEGOTIATED RENT, THEY ARE GETTING TWO MONTHS FREE. 
          AND PART OF THAT IS BECAUSE OF THAT EXISTING STANDING COUNCIL RESOLUTION, WHICH I AM NOW GOING TO PROVIDE SOME DIRECTION. 
          IF MY COLLEAGUES SUPPORT ME TO, TO STOP DEBATING, TO STOP MAKING A BASEMENTS ON RENT, UM, BECAUSE THAT WAS REALLY INTENDED ON CITY PROPERTIES THAT WAS REALLY INTENDED TO TRY TO HELP OUT THOSE BUSINESSES THAT WERE ON CITY OWNED LAND DURING THE HEIGHT OF THE PANDEMIC. 
          UM, COOKBOOK WAS ONE, THE ONE BEHIND US, UH, WILD ABOUT MUSIC WAS ANOTHER, APPARENTLY OUR HOSTEL WAS UNFORTUNATELY NOT ONE, UM, THAT AROUND WHICH THERE WAS ANY COMMUNICATION AND AS MANY OF, YOU KNOW, AFTER DECADES OF, OF OPERATION, THEY WENT UNDER, UM, AND DISAPPEARED AND ARE NO LONGER ON CITY OWNED PROPERTY. 
          SO, SO, BUT IN ANY CASE, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE DIRECTION, IF THAT'S THE WILL OF THIS COUNCIL, THAT WE NO LONGER ASK THAT OUR, THAT OUR CITY STAFF UNDERSTAND THAT WE'RE NO LONGER ABATING RENT AGREEMENTS. 
          I ALSO THINK THAT IN THE FUTURE, WE SHOULD HAVE SOME, UM, STOP GAPS. 
          SO THERE WERE, WHEN THIS, THE, THE TERM ACTUALLY STARTED ABOUT 18 MONTHS LATER THAN, THAN WAS AUTHORIZED BY COUNCIL OR, OR THEN THE WAS EXPECTED BY COUNCIL. 
          SO, YOU KNOW, THERE WERE, THIS IS A TENANT THAT HAS, UM, YOU KNOW, AND I'M GLAD TO HAVE THEM THERE, BUT THEY HAVE GOTTEN, YOU KNOW, UH, AN ABILITY TO START MANY MONTHS AFTER IT WAS INTENDED TO START, THEY GOT TWO MONTHS RENT FREE, THEIR CONTRACT, LIKE OTHERS WAS, UH, NEEDED A UNILATERAL. 
          THEY HAD A UNILATERAL OPPORTUNITY TO EXTEND THAT'S CHANGING AND THE NEW CONTRACT, WHICH IS A GOOD THING, BUT IT DOES, YOU KNOW, IF ANYBODY IS INTERESTED IN WORKING ON THIS REAL ESTATE ISSUE WITH ME, AND I THINK A COUPLE OF YOU HAVE EXPRESSED INTEREST, I THINK THERE ARE SOME CONSISTENT PRACTICES WE NEED TO PUT INTO PLACE, MAKING SURE THAT LISA'S ALWAYS COME TO COUNCIL, MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE A REAL CLEAR SENSE WITH THE TENANT OF WHEN THEY'RE GOING TO START PAYING RENT. 
          AND IF THAT IS NOT MET, YOU KNOW, THEY, THAT THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE HAPPENING, BUT WE CAN'T REALLY AFFORD TO HAVE OUR PROPERTIES STANDING EMPTY FOR AS LONG AS, AS SOMETIMES THEY ARE. 
          UM, WHEN WE'RE EXPECTING TO GET RENT FOR ALL THOSE AREAS. 
          AND WE NEED TO STOP HAVING UNILATERAL ABILITY TO HAVE EXTENSIONS BECAUSE WE, THAT HAS, HAS PREVENTED US FROM REALLY KEEPING UP WITH THE MARKET ON OUR CITY OWNED PROPERTY. 
          SO I'LL LEAVE IT THERE, I'LL LEAVE IT THERE FOR NOW, BUT THAT'S, UM, I ALSO DO THINK THAT FOR OUR CONVENTION CENTER PROPERTIES, WE NEED TO PARTICULARLY LOOK AT, AT SHIFTING THE PARADIGM WHERE WE'RE NOT JUST LOOKING AT LEASES THAT SUPPORT CONVENTION CENTER VISITORS, BUT WE'RE REALLY LOOKING AT AT HOW THOSE, HOW THOSE USES CAN TRANSFER, HELP US TRANSFORM THOSE AREAS. 
          SO THAT THOSE QUADRANTS OF DOWNTOWN ARE BECOMING PLACES WHERE VISIT, WHERE AUSTIN RESIDENTS WANT TO GO AS WELL. 
          SO THAT ALL OF THE USES IN THE CONVENTION CENTER PROPERTIES ARE NOT JUST SUPPORTING OUR, OUR CONVENTION CENTER USES MR. GATES. 
          I SEE YOU HERE. 
          AND MY WHOLE INTENTION HERE TODAY WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO STAY TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS. 
          SO I APOLOGIZE IF YOU'RE HERE FOR THIS ITEM. 
          UM, BUT WITH THAT, I'LL CONCLUDE, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THOUGH THAT THE DIRECTION IS THAT WE'RE NOT DOING BATEMANS ANYMORE, THE REST OF IT, WHERE YOUR COMMENTS AND YOUR THOUGHTS AND STUFF YOU'RE WORKING ON, THAT IS NOT THAT'S RIGHT THEN THE DIRECTION, THE DIRECTION IS THAT WE NO LONGER, WE NO LONGER PROVIDE A BATEMAN'S. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          I SUPPORT THAT 
          [05:30:01]
AND THAT, AND THEY, AND I MEAN, I HAD MENTIONED EARLIER THAT I WOULD BE MAKING AS, AS DIRECTION TODAY THAT LISA'S CONTINUE TO COME TO US, BUT I THINK THAT IS THE CURRENT PRACTICE, SO IT'S FINE. 
          AND WE AREN'T POSTED FOR IT ANYWAY AS MY GUESTS. 
          AND SO I'LL JUST BRING IT FORWARD AS A SEPARATE IFC. 
          I THINK THAT'S RIGHT. 
          ALL WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US IS THIS PARTICULAR LEASE. 
          YES. 
          CANCER KELLY. 
          SO JUST TO CLARIFY, AND FOR MY OWN UNDERSTANDING, IT'S NO MORE ABATEMENTS ON THIS CURRENT LEASE, BUT YOU WILL BE BRINGING SOMETHING FORWARD IN FUTURE RESOLUTION OR IN A FUTURE RESOLUTION TO NOT HAVE ABATEMENTS IN FUTURE REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS. 
          I'M HOPEFUL THAT I THINK BETWEEN OUR CONVERSATION, NO, THE ABATEMENTS ARE MORE GENERAL. 
          SO DURING THE PANDEMIC, WE PASS THAT RESOLUTION, ASKING OUR REAL ESTATE STAFF TO WORK WITH FOLKS ON CITY OWNED PROPERTIES, UM, ON DIFFERENT KINDS OF ARRANGEMENTS THAT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO STAY AS OUR TENANTS. 
          THE STAFF HAVE CONTINUED THAT NOW FOR ALL OF THIS TIME. 
          AND SO WHAT I'M PROVIDING AS BY WAY OF DIRECTION IS TO SAY, PLEASE STOP, BECAUSE WE'RE, WE'RE AT A PLACE WHERE THOSE BUSINESSES ARE ALLOWED TO BE OPEN AND FUNCTIONING. 
          WE NO LONGER WANT TO ABATE RENT BASED ON THAT COUNCIL RESOLUTION THAT WAS REALLY INTENDED TO BE AN EMERGENCY KIND OF MEASURE DURING THE PANDEMIC. 
          OKAY. 
          SO I GUESS THAT PREDATED MY TIME ON THE DAY OF, SO I WASN'T AWARE OF THAT, BUT MY QUESTION TO, UM, LEGAL IS, DOES THE DIRECTION, BECAUSE WE'RE ONLY POSTED FOR THIS ITEM, DOES THAT APPLY TO ALL OF OUR AGREEMENTS? OR WILL THAT NEED TO BE IN A FUTURE RESOLUTION? THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. 
          IT'S GOING TO NEED TO COME AS A RESOLUTION. 
          WE HAVE A RESOLUTION DIRECTING COUNCIL, CITY STAFF TO DO SOMETHING WE'LL NEED A RESOLUTION TO STOP IT. 
          SO WE, SOMETIMES WE HAVE RESOLUTIONS THAT HAVE SUNSET PROVISIONS IN THEM, WHICH IS A GREAT IDEA. 
          THIS ONE DOES NOT. 
          SO, UH, I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO BRING BACK SEVERAL DIFFERENT ITEMS AND THAT WILL BE INCLUDED IN THIS, THE DIRECTION YOU'RE GIVING TODAY IS SIMPLY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS ITEM, STOP THE ABATEMENT OF THIS RENT AND MOVE FORWARD. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR PROVIDING THAT CLARITY COUNCIL MEMBER. 
          TOVO. 
          IF YOU'D LIKE TO INCLUDE ME IN THAT PROCESS, I THINK THAT WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO PRESENT IS WORTHWHILE AND WOULD BE OF GREAT VALUE TO OUR CITY AND I SUPPORT IT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANKS, BYE. 
          REALLY WHAT WE HAVE IS, IS PASSING THIS ITEM, UH, AND, AND ACKNOWLEDGING THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE BRINGING YOUR RESOLUTIONS. 
          SO AS TO END THE PRACTICE OF THE ABATEMENT AND PERHAPS OTHER ITEMS AS WELL, AND I THINK NOW IN OUR CONVERSATION, SO WE'VE SENT A STRONG, I THINK WE'VE SENT A STRONG MESSAGE TO OUR STAFF THAT WE DON'T WANT TO CONTINUE THAT TO HOPEFULLY, AND UNTIL WE GET TO THE IFC, HOPEFULLY THAT'LL BE SUFFICIENT. 
          OKAY. 
          I'LL JOIN YOU IN, IN, IN GETTING THAT. 
          AND PROBABLY WE SHOULD DO THAT AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN SO THAT THEY HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO STOP. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          LET'S TAKE A, VOTE THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS ITEM. 
          NUMBER 10, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          ITEM NUMBER 14, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. 
          THOSE OPPOSED. 
          14 PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, DO WE ANTICIPATE A LONG TIME ON THAT, UM, ASM P AMENDMENTS? LIKE THAT MIGHT BE FAST. 
          I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE WHAT WE HAVE ON THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          LET'S HOLD THAT ONE FOR JUST ONE SECOND. 
          CAUSE I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE SEVERAL DIFFERENT THINGS. 
          WHAT ABOUT, 
          [56. Approve an ordinance amending City Code Section 12-4-64 (D) to reduce speed limits, during certain times, for students attending various schools; and provide for emergency passage.
]
UH, ON 56 AND 57, WHICH ARE THE PARKING THAT'LL BE FAST. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          I MEAN, COLLEAGUES ON 56, 57, I PASSED OUT AN AMENDMENT SHEET, WHICH IS BASICALLY JUST ADDED DIRECTION. 
          THIS WOULD DIRECT CITY CITY COUNCIL WOULD DIRECT THE CITY MANAGER TO COORDINATE WITH TRAVIS COUNTY TO CONDUCT AN ENGINEERING STUDY AND EXTEND THE SPEED LIMIT REDUCTION ON EAST SLAUGHTER LANE FROM BRANDT ROAD TO ALDERMAN DRIVE. 
          AND I'D ALSO LIKE TO INCLUDE THE ADDITION OF ADD AND ON BRADSHAW ROAD. 
          SO IF WE CAN ADD ON AND ON BRADSHAW ROAD, THAT WOULD INCLUDE A, UM, A SCHOOL THAT ISN'T THE ETJ PORTION OF D OF D FIVE. 
          AND, UM, THIS IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE WHAT WE'VE SEEN IS, UH, ESPECIALLY FOR DISTRICTS LIKE MINE, THAT WE HAVE SEGMENTS OF THE ROAD THAT ARE CITY AND THEN SEGMENTS THAT OUR COUNTY, AND THEN IT REVERTS BACK TO, TO CITY. 
          AND IN PARTICULAR, THIS IS EAST SLAUGHTER LANE AND WE HAVE TWO SCHOOLS THAT ARE IN THE COUNTY ETJ THAT DESERVE AND DESPERATELY NEED SPEED REDUCTIONS. 
          AND SO THIS WHIPPED, DIRECT STAFF TO COORDINATE WITH TRAVIS COUNTY AND TAKING A LOOK AT REDUCING OUR SPEED, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THAT A PORTION OF THE SEGMENT, UH, JUST, UH, RECEIVED OR WILL RECEIVE A SPEED REDUCTION. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THE MOTION IS DUE ME TO READ THIS OUT AGAIN. 
          NO, THE REST OF THE MOTION IS AS RED. 
          IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION COUNSEL? REMEMBER IN 30 SECONDS AT ANY DISCUSSION PREMIER PRO TIME? UM, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ASK LEGAL OR, UM, MS. FIDANKA, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WE HAVE TO DO THE, 
          [05:35:01]
THE STUDY AND THE STUDY DETERMINES WHETHER WE CAN REDUCE THE SPEED. 
          WE CAN'T JUST LIKE BY STATE LAW. 
          JUST CHANGE SPEEDS BECAUSE WE WANT TO, SO I'M WONDERING IF IT WOULD BE BETTER IF WE SAID CONSIDER EXTENDING THE SPEED LIMIT REDUCTION. 
          MR. MENDOZA, DID YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO THAT? YES. 
          MA'AM YOU ARE CORRECT. 
          RICHARD MENDOZA, UH, INTERIM DIRECTOR FOR TRANSPORTATION. 
          GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. 
          YES. 
          ALL, UH, SPEED LIMIT, UH, HALF HAS TO BE SET BY THE CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER AND HAS TO BE THE RESULT OF AN ENGINEERED TRAFFIC STUDY. 
          WE HAVE CONDUCTED A STUDY ON THIS ROAD AND WE'VE ACTUALLY FORWARDED, UH, SOME OF THE RESULTS OF THAT STUDY TO OUR, UH, COUNTY COUNTERPARTS. 
          AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO PARTNERING WITH THEM ON SLAUGHTER LANE. 
          SO DOES, DOES OUR STUDY SAY THAT IT SHOULD BE REDUCED? I'M JUST WONDERING IF WE HAVE TO CHANGE THE LANGUAGE TO CONSIDER JUST SO THAT YOU'RE NOT BOUND TO DO SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN'T DO. 
          BASED ON THIS STUDY, I'M GOING TO ASK MY A TRAFFIC ENGINEER WHO CONDUCTED THE STUDY AND OVERSAW THAT WORK TO COME UP AND ADDRESS THAT, THAT QUESTION PLEASE. 
          AND THAT'S, UM, RIGHT HERE, ERIC, I COULD EVENING ERIC POLLOCK, AUSTIN TRANSPORTATION, UH, JUST AS A CLARIFICATION, THE CITY DID NOT DO OUR OWN STUDY ON THOSE TWO SEGMENTS OF THE COUNTY. 
          UM, AND SO IT WOULD ULTIMATELY BE UP TO THE COUNTY TO CONDUCT THEIR OWN STUDIES, BUT WE COULD WORK WITH THEM, UM, FOR THE REDUCTIONS THAT YOU'RE SEEKING. 
          YES. 
          AND FROM MY UNDERSTANDING BASED ON CONVERSATIONS THAT WE'VE HAD WITH THE COUNTY, THEY SHOULD HAVE CONDUCTED THIS STUDY THIS YEAR, OR THEY COMMITTED TO DOING IT EARLY THIS YEAR. 
          I'M NOT SURE WHERE THEY'RE AT ON THAT STUDY, BUT I KNOW THAT IT WAS IN PROGRESS. 
          SURE. 
          WE CAN FOLLOW UP WITH THAT. 
          AND SO, YEAH, WE, WE DID DO OUR OWN STUDIES ON SLAUGHTER, FOR EXAMPLE, WITHIN THE PORTIONS OF THE CITY LIMITS, BUT NOT THAT SHORT SEGMENT BETWEEN BRANDS AND ALL OF, SO LET'S FOCUS DOWN, WHAT'S THE VERB IN YOUR DEAL. 
          AND IS IT THE RIGHT ONE? THE RESOLUTION HAS, IS DOING WHAT, OH, IT SAYS TO COORDINATE WITH TRAVIS COUNTY TO CONDUCT AN ENGINEERING STUDY AND EXTEND THE SPEED LIMIT REDUCTION ON EAST WATER LANE. 
          OKAY. 
          SO CAN WE AUTHORIZE THE EXTENSION AT THIS POINT OR DO WE HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL THE STUDY COMES BACK TO AUTHORIZE EXTENSION? SO I THINK THAT IF THE LANGUAGE IS THE INTENTION TO WORK WITH THE COUNTY, FOR THE COUNTY TO DO THEIR OWN STUDY, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT THING WHICH CAN BE INTERPRETED THAT THE CITY DOES ITS OWN STUDY AND, AND TRIES TO HAVE THAT PASSED FOR THE COUNTY. 
          IT'S THE COUNTY TO DO ITS OWN STUDY, CORRECT. 
          THE COUNTY, YOU KNOW, HAS COMMITTED. 
          AND I KNOW IT WAS IN THE WORKS OF DOING THEIR OWN STUDY, RIGHT. 
          SO I DON'T HAVE THE WORD IN FRONT OF ME. 
          I THINK THE QUESTION IS, SHOULD IT SAY TO DO THIS STUDY SEEKING TO EXTEND OR WAS TO EXTEND A SEPARATE THING THAT WE'RE AUTHORIZING AT THIS POINT, OR TO SUPPORT THE COUNTY IN ITS EFFORTS TO LOWER THE TRAFFIC SPEED LIMIT? BECAUSE I THINK THE POINT HERE IS WE DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO LOWER THE SPEED LIMIT OURSELVES, BUT WE CAN BY RESOLUTION SUPPORT THE COUNTY'S EFFORTS TO DO THAT VERY THING, BECAUSE WE WOULD LIKE THEM TO DO IT. 
          THIS LANGUAGE WAS SHARED WITH TRANSPORTATION STAFF IN ADVANCE, BUT I'M HAPPY TO, TO MAKE CHANGES TO SO THAT THE INTENTION HERE ISN'T LOST. 
          WOULD YOU READ IT ONE MORE TIME? JUST THAT FIRST PART, I'M SORRY. 
          DIRECTS THE CITY MANAGER TO COORDINATE WITH TRAVIS COUNTY TO CONDUCT AN ENGINEERING STUDY AND EXTEND THE SPEED LIMIT REDUCTION ON EAST SLAUGHTER LANE FROM BRANT ROAD TO ALDERMAN DRIVE AND ON BRADSHAW ROAD. 
          SO IF I MIGHT OFFER THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY SUPPORTING THE COUNTY DOING THAT SPEED STUDY. 
          I THINK IT MAY BE MORE THAN THAT THOUGH, WHO ULTIMATELY EXTENDS THE SPEED LIMIT. 
          UH, IF IT'S IN THE ETJ, THAT WOULD BE THE COUNTY TO DO ITS OWN, UM, STUDIES. 
          AND I'M NOT, THE BRADSHAW EDITION IS, IS NEW TO ME. 
          AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE WANT TO ADD THIS SPECIFIC EXTENSIVE BRADSHAW OR IF WE JUST LEAVE, IT UNDERSTOOD THAT IT'S IN THE COUNTY'S PORTION OF BRUSHES. 
          SO RIGHT NOW WE'RE BEING ASKED TO THE RESOLUTION, SAYS COORDINATES TO CONDUCT A STUDY AND EXTEND THE SPEED LIMIT. 
          I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT IS WRONG. 
          IT INDICATES THAT WE ARE PART OF, WELL, OKAY. 
          IF WE ARE DEVELOPING THE INTENTION HERE, THAT CITY OF AUSTIN IS NOT DOING THE STUDY, BUT WE SUPPORT AND WE'LL COORDINATE WITH TRAVIS COUNTY AS THEY DO THE STUDY, RIGHT? BECAUSE WE'RE NOT PUTTING OUT OUR STAFF OR OUR EXPENSES INTO DOING THE STUDY. 
          I THINK THAT'S THE BRIGHT LINE HERE. 
          I TH I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT COUNCIL MEMBER THAT WE HAVE RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE COUNTY AND WE CAN CERTAINLY WORK WITH THEM AND KIND OF EXPLAIN OUR, UM, PROCEDURES AND IF NEEDED FOR THE COUNTY. 
          AND I'M SORRY TO BROUGHT UP A CAN OF WORMS 
          [05:40:01]
HERE, BUT MY QUESTION WAS ABOUT, IT SAYS THAT WE ARE EXTENDING THE SPEED LIMIT REDUCTION, WHICH I BELIEVE BY STATE LAW, YOU CAN'T DO UNLESS THE STUDIES SHOWS THAT. 
          AND SO, UM, AND SO, SO, SO IS IT AS SIMPLE AS CITY COUNCIL DIRECTS THE CITY MANAGER TO COORDINATE WITH TRAVIS COUNTY TO CONDUCT ITS ENGINEERING STUDY, TO EXTEND THE SPEED LIMIT REDUCTION? SURE. 
          CITY COUNCIL DIRECTS, IS THIS OKAY WITH YOU THAT IF THAT MAKES EVERYONE MORE COMFORTABLE, AND IF THE INTENTION HERE ISN'T LAWS, BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND IT'S A COMPLEX ISSUE BECAUSE THERE ARE SEGMENTS OF SLAUGHTER LANE THAT ARE CITY AND THEN COUNTY, AND THEN CITY, AND WE'VE, THE CITY HAS CONDUCTED OUR STUDY AND WE'RE CHANGING THE SPEED ON OUR PORTION OF THE ROAD AND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO. 
          AND WE KNOW THAT TRAVIS COUNTY HAS THEIR OWN STUDY, UH, THAT THEY'RE WORKING ON IS JUST TRYING TO COORDINATE WITH THEM TO ENSURE THAT THAT GETS DONE IN A TIMELY MANNER, RIGHT? BECAUSE THERE ARE TWO SCHOOLS THAT ARE IN THE COUNTY PORTION THAT DESPERATELY NEED THAT SPEED REDUCTION. 
          I'M HAPPY WITH CHANGING THAT IF IT'S BOTH, IF YOU'RE HAPPY, LET'S CHANGE AND IT'S, AND LET'S CHANGE AND TO, TO PERFECT. 
          JUST THOSE CHANGES TO CONDUCT ITS ENGINEERING STUDY TO EXTEND THE SPEED LIMIT, OR IS IT OKAY? ANY OBJECTION TO THAT AMENDMENT? EVERY NUN THAT AMENDMENT IS MADE, UH, IT'S BEEN MOVED IN AND SECONDED TO PASS ITEMS 56 AND 57 AS STATED AND AMENDED. 
          YES. 
          MA'AM TIMER THOSE IN FAVOR. 
          PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. 
          I WAS OPPOSED IT'S UNANIMOUS THOSE TWO PATHS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, COUNCIL MEMBER KELLY, YOU PULLED ITEM NUMBER 61 57. 
          WE WERE ONLY DOING, I HAVE, I DIDN'T MEAN JUST PASS 57. 
          I WANTED TO MAKE SURE DID WE ALREADY POSTPONE IT OR, OKAY. 
          I THOUGHT, I THOUGHT WE SAID WE WERE GOING TO POSTPONE IT AND COME TO NUMBER KITCHEN HAD QUESTIONS. 
          SO WE DID THAT. 
          SO I WOULD LIKE TO POSTPONE THAT FOR, OKAY. 
          LET ME CALL THE ITEM DIFFERENTLY BECAUSE THERE'S CONFUSION ABOUT WHAT I WAS CALLING AND NOT CALLING COUNTERPOINT IS OFFERED THE LANGUAGE ON ITEM NUMBER 56 AS AMENDED. 
          LET'S TAKE A VOTE ON THAT. 
          FIRST, THOSE IN FAVOR OF 56, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. 
          THOSE OPPOSED UNANIMOUS ON 56. 
          NOW LET'S CALL UP 57. 
          [57. Approve an ordinance amending City Code Chapter 12-4 to lower and establish speed limits on arterial streets outside of the Urban Core.]
UM, DO YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION ON 57 OR DO YOU WANT TO LET COUNCIL MEMBER  MAKES THE MOTION TO PASS ITEM 57? IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT COUNCIL MEMBER, KITCHEN SECONDS, THAT MOTION YOU WANT TO ADDRESS IT? BEFORE I ASKED COUNCIL MEMBER ALTER, GIVE HER, LET HER MAKE HER MOTION TO POSTPONE COUNCILMEMBER KITCHEN. 
          UH, YES. 
          I HAD MENTIONED EARLIER THAT I HAD A QUESTION ON IT, BUT, UM, I GOT MY QUESTION ANSWERED, SO I'M, I'M OKAY WITH PROCEEDING WITH IT. 
          OKAY. 
          MAYOR PRO TIMER. 
          SO I WOULD APPRECIATE POSTPONING TILL NEXT WEEK. 
          I HAD THREE STREETS THAT WERE ON THE ORIGINAL MAP AS HAVING SPEED REDUCTIONS, UM, THAT ARE NOW APPARENTLY NOT HAVING SPEED REDUCTIONS. 
          AND I, I NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT BETTER. 
          OKAY. 
          CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION ABOUT THAT? YES. 
          GO AHEAD. 
          UM, I'M ASSUMING THAT YOU LOOKED AT THE CORRECTED MAP BECAUSE I WAS CONFUSED AT FIRST. 
          THE REASON I HAD A QUESTION IS BECAUSE THERE'S A MAP AND A CORRECTED MAP IN THE BACKGROUND. 
          SO IS YOUR STREET NOT ON THE CORRECTED MAP? CORRECT. 
          SO THE REASON THERE'S A CORRECTED MAP IS BECAUSE I LOOKED AT THE MAPS AND THEN I LOOKED AT THE RESOLUTION AND I HAD THREE STREETS IN MY DISTRICT THAT WERE ON THE MAP AS RECEIVING SPEED REDUCTIONS THAT WERE NOT IN THE RESOLUTION. 
          AND SO THEY TOLD ME THEY HAD PUT THE WRONG MAP IN WHICH STREETS ARE THOSE JUST TO, JUST SO WE CAN UNDERSTAND THAT, UM, SPICEWOOD SPRINGS ROAD AND FILLED IN LAKE AUSTIN BOULEVARD. 
          OKAY. 
          I DON'T KNOW. 
          I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED BECAUSE I ASSUMED THERE WAS A SPEED STUDY THAT SAID THEY SHOULD BE REDUCED AND NOW THEY'RE NOT BEING REDUCED. 
          AND SO I WANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT, AND THAT WAS NOT SOMETHING I WAS ABLE TO FIGURE OUT TODAY. 
          IS IT POSSIBLE TO, WELL, MAYBE WE DON'T NEED, LET ME, LET ME JUST ASK THE STAFF A QUESTION. 
          I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE ONE WEEK. 
          IF WE WAIT TO REDUCE THE ROADS ON EVERY OTHER STREET, IT TAKES THEM QUITE AWHILE TO, UM, CAN, UH, DOES IT MAKE ANY, I ASSUME THE TIMING DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE IF WE WAIT UNTIL NEXT WEEK, RIGHT? UH, NO, IT SHOULD NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, AND I ASSUME IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE. 
          I STARTED TO SAY, WELL, WHY DON'T WE ADOPT TODAY? WHAT WE HAVE, AND THEN JUST ADD FOR NEXT WEEK BUT I GUESS IT DOESN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE IF THE TIMING DOESN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE. 
          SO, OKAY. 
          ANY OBJECTION 
          [05:45:01]
TO POSTPONING THIS ITEM UNTIL NEXT WEEK HEARING? NO OBJECTION, 57 IS POSTPONE UNTIL NEXT WEEK. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, I THINK THAT GETS US THEN TO, UM, ITEMS 61. 
          [61. Approve a resolution relating to environmental protections and water quality; and initiating amendments to the City Code]
THAT'S WHERE KELLY, YOU PULLED THIS COUNCIL MEMBER. 
          TOVO. 
          DO YOU WANT TO MAKE YOUR EMOTION? UM, I BROUGHT FORWARD A MOTION SHEET MAYER. 
          OKAY. 
          MAY I MAKE THAT MOTION? IT WAS CIRCULAR. 
          WELL, IT'S HER IFC. 
          I'M GONNA LET HER MAKE HER MOTION AND THEN I WILL COME TO YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          HOW'S HUMBERTO. 
          YES, I MOVE APPROVAL PLEASE. 
          UM, I'M GOING TO MOVE APPROVAL WITH COUNCIL MEMBER. 
          UH,  AMENDMENT IN IT, AND I HAD SOME, YEP. 
          LET ME LEAVE IT THERE AND APOLOGIZE TO HIM BECAUSE I INTENDED TO HAVE THAT AS PART OF THE BASE MISSION. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WERE THERE ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS, UM, THAT YOU INCORPORATED IN, IN? I'M NOT SURE I HAVE THE YEAH, I HAVE NOT DISTRIBUTED A NEW, LET ME JUST SAY THIS. 
          I'VE NOT DISTRIBUTED A NEW VERSION. 
          IT IS THE VERSION AS IN THE BACKUP. 
          AND WHEN YOU GET TO LINE 1 65, IT WOULD SHIFT TO COUNCIL MEMBER RENTER. 
          HE IS HIGHLIGHTED HIS MOTION. 
          HIS AMENDMENT HAS HIGHLIGHTED LANGUAGE, UM, PROVIDING A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAILS AROUND THAT. 
          AND I'M TOTALLY FINE WITH THAT. 
          KOHUT'S AS YOU ORIGINALLY OFFERED IT WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT NOW IT HAD SCOUTS, NUMBER THREE IS LANGUAGE. 
          YES. 
          OKAY. 
          IT'S BEEN MOVED. 
          IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT? YOU GUYS WERE AT THE REAR SECOND SIDE. 
          AND LET ME SAY THAT I DID. 
          I THINK I CAN EXCEPT A LOT OF THE OTHER AMENDMENTS. 
          UM, BUT WE, IF WE COULD GO THROUGH THEM BIT BY BIT, I HAD ACTUALLY REWRITTEN COUNCIL MEMBER VELEZ TO THE POINT WHERE I COULD ACCEPT THOSE INTO THE, INTO THE ITEM TOO, BUT HE JUST DISTRIBUTED A NEW VERSION THAT HAS SOME ADDITIONAL WORDING THAT GOES BACK TO WELL, IN ANY CASE, I CAN ACCEPT COUNCIL MEMBER VILLAS, AS I HAVE REWRITTEN IT, I THINK COUNTS. 
          I'LL LET HIM EXPLAIN WHAT HE'S DONE, BUT HE'S GONE BACK TO HIS ORIGINAL LANGUAGE AND ADDED IN THE WORD IMPERVIOUS COVER IN A COUPLE PLACES AND A NEW, WHEREAS, UM, I DON'T KNOW, LET'S SAY REWRITTEN IT AS I HAVE HAD LANGUAGE, YOU HAVE IT, YOU HAVE IT IN FRONT OF YOU. 
          UM, I HANDED OUT A YELLOW COPY JUST A LITTLE BIT AGO. 
          IT STAPLED TO A MARK DRAFT SO THAT YOU COULD SEE HOW I REWROTE IT AND ALSO WHAT THE RESULTING CHANGES. 
          HOWEVER, THEN HE JUST DISTRIBUTED A NEW VERSION OF HIS AND I, I CAN PROBABLY ACCEPT SOME OF IT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO BE ABLE TO READ THAT WHILE WE'RE NOT SITTING IN THE TIRES. 
          I KNOW WHERE I'M GOING ON IT, BUT I DON'T KNOW HAS THAT. 
          I'M JUST TRYING TO GIVE YOU TIME TO BE ABLE TO DO IT. 
          SO WE'RE GOING TO COME BACK. 
          RIGHT. 
          BUT BEFORE WE DO THAT, I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHERE YOU ARE. 
          SO YOU TOOK HER INTO RIAS. 
          THERE WAS ALSO ONE THAT WAS OFFERED BY, UM, HARPER, MADISON ELLIS, AND ME, UH, ARE YOU OKAY WITH THAT ONE? I HAVE A DATE CHANGE TO OFFER ON YOURS, BUT I BELIEVE, LET ME JUST TAKE A LOOK AT THAT AGAIN. 
          I'M OKAY WITH THAT ONE, BUT I'M NOT OKAY WITH THE FINAL DATE OF NUMBER EIGHT, EIGHTH, 2022. 
          AND I BELIEVE WE HAVE TALKED WITH OUR CITY STAFF ABOUT, ABOUT AN EARLIER DATE AND I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE THAT IT BE NOVEMBER, UM, YOU KNOW, NO LATER THAN NOVEMBER 20, 22. 
          UH, YES. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SO I UNDERSTAND YOUR DESIRE TO CHANGE THAT. 
          LET ME WE'LL CHECK WITH OTHERS. 
          AND THEN THERE WAS THE DEVELOPMENT THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT IN SECOND. 
          AND THEN THERE'S A KELLY AMENDMENT. 
          UH, ARE YOU OKAY WITH HERS? OH, THAT ONE, NOT THAT ONE. 
          I'M GOING TO NEED TO FULL FIND AND DISCUSS. 
          I LOOKED AT IT HOURS AGO AND THINK I HAD SOME CONCERNS, BUT I NEED TO FIND IT. 
          OH, WAIT A MINUTE. 
          HERE IT IS. 
          [05:50:01]
UM, I HAVE A QUESTION COUNCIL MEMBER. 
          CAN YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHAT IS, HOW DOES THIS DIFFER FROM WHAT IS, WHAT IS YOUR INTENT HERE? IS IT TO COME BACK WITH RECOMMENDATIONS? WHAT'S THE TIMING? WHAT ARE YOU EXPLAIN WHAT YOUR AMENDMENT DOES? AND THEN I'LL, I'LL ASK YOU, I HAD SOME QUESTIONS FOR YOU TO KIND OF LEAD DOWN THIS PATHWAY, BUT I'LL JUST EXPLAIN THAT WHEN I READ THROUGH THIS RESOLUTION, UM, I SAW A LOT OF REALLY GREAT THINGS IN IT, BUT IT SEEMED TO BE A LITTLE RESOURCE HEAVY FOR ME, UM, IN THE SENSE THAT, UM, I KNOW THAT IT'LL TAKE A LOT OF STAFF TIME. 
          AND SO I WANT TO HAVE THAT EXPECTATION OF HOW MUCH STAFF TIME IT MIGHT TAKE. 
          AND I DIDN'T KNOW IF YOU HAD TALKED WITH THE CITY STAFF ABOUT HOW LONG IT WOULD TAKE TO COMPLETE THIS RESOLUTION SO THAT WE, AS A COUNCIL COULD HAVE AN EXPECTATION OF SOME OF THE SOFT COSTS POSSIBLY INVOLVED WITH GETTING THEM TO COMPLETE THIS RESOLUTION IN A TIMELY MANNER, BUT ALSO BY NOT PUTTING TOO MUCH ON, ON THEIR PLATES AT ONE TIME, I WANT IT TO BE SUCCESSFUL, BUT I ALSO WANT US AS A COUNCIL TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WE REALLY ARE ASKING OF STAFF. 
          SURE. 
          I THINK THAT'S A REALLY IMPORTANT QUESTION TO ASK, ESPECIALLY WITH A PROJECT LIKE THIS. 
          SO MY INTENT, AND LET ME JUST SAY MAYOR TO SORT OF BOUNCE BACKWARD, BUT IT WAS NOVEMBER 3RD, 2022, JUST TO BE REALLY CLEAR. 
          UM, MY UNDERSTANDING AND I WOULD ASK OUR STAFF, I KNOW KATIE COIN IS HERE AND MAYBE OTHERS TO VERIFY THIS, BUT MOST OF THE AMENDMENTS THAT WE'RE INITIATING STOP, I'M GONNA PUT MY HANDS DOWN SO THAT I DON'T BREAK MY MICROPHONE AGAIN. 
          UM, MOST OF THE AMENDMENTS THAT WE'RE INITIATING ARE, ARE DRAFTED AND ARE READY TO GO. 
          AND SO BECAUSE OF THE WORK THAT COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN AND OTHERS HAVE ALREADY INITIATED, MOST OF THAT WORK IS DRAFTED. 
          WE'RE JUST SAYING, PLEASE REVIVE IT, PULL IT FORWARD IT, MS. COYNE IS KATIE COIN IS GOING, UH, ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER. 
          THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING AS WELL, RECOGNIZING THAT THERE WAS A HUGE AMOUNT OF WORK THAT WENT INTO THIS. 
          WE'LL CERTAINLY NEED TO REVISIT WITH ANY NEW DATA, NEW ANALYSIS THAT'S THAT'S OCCURRED, UM, AND GO THROUGH THE FORMAL PROCESS OF MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE ENGAGING WITH STAKEHOLDERS. 
          WE'RE COMMITTED TO ENGAGING THROUGH BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. 
          UH, BUT THESE ARE IMPORTANT, IMPORTANT, UH, AMENDMENTS TO CODE THAT, UH, WE BELIEVE WE DID HAVE SUPPORT FOR YEARS AGO. 
          UH, AND, AND WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO PUSHING FORWARD. 
          I APPRECIATE THAT ANSWER. 
          UM, CITY MANAGER, HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REALLY GO THROUGH AND UNDERSTAND WHAT IT MIGHT TAKE FOR STAFF TO BE ABLE TO COMPLETE? AND IF THE TIMELINE THAT WE'VE OUTLINED IN THIS RESOLUTION WILL SET UP STAFF FOR SUCCESS IN RETURNING IT TO US IN THAT THE TIME THAT WE'VE LAID OUT OR THAT COUNCIL MEMBER TOVA LAID OUT. 
          THANKS COUNCIL MEMBER. 
          I DON'T HAVE MUCH MORE TO ADD THAN WHAT OUR ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER MENTIONED. 
          OBVIOUSLY SOME WILL BE CONTINGENT ON WHAT HAPPENS TONIGHT, SO, OR DURING THE DELIBERATION PROCESS. 
          AND SO IF THERE ARE ADDITIONAL THINGS THAT DO GET ADDED, THEN WE WILL WANT TO COME BACK AND MAKE SURE THAT, UH, THE COUNCIL IS AWARE OF WHAT RESOURCES ARE BEING USED TO BE ABLE TO EXECUTE THAT IF WE CAN MEET THOSE TIMELINES THAT HAVE BEEN ARTICULATED. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I DO BELIEVE THIS IS, IS PROBABLY PART OF A LARGER DISCUSSION THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE US HAVE. 
          UM, ON THE DAY IT'S ABOUT THE EXPECTATION AND RESOURCES THAT WE ARE ASKING OF CITY STAFF WHEN WE BRING FORWARD RESOLUTIONS, UM, JUST KIND OF HOLISTICALLY SO THAT WE DO SET UP OUR STAFF FOR SUCCESS, AND WE'RE NOT OVERBURDENING THEM WITH DIFFERENT PROJECTS ON TOP OF THE WORK THAT THEY ALREADY HAVE TO DO TO MAKE THE CITY RUN PROPERLY. 
          AND WITH RESPECT TO THE DATE, I'M OKAY IF YOU GUYS ARE OKAY WITH THIS. 
          UM, AND, UM, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT, UM, UM, AND THEN I'M OKAY ALSO WITH THE NOVEMBER 3RD DATE AND THAT OTHER AMENDMENT COUNCIL TOVO, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE STAFF GETS DONE THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE STUFF THAT WE'RE ASKING TO COME BACK IN AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER, THAT'S RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL AND THE, UH, COMPATIBILITY, UH, RELAXATION STUFF, GOTTA BE BACK IN THAT AUGUST, SEPTEMBER TIMEFRAME. 
          SO I DON'T WANT TO DO SOMETHING THAT COMES AFTER THAT, THAT I BASIS. 
          SO THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN. 
          ARE YOU STILL COMFORTABLE WITH THE DATES I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THE DATES. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          UM, YES. 
          CAUSE REMEMBER ALICE, THANK YOU JUST VERY QUICKLY. 
          I KNOW THINGS ARE MOVING ALONG THERE, BUT, UM, THE AGENDA OFFICE IS DOING A GREAT JOB OF SENDING OUT SOME OF THE AMENDMENTS, LIKE, UH, CHEETO VILLAS, AND WE HAVE A NUMBER OF THEM IN BACKUP, BUT IF ANYTHING'S BEING HANDED OUT ON THE DIAS, CAN I JUST PLEASE ASK THAT YOU SEND IT TO THE AGENDA OFFICE AS WELL? SO THAT THOSE OF US WHO ARE REMOTE CAN REVIEW IT. 
          YES. 
          WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT THAT HAPPENS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          SO IN THAT REGARD WE WERE LOOKING AT, I THINK IT WAS THE KELLY, UH, AMENDMENT. 
          UM, SO WE'RE SPEAKING ON THE KELLY AMENDMENT NOW COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN. 
          DID JORDAN 
          [05:55:01]
SPEAK ON THE CASE? NO. 
          I JUST WANTED TO ASK MAYOR IF YOU HAD PASSED YEARS OUT. 
          CAUSE I CAN'T LOCATE YOURS. 
          UH, YES, IT WAS POSTED IT. 
          UH, ITEM 61 HAS THREE COUNCIL MEMBERS NAMES IN THE UPPER RIGHT-HAND CORNER. 
          DID YOU PASS IT OUT? CAUSE I DON'T HAVE IT SHOW. 
          OH, WELL THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
           ALL RIGHT. 
          SO ON THE MESSAGE BOARD AS WELL. 
          YES. 
          SO COUNCIL MEMBER KELLY, I'M NOT SURE IF, IF WHAT YOU HEARD FROM OUR STAFF IS SUFFICIENT. 
          I, I WOULD, UH, I WOULD PROBABLY NOT INCORPORATE YOUR AMENDMENT JUST BECAUSE I'M NOT CLEAR ON, YOU KNOW, WE'VE I TRIED TO MAKE IT REALLY CLEAR IN THE RESOLUTION THAT WE'RE EXPECTING THEM TO DRAW ON THEIR ALREADY COMPLETED WORK. 
          AND I THINK ASKING THEM, I'M AFRAID THAT ASKING THE MANAGER TO COME BACK WITH IT, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, YOU'RE DOING, YOU'RE ASKING THE MANAGER TO COME BACK WITH RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS IN A MEMO SAYING HOW MANY STAFF HOURS. 
          SO THE NEXT THING THAT WOULD HAPPEN IS NOT THE WORK ON GETTING THIS DONE. 
          THE NEXT, THE NEXT THING THAT WOULD HAPPEN IS THAT THE MA THE MANAGER IS TASKED WITH COMING UP WITH A MEMO, ESTIMATING HOW MANY HOURS IS GOING TO BE TAKEN ON THE RESOLUTION. 
          BUT IF WE INITIATE IT, WE'VE INITIATED IT. 
          SO IT WOULD JUST BE CREATING ANOTHER STEP FOR THEM TO COME BACK AND TELL US HOW MANY STAFF HOURS ARE GOING INTO IT. 
          I APPRECIATE THAT FEEDBACK, BUT I WOULD STILL LIKE TO HAVE THAT ACCOUNTABILITY FACTOR THERE. 
          AND I THINK THAT YOUR RESOLUTION IS A GOOD START TO THAT. 
          SO THAT AS COUNSEL, WE UNDERSTAND THE TIME THAT WE'RE PUTTING INTO THESE RESOLUTIONS. 
          SO WHEN WOULD THE, WHEN WOULD YOUR MEMO, WHEN WOULD YOU HAVE THE MANAGER COMING BACK? LET ME PULL IT UP RIGHT NOW. 
          UM, IT LOOKS LIKE SEPTEMBER 1ST, BUT IF THEY'RE ABLE TO DO THAT BEFORE THEN, SO THAT MAYBE AS THE WORK IS GETTING COMPLETED, I'D BE HAPPY TO HAVE THE DATE CHANGED. 
          SO I THINK SOME OF THE WORK, SOME OF THE RESOLUTION WORK IS COMING BACK THEN. 
          SO, SO ARE YOU SAYING IT WOULD COME BACK? SO THE CODE AMENDMENTS ARE SUPPOSED TO COME BACK TO US BY SEPTEMBER 15TH, BUT TWO WEEKS BEFORE YOU WOULD WANT THE MEM THE CITY MANAGER TO COME BACK AND LET US KNOW HOW MANY HOURS IS GOING TO BE, HAS GONE INTO IT. 
          IS THAT THE KIND OF THING? OH, NO, THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. 
          IT MIGHT BE BETTER IF WE ASKED SPENCER WHEN IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR HIM TO HAVE AN ESTIMATE OF A BASELINE OF HOW MANY HOURS SO THAT THE MEMO COULD COME BEFORE THE WORK ACTUALLY STARTS. 
          DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? UM, I GUESS I'M STILL TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW THAT WOULD BE USEFUL IF WE'VE ALREADY INITIATED THE, IF WE'VE ALREADY GIVEN THE DIRECTION TO THE MANAGER, PLEASE GO FORWARD AND DO THIS WORK WELL, WHAT I'M, I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO NOT COMPLETE THE WORK. 
          I JUST WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT'S SOMETHING THAT IS THIS RESOURCE INTENSIVE FOR FUTURE DECISIONS THAT WE MAKE. 
          IT'S A GOOD BASELINE TO UNDERSTAND AND HAVE THAT ACCOUNTABILITY FOR HOW MUCH STAFF HOURS ARE GOING INTO THE PROJECT. 
          I DON'T INTEND ON STOPPING THE WORK FOR WHATEVER REASON, BECAUSE THE WORK IS IMPORTANT AND THE WORK THAT YOU PUT INTO THE RESOLUTION TO BRING IT FORWARD IS IMPORTANT AND IT WILL HELP OUR CITY. 
          HOWEVER, I STILL WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT DATA POINT FOR FUTURE DECISIONS THAT WE MAKE. 
          COULD IT COME BACK WITH THE AMENDMENT? COULD THE STAFF KIND OF TRACK THEIR TIME AS THEY'RE WORKING ON IT SINCE IT'S JUST WITHIN TWO WEEKS ANYWAY, COULD IT, COULD IT COME BACK WITH THE CODE AMENDMENTS, THE ESTIMATE OF HOW MANY HOURS THEY'VE TAKEN IS THAT SOME TASKS YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO DO? SO THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER. 
          AND I THINK JUST THE, IF I UNDERSTAND YOUR INTENT, IT'S REALLY TO PROJECT IN ADVANCE, JUST HOW MUCH TIME THIS MIGHT BE TAKING STAFF TO COMPLETE. 
          AND SO AFTER WHATEVER VERSION MIGHT PASS TODAY, UM, WE COULD QUICKLY AND THEN WEEK OR TWO COME BACK WITH A MEMO. 
          SO I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL SEPTEMBER 1ST TO DESCRIBE THE EFFORT THAT IT MIGHT, THAT WE ANTICIPATE THAT IT WILL TAKE. 
          UM, AND THEN IF YOU WANT TO DO ANYTHING WITH THAT, THAT'S UP TO YOU, BUT CERTAINLY WE CAN AT LEAST A SIGNAL, WHAT WE UNDERSTAND IS THE TIME THAT IT WOULD REQUIRE STAFF TO EXECUTE ON THIS RESOLUTION. 
          I THINK THAT WOULD BE GREAT WITHIN TWO WEEKS OF PASSING IT. 
          AND WILL THAT DELAY THE WORK IN ANY WAY? NO, BUT THE OTHER THING I WANT TO SAY IS THAT'S JUST THE PROJECTION OF HOW MUCH TIME IT MIGHT TAKE. 
          UM, I DO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR STAFF CAN FULFILL SOME OF THESE OTHER TIMELINES THAT ARE PART OF THE RESOLUTION. 
          AND SO TO THAT DEGREE, UM, I'LL BE RELYING ON OUR STAFF AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE OUR LEGAL STAFF TO ALSO WEIGH IN ON IF THEY THINK THESE TIME TO EXECUTE THE ACTUAL RESOLUTION IS REASONABLE AT THIS POINT IN TIME, GIVEN EVERYTHING ELSE THAT YOU'RE, UM, UNDERTAKING. 
          SO TRISH, LINCOLN'S HERE TO SPEAK TO THAT TONY, TO BE QUITE HONEST IN LIGHT OF ALL OF THE CURRENT CODE CHANGES THAT ARE PENDING, IT WILL BE VERY CHALLENGING FOR 
          [06:00:02]
CITY STAFF, PARTICULARLY THE LAW DEPARTMENT TO MAKE THAT NOVEMBER DATE, BECAUSE I REALIZED THESE ARE DRAFTED AS PART OF THE LDC REVISION, BUT THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY DRAFTED TO INCORPORATE INTO TITLE 25 AS IT EXISTS TODAY. 
          SO THAT WILL BE SOMETHING THAT WE WILL HAVE TO WORK THROUGH AND WE WILL WANT TO GET IT RIGHT. 
          AND SO JUST KIND OF IN LIGHT OF EVERYTHING THAT WE HAVE PENDING, I AM CONCERNED THAT THE NOVEMBER DATE OR ANYTIME BEFORE NOVEMBER WOULD BE VERY CHALLENGING FOR US. 
          SO MAYBE THAT, THAT'S A GREAT WHEN WE FINALIZE THIS DISCUSSION TODAY, UM, WE CAN COME BACK FROM STAFF AND SAYING, HERE'S WHAT TIME WE THINK THAT THIS MIGHT TAKE TO EXECUTE. 
          AND IF WE NEED TO REQUEST ANY ADJUSTMENTS TO THE TIMELINES THAT MIGHT BE DESCRIBED HERE, WE WILL ALSO BE, UM, ALLUDING TO THAT AS WELL. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND COUNCIL MEMBER TO-GO. 
          I, I KNOW THAT WITH OUR DISCUSSION RELATED TO THE ADU, THERE WAS SOME BACK AND FORTH ABOUT EXPECTATION SETTING. 
          AND I THINK AS A COUNCIL, HAVING THAT EXPECTATION SET AHEAD OF TIME SO THAT WE UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR AND WHEN WE'RE GOING TO RECEIVE IT SO THAT WE CAN PAY ATTENTION TO THAT TIMELINE AND ENSURE THAT IT'S FOLLOWED THROUGH ON IS VERY IMPORTANT TO THE SUCCESS OF OUR WORK HERE AT THE CITY. 
          SO I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY YOUR CHANGE TO THE OTHER HARPER MADISON ELLIS WAS TO THE LAST DATE, DECEMBER EIGHT, NO TWO TO NOVEMBER 2ND, RIGHT. 
          TO NOVEMBER 3RD, BUT IT WAS THERE TWO DAYS IN THE DOCUMENT. 
          SO I'M JUST, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE OTHER CODE AMENDMENTS WILL STILL BE COMING BACK SEPTEMBER 15TH. 
          SO, UM, SO AS WE HAVE THESE CONVERSATIONS, UM, JUST TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE HAVE, UM, I THINK FOR COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO ARE GOING TO BE OFF THE DIETS, I THINK THE DECEMBER 8TH DATE, MAYBE THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING, UM, JUST SO THAT STAFF HAVE SOME SENSE OF SOME OF THE WAYS THAT WE MAY BE THINKING ABOUT THINGS THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN, UM, THIS AMENDMENT ADDS SORT OF A WHOLE LOT OF OTHER WORK TO THE ORIGINAL RESOLUTION, IT'S PUSHING IT TO THE DATE THEN THAT WE CANNOT POSTPONE. 
          AND THE PEOPLE WHO WERE INVOLVED IN INITIATING THE WORK HAVE AN ABILITY TO VOTE ON IT. 
          UM, AND OBVIOUSLY IT WILL TAKE THE TIME THAT IT TAKES. 
          UM, BUT I THINK THAT WE DO NEED TO, WE NEED TO START THINKING AND PLANNING AND UNDERSTANDING THAT REALITY, UH, WHICH I THINK IS A NEW ONE FOR US TO HAVE, UH, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, FOR MEMBERS, UM, WHO WILL BE TERM-LIMITED OUT, UM, OR, YOU KNOW, I JUST, I JUST THINK WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT AND IN FACTOR THAT INTO SOME OF OUR TIMETABLES FOR SOME THINGS. 
          YEAH. 
          AND MAYOR, IF I MAY, I MEAN, I AM TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, I HAVE FIVE SPONSORS AND I BELIEVE THERE WAS AT LEAST ONE OTHER SPONSOR WHO REQUESTED BEING A PART OF THIS. 
          SO TO BE REALLY CLEAR, WE HAD ENOUGH SUPPORT TO PASS IT. 
          THERE WAS A REQUEST TO POSTPONE IT, WE'VE COME BACK, I'M TRYING TO EMBRACE, YOU KNOW, I'M TRYING TO ONE GET US TO THE FINAL POINT HERE TONIGHT SO THAT WE CAN GO HOME AND WE HAVE A LOT ON OUR PLATE. 
          SO I WAS TRYING TO EMBRACE AS MANY OF THE AMENDMENTS AS I COULD, BUT, BUT TO UNDERSCORE WHAT THE MAYOR PRO TEM HAS SAID, MOST OF THESE ARE ADDING IN ADDITIONAL STEPS, ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AT DIFFERENT, ADDITIONAL LEVELS OF ANALYSIS. 
          AND FRANKLY, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE FLOODING SITUATIONS THAT CAN'T WAIT, WE HAVE, I MEAN, THIS IS AN ENVIRONMENTAL, THIS IS A RESOLUTION AIMED AT ADDRESSING SOME HISTORIC INEQUITIES IN TERMS OF HOW WE PROTECT BODIES OF WATER EAST AND WEST WITH, WITH, UH, A LONG HISTORY OF, UM, A LACK OF PROTECTIONS FOR THE BODIES OF WATER THAT ARE IN THE EASTERN PORTION OF OUR CITY. 
          AND SO THESE ARE, THESE ARE REALLY CODE AMENDMENTS THAT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED TWO YEARS AGO. 
          UM, THEY'VE BEEN IN PROGRESS FOR A LONG TIME. 
          IF WE LOAD THIS DOWN WITH ANALYSES AND ADDITIONAL STUDIES AND OTHER KINDS OF THINGS, IT'S GOING TO TAKE LONGER AND THAT'S, AND THAT'S NOT OKAY WITH ME. 
          SO, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, I'M OKAY WITH ADDING IN SOME OF THESE THINGS, BUT IF THAT'S, WHAT'S PUSHING IT BEYOND, BEYOND SEPTEMBER, THEN I'M GOING TO SAY NO TO SOME OF THE AMENDMENTS. 
          I UNDERSTAND IT. 
          SO IT JUST TO PROPOSE A WAY FOR US TO MOVE FORWARD. 
          IT SOUNDS AS IF, UH, THE DIRECTION THAT YOU HAVE COUNSELOR KELLY WOULD BE THE SUBMIT TO THE MANAGER'S DIRECTED TO COME BACK IN THE NEXT FEW WEEKS WITH A PROJECTION OF THE REQUIRED STAFF CITY STAFF HOURS TO COMPLETE THIS RESOLUTION. 
          THAT'S CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          CAN I ASK REAL QUICK IF CITY MANAGERS THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD TYPICALLY DO WITH ANY RESOLUTION ANYWAY? YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          SO IF, WHEN HAVE WE EVER DONE THAT? I MEAN, I JUST TO BE WITH DUE RESPECT, I MEAN, WE JUST TYPICALLY DON'T HAVE THINGS PASSED ON THE COUNCIL AGENDA AND THEN HAVE A FOLLOW-UP AMEND MEMO COMING 
          [06:05:01]
FORWARD SAYING HOW MANY HOURS. 
          I JUST HAVE NEVER SEEN THAT. 
          I HAVE SEEN INSTANCES WHERE THE STAFF HAVE COME BACK AND SAID, WE CAN'T MAKE THE DEADLINE. 
          WE CAN MAKE THIS DEADLINE, BUT THAT'S USUALLY AT THE POINT WHERE IT'S SUPPOSED TO COME BACK TO COUNCIL. 
          SO WITH THIS REQUEST, AND IF THIS AMENDMENT PASSES, THEN WE WOULD COME BACK WITH THAT INFORMATION. 
          AND SORRY TO CLARIFY. 
          AS YOU GET RESOLUTIONS, DO YOU MAKE AN ESTIMATE OF HOW MANY HOURS IT WOULD TAKE FOR STAFF TO COMPLETE AS PART OF YOUR ANALYSIS ABOUT COMPLETING THE RESOLUTION? IS THAT ALREADY INCLUDED IN WHAT YOU DO? WE'RE ALWAYS BALANCING THE DIFFERENT PRIORITIES THAT COUNCIL AND JUST THE DAY-TO-DAY OPERATIONS THAT ARE REQUIRED FROM NAVIGATING THEIR DEPARTMENTS. 
          YES. 
          OKAY. 
          SO I WOULD PROPOSE THAT WE LET THE MANAGER COME BACK THE NEXT TWO WEEKS AT THAT TIME. 
          CAUSE IT'S NOT GOING TO TAKE A LOT OF TIME FROM DUTY. 
          HE GETS THAT DONE. 
          OKAY. 
          SO HANG ON, HANG ON A SECOND. 
          SO IS ANYONE HAVE AN OBJECTION TO THAT GOING IN? I'M SORRY, BUT I HAVE AN AMENDMENT, AN AMENDMENT TO THIS. 
          OKAY. 
          I JUST WANT TO ASK THAT WHEN YOU DO THAT, IF YOU CAN CLARIFY HOW MUCH OF THAT EXTRA WORK HAS TO DO WITH THE, UM, ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELATED TO THE GREENFIELD CONDITIONS AND THE STEEP SLOPE PORTION, BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE A CONSIDERABLY MORE AMOUNT OF WORK THAN, THAN, THAN THE REST OF IT. 
          AND I JUST THINK WE SHOULD HAVE CLARITY ON THAT. 
          I'M NOT SAYING NOT TO DO IT, AND I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH GETTING CLARITY ON THAT TOO. 
          SO REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THIS RESOLUTION. 
          ASSUMING THIS OTHER AMENDMENT GOES IN, IT'S GOING TO REQUIRE YOU TO TAKE A LOOK AT BOTH THOSE. 
          SO IF YOU COULD DIFFERENTIATE AND COUNCIL MEMBER TOTAL, I ALSO WANT THE ENVIRONMENTAL STUFF TO MOVE FORWARD TOO. 
          AND THAT'S WHY THE AMENDMENT THAT'S COMING FROM, UM, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER, HARPER, MADISON, AND COUNSELOR, ALICE AND ME SPECIFICALLY ALLOWS THE BULK OF THIS AMENDMENT TO MOVE FORWARD ON THE TIMING THAT YOU PROPOSE WITHOUT CHANGING THE DUE DATE AT ALL FROM SEPTEMBER 15TH. 
          BUT AS LUKE TESTIFIED HERE TODAY, THERE'S, THERE'S A REAL CONCERN THAT IF WE JUST DO THE GREENFIELD WITHOUT THE, UM, UH, BALANCING OR, OR MITIGATING ELEMENTS OF IT, ALL WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING IS BASICALLY JUST NEVER HAVING ANY OF THE, THE, THE LARGE IMPERVIOUS COVER TRACKS EVER CHANGE. 
          AND WE'RE, WE'RE BASICALLY PRESERVING THEM INADVERTENTLY, BUT WE TRIED TO CALL THOSE TWO OUT, WHICH WERE THE ONES THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY WAS CONCERNED ABOUT, THE GREENFIELD AND THE, AND THE SLOPE ISSUES AND SAID, DON'T LET THIS HOLD UP THE REST OF THE WORK. 
          BUT WITH RESPECT TO THOSE TWO THINGS, COME BACK AND TELL US, UM, UH, HOW WE ACTUALLY MAKE THEM WORK SO THAT PEOPLE WILL, WILL ACTUALLY PUT IN THE, THE, THE PROTECTIONS THAT WE WANT THEM TO PUT IN. 
          SO IT WAS WITH TIMING IN MIND THAT WE DRAFTED IT THAT WAY, BUT THE MANAGER, IF THIS PASSES, AS YOU SAID, YOU WOULD ACCEPT IT. 
          THE MANAGER WILL AS COUNCIL, MAYOR PRO TEM WILL IDENTIFY THE TIMING ANTICIPATED FOR BOTH OF THOSE TWO THINGS. 
          AND THEY WERE BOTH DONE. 
          WE HAD THE MITIGATING THINGS THAT WERE ALSO DONE IN THE CODE WHEN WE, WHEN WE IMPROVED THAT THEY WERE BOTH DONE. 
          UM, SO I'VE BEEN HAVING MY HAND RAISED. 
          OKAY. 
          DO YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER AMENDMENTS TO COUNCIL MEMBER KELLYS BEFORE I ASK? IF NO, BUT I HAVE, I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT, ABOUT THE ONE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT FOR YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          LET'S SET GAY CHARACTER, COUNCILMEMBER KELLY'S FIRST NAME, OBJECTION TO THAT ONE GOING IN WITH THE AMENDMENT THAT WAS MADE BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM. 
          YES. 
          I HAVE TO REMEMBER NO OBJECTIONS, YOUR HONOR. 
          JUST A BRIEF COMMENT THAT WE HAVE BEEN THROWING A LOT OF IFCS AND A LOT OF WORK AT STAFF. 
          AND I THINK JUST AS A GENERAL MATTER, I DO SUPPORT, UH, GETTING SOME KIND OF IDEA OF WHAT IS THEIR CAPACITY. 
          UH, AND SO I, I DO APPRECIATE, UH, IT COMES TO MY KELLY'S AMENDMENT. 
          AND I THINK JUST AS A GENERAL MATTER, WE NEED SOME KIND OF REALISTIC IDEA OF WHAT STAFF IS CAPABLE OF PRODUCING AND WHEN THEY CAN GET IT BACK TO US. 
          UH, I, I, I'M TALKING TO A COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN ABOUT LIKE THE VMU ITEM. 
          AND I KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HAD SAID LIKE, UH, I CAN'T REMEMBER IT WAS PRIOR TO ME BEING ON THE COUNCIL, BUT, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE HAVE TO HAVE REALISTIC EXPECTATIONS OF STAFF WHEN, YOU KNOW, WE'RE ASKING THEM TO COME BACK WITH ALL THESE REPORTS FOR US. 
          SO I APPRECIATE A COMPANY. 
          OKAY. 
          ANY OBJECTION TO THAT? UH, CALI MEANT GOING IN AS AMENDED BY MY PROTIME HEARING. 
          NONE THAT GOES IN THE NEXT ONE WAS THE ONE THAT CAME FROM ELLIS HARPER, MADISON, AND ME, THE DATE ON THE LAST LINE HAS CHANGED TO NOVEMBER 3RD, 2022. 
          AND THE DISCUSSION ON THAT AMENDMENT WAS REMEMBER KITCHEN. 
          UM, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR WATERSHED. 
          I'M NOT SURE WHO TO ASK THIS QUESTION, BUT BASICALLY THE, THE, THE QUESTION I HAVE IS, UM, I DON'T HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO THIS LANGUAGE, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IN THE PROCESS OF, UM, OF DOING THIS, THAT STAFF FEELS THAT THEY 
          [06:10:01]
HAVE THE, UM, FLEXIBILITY TO, TO REALLY BRING BACK SOMETHING THAT LOOKS AT THE WHOLE PICTURE. 
          I'VE BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT LOCALIZED FLOODING, PARTICULARLY IN WESTGATE AREA, IN MY DISTRICT. 
          AND SO I KNOW THAT THE GREENFIELD REGULATION COULD HAVE AN IMPACT THERE. 
          AND SO, UM, ALTHOUGH, YOU KNOW, THIS LANGUAGE IS WRITTEN TO, TO DEVELOP RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WOULD OFFSET THE IMPACT ON AFFORDABILITY AND CAPACITY OF REQUIRING GREENFIELD CONDITIONS AS A BASELINE. 
          THAT'S IMPORTANT, BUT I ALSO WANT THE STAFF TO ALSO FEEL, FEEL COMFORTABLE IN, IN, IN THE FLEXIBILITY AND COMING BACK AND SAYING, BUT THIS IS WHAT WE REALLY NEED FROM, UH, TO ADDRESS LOCALIZED FLOODING, FOR EXAMPLE. 
          SO IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK TO THAT AT ALL, I CAN, AND I MIGHT DEFER TO MY DEPUTY ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER AS WELL TO, TO DIG IN A LITTLE BIT MORE, UH, KATIE COHEN, ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER, UM, I THINK THE FUTURE OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER FOR A CITY LIKE AUSTIN, CAN'T BE A SINGLE ISSUE PERSON. 
          UH, I, I THINK THAT WE HAVE TO EVALUATE ALL THESE THINGS IN CONCERT TO HAVE A MORE RESILIENT CITY. 
          AND SO I'M HAPPY THAT WE'RE THINKING MORE HOLISTICALLY ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL CODE CHANGES. 
          IT IS MORE WORK, IT IS MORE COMPLICATED, BUT I THINK IT'S A VITAL COMPONENT OF HOW WE HAVE A LIVABLE CITY FOR, FOR THE FUTURE. 
          UM, LIZ CAN SPEAK TO THE GREENFIELD ITEMS SPECIFICALLY, IF YOU WANT ANY MORE DETAILS. 
          UH, WE HAVE SOME DATA ON SPECIFIC LOCAL FLOOD PROBLEM AREAS AND, AND SOME OF THE IMPACTS THAT, UM, THE POSITIVE IMPACTS THAT WE WOULD SEE IF THIS WERE IN PLACE. 
          UM, WE'RE HAPPY TO EXPAND ON THAT, BUT HOPEFULLY THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION. 
          YEAH. 
          IF, IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO THAT GOOD EVENING WAS JOHNSTON DEPUTY ENVIRONMENT OFFICER WITH WATERSHED PROTECTION. 
          UM, YOU MENTIONED WEST GATE, AND I BELIEVE THAT IS ONE OF THE AREAS THAT, UM, OUR PLANNING STAFF HAVE I IDENTIFIED AS, UM, A POTENTIAL, UM, AREA THAT WOULD BENEFIT GREATLY FROM THE DETENTION, UM, EXTRA DETENTION REQUIREMENTS THAT THE GREENFIELD, UM, DEVELOPED A REQUIREMENT WOULD BRING FORWARD. 
          UM, SO WE HAVE MORE ANALYSIS THAT WE COULD PROVIDE YOU LATER, BUT, UM, I DO THINK THAT WE DO HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY IN THIS RESOLUTION TO LOOK LARGER. 
          AND IF THERE'S ANYTHING NEW THAT COMES THAT WASN'T, YOU KNOW, DISCUSSED THAT MIGHT HELP, UM, CLARIFY THINGS, MAKE STREAMLINE THINGS, BUT ALSO HELP THE LOCALIZED FLOODING ISSUES. 
          WE WILL CERTAINLY BRING THAT FORWARD AS WELL. 
          OKAY, GREAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT, UH, THAT, THAT THIS LANGUAGE WAS INTERPRETED IN A WAY THAT WAS FLEXIBLE, SO THAT, UM, THAT WE'RE ALSO LOOKING AT THE NEED FOR THIS, THESE KINDS OF, UM, UH, PROVISIONS RELATED TO GREENFIELD. 
          SO WHAT KEEPS TURNING THIS OFF? ANY OBJECTION TO, UH, INCORPORATING THIS AMENDMENT? WOULD THAT CHANGE FROM, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER, TOBO HEARING NONE, THIS AMENDMENT'S INCLUDED, UH, HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT ? I HAVE, AND, AND LET ME JUST SAY, I THINK THIS, I THINK IT'S GOOD THAT WE HAD THIS CONVERSATION ABOUT TIMING AND, UM, HEARD FROM OUR MANAGER, YOU KNOW, THAT THERE ARE OTHER KINDS OF THINGS THAT ARE ALSO IN THE WORKS. 
          OF COURSE, WE ALL KNOW THAT. 
          AND I THINK COUNCIL MEMBER BELLA, YOU KNOW, AFTER MUCH CONSIDERATION, I'M LOOKING AT THIS AND FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND OF WHAT YOU'RE ASKING TO DO, YOU'RE ASKING FOR AN ANALYSIS OF HOW, HOW THE COSTS OF COMPLIANCE DIFFER FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES VERSUS SMALL SCALE MILL, MISSING MIDDLE PROJECTS, LARGER MIDDLE MULTI-FAMILY PROJECTS. 
          AND THEN THAT YOU'RE ASKING THE MANAGER TO RECOMMEND CHANGES THAT WOULD ENSURE THE COST TO COMPLY IS PROPORTIONATE, UM, FOR DIFFERENT KINDS OF, AND I JUST, I THINK THAT'S A LEVEL OF THAT IS GOING TO TAKE SOME TIME. 
          I THINK IT'S SOMEWHAT OUT OF THE SCOPE OF, OF WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE. 
          I UNDERSTAND THE WAY IN WHICH IT'S RELATED AND WHY YOU WOULD HAVE BROUGHT IT FORWARD, BUT GIVEN OUR CONVERSATIONS AROUND TIMING AND THE AMOUNT OF TIME IT'S GOING TO TAKE TO GET THESE CODE AMENDMENTS, I WOULD ASK THAT THAT MAYBE YOU CONSIDER BRINGING THAT SEPARATELY AS A DIFFERENT KIND OF IFC. 
          NOW I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER IT HERE. 
          I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT, AGAIN, WE ARE ASKING MORE OF STAFF, BUT, AND UNDERSTAND THE FLOODING CONCERNS, BUT WE ARE ALSO, UH, IN A HOUSING CRISIS. 
          AND, UH, WHAT THE NUMBER ONE PROBLEM IN OUR HOUSING CRISIS IS THAT WE'RE TAKING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND WE'RE TEARING DOWN AN OLD, SINGLE FAMILY HOME, AND WE'RE BUILDING A HUGE NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN ITS PLACE. 
          AND MANY OF THE REASONS THAT WE'RE DOING THAT IS BECAUSE THE COSTS ARE SO MUCH GREATER TO BUILD, LET'S SAY A FOURPLEX OR A SIX PLEX THAN IT IS TO JUST, UH, REPLACE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, A SMALL SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH A LARGE SINGLE FAMILY HOME. 
          AND I DON'T WANT TO DISINCENTIVIZE THE CONSTRUCTION OF MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING, ESPECIALLY MISSING MIDDLE MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING. 
          AND I, AS MUCH AS I 
          [06:15:01]
SUPPORT THE ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS AND THE FLOODING CONTROL GOALS AND ALL THOSE TYPES OF GOALS, I DO NOT WANT TO DO THAT AT THE COST OF, UH, OF INCREASED HOUSING PRICES. 
          WHAT ARE YOU SPECIFICALLY, WHAT ARE YOU SPECIFICALLY DIRECTING HERE? I MEAN, DID I CAPTURE IT IN THE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT I, THAT I REWROTE WHAT I'M SPECIFICALLY DIRECTING IS THAT W THE CITY COUNCIL INITIATE, UH, AMENDMENTS AND HAVE THE MANAGER COME BACK TO PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS TO WHERE WE'RE NOT, DISINCENTIVIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF FOURPLEXES OF SIX PLEXES OF THAT SMALL MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING THAT WE NEED SO BADLY. 
          CAUSE CURRENTLY THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE DOING. 
          THAT IS THE OVERALL GOAL. 
          OKAY. 
          SO I GUESS I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM MY COLLEAGUES. 
          I THINK IF THIS, IF THERE'S A WILL TO INCLUDE THIS IN HERE, I WOULD ADD, I WOULD USE MY LANGUAGE, UM, BECAUSE I THINK IT JUST MAKES IT VERY CLEAR WHAT WE ARE AND ARE NOT DOING, FOR EXAMPLE, YOUR, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, TALKS ABOUT THE COUNCIL, INITIATING CODE AMENDMENTS, THAT, THAT, BUT THE OTHER BE IT RESOLVED EXPLAINS WHAT CODE AMENDMENTS WE'RE INITIATING. 
          SO, YOU KNOW, AS I EDITED YOURS, I TRIED TO REALLY FOCUS ON THE ACTION THAT I FELT YOU WERE INITIATING. 
          THAT WAS THE ACTION THAT I FELT YOU WERE INITIATING, WHICH IT SEEMED TO ME WAS ABOUT ASKING FOR, ASKING FOR, UM, WHAT THE COST WAS TO COMPLY WITH WATER QUALITY DRAINAGE AND HOW IT WAS, UM, DIFFERENT FOR DIFFERENT KINDS OF HOUSING, THEREBY NOT DISINCENTIVIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SMALL-SCALE MIDDLE, BUT I'M, I'M CONCERNED THAT THIS IS GOING TO PROMPT AN ANALYSIS THAT IS, THAT IS GOING TO TAKE ADDITIONAL TIME AND DOESN'T NECESSARILY NEED TO HAPPEN AT THE SAME TIME THAT WE'RE, FOR EXAMPLE, MAKING SURE THAT, THAT WE'RE TAKING A LOOK AT, UM, GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE AND AT SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT WE'VE HAD SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF CONVERSATION AROUND AROUND MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE MONITORING, UM, WATERSHED RISKS FROM WATERSHED THREATS, FROM HIGHER RISK FACILITIES, SUCH AS QUARTERLY SAMPLING OF CROP CREEKS LOCATED DOWNSTREAM FROM INDUSTRY. 
          I MEAN, THESE ARE ALL I UNDERSTAND. 
          I UNDERSTAND YOUR FOCUS ON TRYING TO COMPARE DIFFERENT KINDS OF HOUSING AND THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF COSTS, BUT, BUT IT IS, IT IS REALLY, UM, IT, IT IS NOT RELATED TO, TO THE BULK OF WHAT WE'RE INITIATING HERE. 
          SO INSTEAD IT IS, IT IS THIS RESOLVED, THE MANAGER'S GOING TO THE NEXT SEVERAL WEEKS GOING TO COME BACK WITH TIME ISSUES. 
          SO IT WILL BE ABLE TO LOOK AT THAT MANAGER COMES BACK AND IT'S JUST, IT'S A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME OR PUSHES ANYTHING BACK. 
          WE'LL SEE THAT HERE IN THE NEXT SEVERAL WEEKS, AND THEN THE COUNCIL CAN START MAKING PRIORITY PRIVATIZATIONS, BUT AT THE END OF JULY, YOU KNOW, THEN THAT WOULD BE OUR NEXT OPPORTUNITY TO REVERSE ACTION. 
          I MEAN, IF WE'VE DIRECTED THE MANAGER TO CONDUCT AN ANALYSIS OF, OF THE DIFFERENT COSTS OF COMPLIANCE FOR DIFFERENT KINDS OF HOUSING, WHICH WE MAY EVEN HAVE, FRANKLY, WE MAY HAVE THAT IN SOME OF THE PREVIOUS WORK THAT'S BEEN DONE THROUGH TIME, BUT, UM, I JUST, WHEN WE GET THAT MEMO BACK FROM THE MANAGER, WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A COUNCIL MEETING. 
          AND THEN BY THE TIME WE DO, IT'S THE END OF JULY, I'M NOT SUGGESTING HE STOPPED WORKING ON THINGS, YOU KNOW, AND, AND THE BASE WORK OF THIS IS THE BASE ENVIRONMENTAL WORK. 
          I THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT THING TO HAVE CONSIDERED. 
          I'D LIKE TO SEE IF CONSIDER, BUT I'M NOT READY TO SAY, I WANT TO CONSIDER THIS, THAT PREVENTS US FROM BEING ABLE TO RESOLVE THE OTHER ISSUES. 
          AND I JUST WONDER IF THAT REPORT WILL AVOID US HAVING TO DECIDE NOW NOT TO INCLUDE SOMETHING FOR FEAR THAT WE CAN'T GET IT DONE WHEN WE MAYBE CAN GET IT DONE. 
          WELL, I WOULD SUGGEST IF THERE'S A STRONG WILL TO INCLUDE THIS. 
          AND AGAIN, I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM MY SPONSORS CAUSE THEY WERE STRONG SPONSORSHIP. 
          UM, I WOULD SAY AT A MINIMUM I WOULD, I WOULD URGE THAT WE MOVE FORWARD WITH MY LANGUAGE BECAUSE IT REALLY FOCUSES VERY CLEARLY ON WHAT'S BEING REQUESTED AND THAT WE ADD IN LANGUAGE, LIKE IF IT DOES NOT SLOW DOWN THE TIMELINE MAYOR I'D LIKE TO COMMENT ON. 
          SO THE DIFFERENCE, I THINK ESSENTIALLY IN THE VERSION THAT COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO AND MY VERSION SAYS, THIS IS NOT A STUDY JUST AS AN ACADEMIC PRACTICE. 
          THIS IS LET'S LOOK AT THE CODE CHANGES THAT ARE CAUSING US TO, UH, DIS-INCENTIVIZE MISSING MIDDLE MULTIFAMILY PROJECTS. 
          THIS IS NOT JUST LIKE AN ACADEMIC KIND OF LOOK AT IT. 
          WELL, THIS COSTS SO MUCH, AND THIS COST SO MUCH, THIS IS LIKE, LET'S LOOK AT THE CODE AND MAKE THE NECESSARY CODE CHANGES. 
          SO WE SAW THAT, WHICH I'M LOOKING AT FROM, FROM CATHERINE, METOVA SAYS THE CITY MANAGER SHALL RECOMMEND CITY CODE CHANGES THAT WOULD ENSURE WE LOOKING AT THE SAME PAGE. 
          I, I, I'M NOT SURE I'M LOOKING AT MY VERSION. 
          FIVE VERSION TOOK OUT SOME OF THE LANGUAGE THAT INITIATE CODE AMENDMENTS, UH, AND, UH, AND HERBIE RESOLVE SAYS THE CITY MANAGER SHALL RECOMMEND CITY CODE CHANGES THAT WOULD ENSURE THE COST TO COMPLY WITH WATER QUALITY DRAINAGE. 
          THE SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS IS PROPORTIONATE 
          [06:20:01]
FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES IN SMALL-SCALE MISSING MIDDLE PROJECTS, PARENTHESES, THEREBY NOT DISINCENTIVIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SMALL-SCALE MISSING MIDDLE PROJECTS IN FAVOR OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. 
          SO THE VIRGIN THAT I, I, THE LAST VERSION THAT I PASSED OUT, WHAT WE ADDED TO IT WAS INSTEAD OF LOOKING AT THE UNIT COUNT, WHICH CAN BE MISLEADING, LOOKING AT THE IMPERVIOUS COVER THAT I THINK IS A VERY NEUTRAL WAY OF, OF, UH, OF GUIDING YOUR WATER QUALITY RESTRICTIONS, WHETHER IT HAS FIVE OR SIX UNITS OR ONE UNIT. 
          IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT'S 5,000 SQUARE FEET OF IMPERVIOUS COVER IT'S 5,000 SQUARE FEET OF IMPERVIOUS COVER. 
          AND LET'S MAKE THAT KIND OF THE UNIT OF ANALYSIS THAT'S IN THE MOST RECENT VERSION THAT I HAVE. 
          I WAS LOOKING AT HER, UH, I MEAN, THERE'S GRAMMATICAL CHANGES. 
          UH, AGAIN, I HAVEN'T HAD A LOT OF TIME TO, TO LOOK AT, UH, AT HERS AND TO QUITE DIGEST THE DIFFERENCE, BUT, UH, I WOULD PREFER WHERE WE LAY IT OUT AND IDENTIFY THE SPECIFIC PROBLEMS, UH, INVOLVED IN BASICALLY INCENTIVIZING KIND OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, CONSTRUCTION OVER MISSING MIDDLE CONSTRUCTION. 
          I HAVE A KITCHEN ON THIS TOPIC WHERE WE ARE, UH, ON THIS TOPIC. 
          SO, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER AVAILA, WHAT I'M HEARING YOU SAY IS THAT, THAT YOU FEEL LIKE PERHAPS, UM, THE LANGUAGE THAT, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER TOBO HAS MAYBE MISSING PART, MAYBE MISSING PART OF WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO GET AT, IS THAT WHAT I'M HEARING? WELL, HE, HE DID ANOTHER VERSION, SO I MEAN, YOU COULD, I THINK THERE'S ANOTHER, THERE'S ANOTHER, YES, I'M LOOKING AT IT. 
          SO I REWROTE VERSION FOUR, HE HANDED OUT FIVE. 
          I CAN, I CAN TELL YOU HOW, HOW MY REWRITING OF HIS WOULD WORK. 
          IT WOULD SIMPLY BE IN THE, IN THE LAST ONE IS PROPORTIONATE TO THE AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS COVER. 
          THERE, THERE, INSTEAD OF SAYING, IS PROPORTIONATE FOR SINK. 
          I THINK THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO SAY INSTEAD OF SAYING IS PROPORTIONATE FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES AND SMALL SCALE MISSING MIDDLE PROJECTS. 
          IT WOULD BE INSTEAD, I THINK NOW IS PROPORTIONATE TO THE AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS COVER, THEREBY NOT INCENTIVE. 
          DISINCENTIVIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SMALL SCALE AND COUNCIL MEMBER. 
          TOVA. 
          IF WE'RE TRYING TO SAY THE SAME THING, THEN I WOULD PREFER TO USE MY LANGUAGE AND I WOULD PREFER NOT TO, BUT ACTUALLY, I MEAN, THE MORE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IT, I MEAN, I THINK IF WE'RE GOING TO USE YOUR LANGUAGE, I'M GOING TO NEED TO REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE DOING, BECAUSE FOR EXAMPLE, IN YOUR, WHEREAS I MAY BRING IT FURTHER RESOLVED. 
          YOU'RE SAYING THE COUNCIL INITIATES CODE AMENDMENTS. 
          I'M NOT SURE WHAT AMENDMENTS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. 
          THE ONES THAT I, THAT ARE INITIATED IN THE PREVIOUS RESULTS, OR ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THE, THAT THE COUNCIL INITIATE CODE AMENDMENTS OF SOME OTHER SORT, UH, TO ENSURE THAT THE COST OF COMPLIANCE WITH WATER QUALITY DRAINAGE AND SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS TO PROPORTIONATE, TO THE AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS COVER FOR A PROJECT AND DOES NOT DISINCENTIVIZE THE CONSTRUCTION OF SMALL-SCALE MISSING MIDDLE PROJECTS IN FAVOR OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. 
          SO YOU'RE INITIATING CODE AMENDMENTS THAT WOULD ENSURE THE COST OF COMPLIANT. 
          I'M NOT WHAT ARE, WHAT ARE THOSE EXACTLY THE CODE AMENDMENTS THAT I'M INITIATING ARE FOR THE CITY MANAGER TO DETERMINE? I DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND. 
          SO I GUESS, I MEAN, I GUESS WHAT MIGHT WORK COUNCIL MEMBER TO ME THAT THAT SEEMS LIKE A SEPARATE PROJECT TO INITIATE, TO ASK THE MANAGER TO ANALYZE WHAT ARE THE, WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS THAT ARE OUR, DISINCENTIVIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT AT THE EXPENSE OF SMALL SCALE MISSING MIDDLE COME BACK AND TELL US WHAT SOME OF THOSE ELEMENTS ARE. 
          AND THEN YOU WOULD INITIATE BASED ON THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS, YOU INITIATE THE CODE AMENDMENTS. 
          I WOULDN'T BE INITIATING CODE AMENDMENTS THAT I THINK, I THINK THE CONCERN IS, IS THAT SOME OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL RULES REQUIRE ACTION TO BE TAKEN. 
          AND THE ACTION TO BE TAKEN IS TIED TO THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT FIX. 
          SO IF I HAVE THE SAME AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS COVER, I HAVE THE SAME ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, A COST TO COMPLY WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL RAGS MAY BE MORE EXPENSIVE. 
          IF I PUT FOUR UNITS IN THE HOUSE, AS OPPOSED TO SAYING IT'S ONLY ONE UNIT AND THE STAFF IS GIVING A THUMBS UP. 
          AND I THINK THE QUESTION IS WHY, IF IT'S THE SAME IMPERVIOUS COVER, IT'S THE SAME SHAPE AND IT'S THE SAME SQUARE FOOTAGE, SAME EVERYTHING ELSE. 
          WHY SHOULD THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE BE FOUR TIMES AS EXPENSIVE? THAT'S THE QUESTION HE'S ASKING, BECAUSE THEN IT JUST INCENSE THEN SOMEONE TO PUT A SINGLE UNIT IN IT. 
          CAUSE IT'S ONE QUARTER OF THE COST. 
          AND HE'S SAYING SINCE IT'S THE SAME ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, COME BACK WITH, WITH ORDINANCES OR CHANGES THAT WOULD MAKE IT SO THAT THE SAME ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 
          [06:25:01]
IS BEING REQUIRED TO DO THE SAME ENVIRONMENTAL CURE THEY WILL PUT IN THERE. 
          SO I GUESS, YEAH, SO, BUT, UH, BUT AS I LOOK AT MY LANGUAGE, I MEAN, I THINK IT DOESN'T IT'S, I BELIEVE IT IS MORE OR LESS SAYING THAT, RIGHT? THE CITY MANAGER SHALL RECOMMEND CITY CODE CHANGES THAT WOULD ENSURE THE COST TO COMPLY WITH WATER QUALITY DRAINAGE AND SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS IS PROPORTIONATE TO THE AMOUNT OF EMBEDDED YOUR NEW WORD, IMPERVIOUS COVER, THEREBY NOT DISINCENTIVIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SMALL SCALE, MISSING MIDDLE PROJECTS IN FAVOR OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES. 
          I MEAN, WHAT WE HAD WAS THE CITY COUNCIL INITIATE CITY CODE AMENDMENTS, AND DIRECTS THE CITY MANAGER TO PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGES TO THE CITY CODE TO ENSURE THAT THE COST OF COMPLIANCE WITH WATER QUALITY DRAINAGE AND SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND SMALL SCALE MISSING MIDDLE PROJECTS IS PROPORTIONATE TO THE SCALE OF THE PROJECT AND DOES NOT DISINCENTIVIZE THE CONSTRUCTION OF SMALL SCALE, MISSING MIDDLE PROJECTS IN FAVOR OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, INCLUDING APPLYING SOME WATER QUALITY AND DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS TO SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT AS PROPOSED DURING THE LDC REVISION. 
          SO FROM UP FROM THE LIGHT, THE LIFE OF ME, I THINK, I THINK THEY, I THINK THEY MEAN TO BE THE ISSUE. 
          I THINK THEY MEAN THE SAME THING, BECAUSE ULTIMATELY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS DON'T DISINCENTIVIZE. 
          THIS IS STAFF THERE. 
          OKAY. 
          CAN I ASK THE QUESTION? IS IT A DIFFERENT INVESTIGATION? IF WE'RE SAYING, HEY, DON'T PENALIZE MISSING MIDDLE PROJECTS, DON'T PENALIZE THE FOURPLEX IN FAVOR OF THE ONE PLEX. 
          IF IT'S HAVING THE SAME ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, DO, DO, DOES ONE LANGUAGE BETTER POINT TO THAT THAN THE OTHER LANGUAGE IN YOUR MIND? I WISH WE COULD JUST USE THE LANGUAGE THAT YOU JUST SPOKE OUT LOUD. 
          THAT WAS THE MOST CLEAR TO ME ACTUALLY. 
          UM, YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN IMPERVIOUS COVER OR TYPOLOGY OF HOUSING, OR W CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE LANGUAGE? I THINK, I THINK ULTIMATELY A COUNCIL MEMBER, I WOULD SUGGEST WE DON'T WANT TO BE TIED JUST TO IMPERVIOUS COVER. 
          I MEAN, AT A REALLY HIGH LEVEL, WE'RE JUST SAYING TO CUT TO THE CHASE, DON'T GIVE US OPTIONS SO THAT WE'RE NOT, DISINCENTIVIZING MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING IN FAVOR OF SINGLE, WHETHER THAT BE A PERVIOUS COVER, WHETHER THAT BE UNITS, WHETHER THAT BE WHATEVER IT IS, DON'T DISINCENTIVIZE FOURPLEX, IF IT HAS THE SAME ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. 
          I THINK MAYOR, I THINK WHAT WE WOULDN'T WANT TO GET INTO IS AN INCREASE IN PERVIOUS, COVER ENTITLEMENTS FOR MISSING MIDDLE IN AN ATTEMPT TO MITIGATE THE COST OF THOSE ENVIRONMENTAL REGS. 
          THAT'S OUR ONLY CONCERN ABOUT OPENING UP THAT AVENUE AND NOT BEING CLEAR ABOUT THE INTENT BEING, UH, EQUAL IMPERVIOUS COVER, NOT REGULATING BASED ON TYPOLOGY. 
          I THINK THAT'S WHAT HE'S SAYING. 
          OKAY. 
          SO I'M NOT SURE YOU SHOULD PRESCRIBE WHICH ELEMENT YOU WANT THEM TO TAKE A LOOK AT AS MUCH AS THE LANGUAGE WE JUST HAD. 
          DON'T DON'T, DON'T JUST, YOU KNOW, WITH EQUAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, DON'T DISINCENTIVIZE MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING. 
          THAT'S DEFINITELY THE GOAL OF THE AMENDMENT CHANGES THAT WOULD ENSURE. 
          SO CITY MANAGERS WILL RECOMMEND CITY CODE CHANGES THAT WOULD ENSURE THAT FOR THE SAME ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, UH, WE'RE NOT, DISINCENTIVIZING MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING AND LET THEM DECIDE ALL THE FACTORS THEY WANT TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT IF AS I WORK, IF WATER, IF, IF STAFF UNDERSTANDS THE INTENT AND IS FINE WITH THE LANGUAGE, THEN THAT'S FINE WITH ME. 
          SO I WOULD HAVE, WOULD ENSURE THAT FOR THE SAME ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, WE'RE NOT, DISINCENTIVIZING MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING, UM, FOR THE SAME ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AS A SINGLE, AS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, WE'RE NOT, DISINCENTIVIZING MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING. 
          THE CITY MANAGER SHALL RECOMMEND A CITY CODE CHANGES THAT WOULD ENSURE THAT FOR THE SAME ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, WE'RE NOT, DISINCENTIVIZING MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING. 
          THAT MAY BE UNITS THAT MAY BE IMPERVIOUS COVER. 
          I DON'T KNOW, BUT FOR IT'S THE COMMONALITY IS FOR THE SAME ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. 
          WE'RE NOT, DISINCENTIVIZING MULTIPLE UNITS. 
          THAT'S THE GOAL, UH, MAYOR KAREN. 
          SO THAT NECESSARILY DOES NOT INCLUDE ADDING MORE IMPERVIOUS COVER CAUSE THAT HAS A DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANGLE THAT MAY GET US THERE AGAIN WITH THOUGH I SAY, COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHENS, I'M GOING TO THINK ABOUT 
          [06:30:01]
THE LANGUAGE A LITTLE BIT. 
          OKAY. 
          WE, YOU KNOW, IT'S, UH, IT'S, UH, 20 MINUTES TO NINE. 
          WE COULD ALWAYS PULL THIS ONE OFF UNTIL NEXT WEEK AND, AND SPEND MORE TIME ON LANGUAGE. 
          I WOULD, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM MY CO-SPONSORS ABOUT WHETHER THAT'S THEIR INTEREST BECAUSE YOU KNOW, FLOODING IS, HAS TAKEN LIVES IN THIS COMMUNITY. 
          AND I THINK IF WE'RE, I, I REGARD IT AS A MATTER OF, UM, IMPORTANCE THAT WE MOVE FORWARD AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN. 
          I, WE ALL SHARE THAT THAT'S WHERE A KITCHEN. 
          SO MY QUESTION, MY QUESTION IS, IS, UM, IS THE THINKING THAT, THAT THIS, UH, ANALYSIS HAPPENS SIMULTANEOUSLY OR BEFORE THE, THE REST OF WHAT'S GOING ON HERE BECAUSE I'M, I THINK IT'S, UM, I THINK IT'S A GOOD QUESTION, UH, TO BE ASKED AND CERTAINLY SOMETHING WE WANT TO ANALYZE, BUT AGAIN, I'M CONCERNED THAT IT MIGHT HOLD UP, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING HOW IT WOULD HAPPEN. 
          SO, UH, BECAUSE AS I SAID BEFORE, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, LOCALIZED FLOODING. 
          I'M CONCERNED ABOUT, UM, A LOT OF OTHER ASPECTS OF THIS. 
          AND, UM, I'M HOPING THAT THIS KIND OF ANALYSIS, THE WAY I'M READING IT, IT SHOULD BE, IT SHOULDN'T HOLD UP. 
          THE OTHER THINGS YOU'RE DOING, BUT I DON'T KNOW. 
          AND SO THAT'S MY QUESTION TO YOU ALL, IN OTHER WORDS, DO YOU HAVE TO FINISH THIS BEFORE YOU CAN DO ANY OF THE OTHER THINGS WE ASK ABOUT? I DON'T BELIEVE SO. 
          I DIDN'T INTERPRET THIS AS A FORMAL COST ANALYSIS IN A WAY THAT Y'ALL INITIALLY STARTED TALKING ABOUT IT. 
          THIS IS REALLY, TO ME LOOKING AT THE REGULATORY BURDEN ACROSS DIFFERENT TOPOLOGIES, DIFFERENT LEVELS OF IMPERVIOUS COVER, BUT THAT WOULD BE PART OF WHAT WE WOULD LOOK AT AS A PART OF THE PROCESS ANYWAY, NOT AS SEPARATE ANALYSIS. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, AND, AND AGAIN, THIS IS LOOKING AT THAT, UM, BURDEN, BUT ALSO UNDERSTANDING THE BENEFITS THAT ARE NEEDED AT THE SAME TIME. 
          OF COURSE. 
          OKAY. 
          I THINK YOU'D ALMOST HAVE TO BE DOING IT THIS WAY ANYHOW, AS PART OF THAT ANALYSIS MAYOR PRO TEM. 
          SO I THINK THE WAY THAT YOU FRAMED IT, NARROWS IT QUITE A BIT FROM WHERE WE STARTED. 
          I DON'T, I DON'T, I, WHEN I LOOK AT THE LIST OF THINGS THAT WERE INITIATING CODE AMENDMENTS, UM, I MEAN, I GUESS IT DEPENDS ON HOW YOU'RE DEFINING MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING, BUT IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT TRIPLEXES AND QUADS, I DON'T KNOW THAT A LOT OF THE SUPPLIES BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT HAVING BIG DETENTION PANTS. 
          AND I MEAN, AND IF WE ARE, THEN OBVIOUSLY WE NEED TO, WE NEED TO, TO ADDRESS THAT. 
          I MEAN, IT DEPENDS ON THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT YOU'RE HAVING. 
          UM, SO, SO I, I WOULD BE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. 
          I'M NOT SURE THAT THERE'S ACTUALLY THAT MUCH, THAT WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE REGULATING HERE FOR SINGLE FAMILY. 
          UM, SO I WOULD BE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT BECAUSE I DON'T, I DON'T, BUT I DO THINK THAT THERE'S A SEPARATE CONVERSATION THAT WE MAY WANT TO HAVE OVER THAT QUESTION. 
          THAT'S BEYOND THIS REVOLUTION AND MAYOR, I WOULD SOME OF THE, LIKE FOR EXAMPLE, THE STEEP SLOPE REQUIREMENTS, AND SOME OF THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS ARE NECESSARILY GOING TO LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF LAND THAT CAN BE USED ON, YOU KNOW, PARTICULAR LAWS. 
          AND THOSE REQUIREMENTS ARE TYPICALLY NOT GOING TO IMPACT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AWAY. 
          THEY'RE GOING TO IMPACT A MULTIFAMILY, YOU KNOW, MISSING MIDDLE PROJECTS. 
          AND SO THAT'S WHY I'M OFFERING IT IN CONJUNCTION WITH THESE REGULATIONS. 
          SO IT WILL ACT TO OFFSET ANY POTENTIAL INCREASE IN HOUSING COSTS OF THESE REGULATIONS. 
          I UNDERSTAND IT COULD BE A SEPARATE ITEM. 
          EACH, PROBABLY EACH INDIVIDUAL ITEM IN THIS ITEM COULD BE A SEPARATE ITEM, BUT I DON'T WANT THE COST INCREASE FOR MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING. 
          AND THE, UH, THE AMENDMENTS OFFERED TO BALANCE. 
          YEAH, I SEE THAT A DISCRETE IN THE GREEN SLOPE ISSUE IS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ISSUE. 
          WE'RE TRYING TO INCENTIVIZE PEOPLE TO ACTUALLY USE IT RATHER THAN NOT USE IT. 
          AND YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO FIGURE OUT THAT BALANCE AND WHAT THE TRADE-OFFS ARE IN THAT OR ELSE. 
          NO ONE'S EVER GONE TO THE REDEVELOP, THE Y AND OAK HILL DUBLIN EVER DEVELOPED WEST GATE. 
          SO YOU HAVE TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT GETS THAT DONE, BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE REALLY BIG THINGS. 
          THOSE ARE THE HARD ONES TO GET DONE, BUT IN ITALY, SO IT'S A DIFFERENT DEAL THAN THIS, BUT IT IS, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SAME ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. 
          SO IS TO CLEAR UP THE QUESTION OF WHAT MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING MIGHT BE IN THIS INSTANCE, I WOULD SUGGEST WE HAD THE, THE MULTIUNIT, SO AS MISSING MIDDLE OR MULTIUNIT HOUSING. 
          SO IN THE FIRST, WHEREAS WE DEFINED IT AS PROJECT APPROXIMATELY THREE TO 12 UNITS. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THAT STILL IS THERE IN THE WAREHOUSE CLAUSE. 
          THAT'S GOOD. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SO ARE PEOPLE, OKAY THEN WE HAVE KATHY'S WHEREAS CLAUSES, WHICH STILL KEEP CARRY FORWARD. 
          THAT DEFINITION, THE ONLY CHANGE WE'RE MAKING IS TO BE RESOLVED. 
          AND IT SAYS THE CITY MANAGERS AND RECOMMEND CITY CODE CHANGES THAT WOULD ENSURE THAT FOR THE SAME ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, WE'RE NOT, I MAY, OR IF I MAY, 
          [06:35:01]
I I'VE WORKED ON A LITTLE BIT SEPARATE LANGUAGE, UM, THAT FOR THE SAME ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, THE CITY IS NOT DISINCENTIVIZING. 
          AND THEN PICK UP THE REST OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF SMALL SCALE, MISSING MIDDLE PROJECTS. 
          YEAH. 
          AND I WOULD SAY THAT, I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE A DIFFERENT TIMELINE ON THAT BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THAT MIGHT, THAT IS NOT INFORMATION AND IT'S NOT INFER, THESE ARE NOT CODE AMENDMENTS THAT OUR STAFF HAVE CURRENTLY DRAFTED AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED. 
          AND I THINK IT IS A SEPARATE, I THINK IT IS, UH, IT IS A SEPARATE AND ADDITIONAL INITIATIVE. 
          AND I WOULD JUST ASK, UM, OUR ENVIRONMENTAL, THIS CHECK WAS THAT BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO BE, IT'S GOING TO BE PART AND PARCEL OF THE SAME THING. 
          IS THAT A SEPARATE ANALYSIS? I THINK WE'RE HAPPY TO INCLUDE IT IN THE SLIGHT DELAY WITH THE GREENFIELD AND SLOPE COMPONENTS TO GIVE US A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME SINCE IT IS AN ADDITIONAL COMPONENT, BUT WE'RE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT ALL OF THIS IN TANDEM. 
          THEY ALL WORK TOGETHER. 
          UM, BUT THAT EXTRA MONTH, OKAY. 
          SO CITY MANAGER SHOW RECOMMEND BY NOVEMBER 2ND, NOVEMBER 3RD, 2022. 
          AND THEN YOU COULD SAY BY IF WE COULD PUT THAT AT THE BEGINNING, BY NOVEMBER 3RD, COMMA, THE CITY MANAGER, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BY NOVEMBER 3RD, 2022, THE CITY MANAGER SHOULD A RECOMMEND THAT ECO CHANGES THAT WOULD ENSURE THAT FOR THE SAME ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, THIS CITY IS NOT DISINCENTIVE. 
          IT'S NOT, DECENTIVIZE MISSING MIDDLE OR MULTI MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING. 
          CAUSE WE HAVE DEFINED IT AS WELL. 
          THE SCALE AND MISSING MIDDLE PROJECTS. 
          I JUST USED A COUNCIL MEMBER, VELEZ LANGUAGE, SMALL-SCALE MISSING MIDDLE PROJECTS. 
          UM, AND THEN JUST TO BACK UP TO YOUR PREVIOUS, YOUR PREVIOUS BIT FURTHER AS WELL, IT WAS ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE TO A STANDING, BE IT FOR THE RESULTED COUNCIL MEMBER. 
          ABELLA THE ONE ABOUT PROVIDING INFORMATION FOR THE COST OF COMPLIANCE? UM, THERE, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ADD TO, UM, THAT, THAT TOO, MAYBE I THINK PART OF THIS, BUT I WOULD ADD THE LANGUAGE IF IT DOES NOT SLOW THE TIMELINE, THE TIMELINE FOR THE OTHER, UH, CHANGES IN ITEM 61. 
          AGAIN, I WOULD LIKE THEM TO BE PARALLEL BECAUSE THE EFFECTS ARE PARALLEL. 
          IT SOUNDS LIKE OUR STAFF HAVE SAID THAT IF IT'S, IF IT'S PART OF THE LATER, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'VE TAKEN TO NEED THAT INFORMATION TO BE ABLE TO VOTE ON IT. 
          ANYHOW, WE'RE GOING TO NEED THAT INFORMATION TO BE ABLE TO VOTE ON THE MAIN THING, WHICH IS ALREADY IN THE IT'S ALREADY IN THE RESOLUTION. 
          THIS IS ASKING FOR THIS IS ASKING FOR ANOTHER LEVEL OF DETAIL ABOUT COSTS AND THAT'S PROVIDING COSTS OF COSTS FOR DIFFERENT KINDS OF HOUSING, WHICH I THINK IS PART OF WHAT THEY'RE RETURNING TO US ALREADY WITH THE FISCAL IMPACT AND WHATNOT. 
          BUT, UM, BUT FOR PEOPLE THAT ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT ISSUE, THEY'RE GOING TO WANT TO HAVE THIS INFORMATION TO BE ABLE TO MIND. 
          OKAY. 
          SO IS THE, WITH THE CHANGE THAT WE JUST MADE TO THE BEAVER SOFT CLAUSE IS THE TOTAL VERSION OF ELLA BEFORE. 
          OKAY. 
          YES, CASBAR KELLY. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, I WAS LOOKING AT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COUNCIL MEMBER TOGO'S LANGUAGE AND, UM, COUNCIL MEMBER VELEZ LANGUAGE, AND ONE IS RECOMMENDING CITY CODE CHANGES, AND ONE IS INITIATING CODE CHANGES. 
          AND I WAS WONDERING IF CITY LEGAL COULD EXPLAIN IF THERE'S ANY DIFFERENCE IN THOSE TWO PROCESSES AND WHAT THEY ARE DEFINED AS, SO THAT THE PEOPLE AT HOME WATCHING OR LISTENING ON THE RADIO CAN UNDERSTAND, YES, IT'S A DIFFERENCE IN TUITION LINK IS GOING TO HELP US THERE AND TITLED 25 COUNCIL INITIATE CHANGES TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. 
          AND SO WITHOUT THE WORD INITIATE, THE CODE CHANGES AREN'T INITIATED. 
          SO THEY'D GO THROUGH THE FULL PROCESS WITH RECOMMEND. 
          WE WOULD, UH, STAFF WOULD PROVIDE COUNCIL WITH A MEMO OR PRESENTATION THAT EXPLAINS WHAT THEY HAVE RECOMMENDED. 
          AND AFTER THAT POINT IN TIME, COUNSEL COULD INITIATE IF THEY CHOOSE TO. 
          SO THEN I GUESS WITH US HAVING THE TIMELINE THAT WE DO AND THE FACT THAT WE ARE EXPERIENCING HOUSING CRISIS, I WOULD BE MORE COMFORTABLE INITIATING CODE AMENDMENTS AS COUNCIL MEMBER VELLA HAD BROUGHT FORWARD. 
          BECAUSE I THINK THAT THAT WOULD SPEED THINGS UP A LITTLE BIT AND HELP GET US TO A PLACE WHERE WE CAN HAVE MORE HOUSING. 
          I MAY HAVE OBJECTION WITH HAVING A CITY MANAGER SHALL BY NOVEMBER 3RD, 2020 TO CITY MANAGER SHOP INITIATE CITY CODE CHANGES. 
          I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE INITIATING. 
          I MEAN, WE DON'T HAVE ANY TO ENSURE THAT WELL, IT WOULD BE WHATEVER IS EVER ORDINANCES NECESSARY TO ENSURE THAT IT DOESN'T COST MORE TO BUILD 
          [06:40:01]
A THERE WITH THE SAME ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. 
          IT DOESN'T COST MORE TO BUILD A FOURPLEX THAN, THAN IT DOES A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE. 
          WE WOULD STILL HAVE TO HAVE THE ITEM COME BACK TO US TO VOTE ON. 
          CORRECT. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          WHICH IS THE QUESTION OF INITIATING IT, BUT I THINK THAT'S AMPLE DESCRIPTION TO SAY, WE JUST, IF IT HAS THE SAME ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, BRING US BACK AN ORDINANCE AND ENSURES THAT THERE'S NOT ENOUGH CITY STAFF CAN PREPARE ORDINANCES THAT GO WITH THE ORDINANCES THAT ARE ALREADY BEING INITIATED THAT WILL ADDRESS WHATEVER CONCERNS, UM, IN THIS AREA. 
          SO IF WE'RE AUTHORIZED TO DO THAT. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT US TO MIX UP TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. 
          SO I THINK IT'S PERFECTLY FINE FOR US TO SAY THAT THE ORDINANCES THAT WERE INITIATED ORDINANCE CHANGES EVER INITIATING HERE, WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE THIS DISTANCE DID TO DISINCENTIVIZE MISSING MIDDLE OVER SINGLE FAMILY. 
          IT'S ANOTHER THING TO INITIATE A PROCESS. 
          THAT'S GOING TO GET RID OF ALL THE DIFFERENTIAL COSTS THAT ARE IN OUR CODE BETWEEN SINGLE FAMILY AND MISSING MIDDLE. 
          AND I'M NOT SAYING WE DON'T NEED TO DO THAT, BUT THAT'S A DIFFERENT RESOLUTION THAN THIS ONE. 
          THAT'S A DIFFERENT SET OF STAFF. 
          SO IT IS MAKES PERFECT SENSE TO SAY THAT AS YOU IMPLEMENT THESE ORDINANCE CHANGES, WE DO NOT WANT TO DISINCENTIVIZE MISSING MIDDLE OVER SINGLE FAMILY. 
          IT IS A TOTALLY DIFFERENT PROJECT TO SAY, YOU'RE GOING TO GET RID OF ALL THE DIFFERENCES THAT EXIST IN OUR CODE AND SITE PLAN AND EVERYTHING ELSE. 
          SO DO YOU SAY THE CITY MANAGER SHALL INITIATE? NO. 
          SORRY. 
          BY NOVEMBER 3RD, 2022, THE CITY MANAGER SHALL INITIATE CITY CODE CHANGES THAT WOULD ENSURE, AND THEN PUT IN THERE THAT PURSUANT TO ORDINANCES HERE UNDER THE COST TO COMPLY. 
          SO MAYOR THE, THE RESOLUTION, THE WHEREAS SPECIFY WATER QUALITY PROTECTIONS. 
          AND THAT'S WHAT THE FOCUS OF THE, OF THE AMENDMENT WAS REALLY THE WATER QUALITY PROTECTIONS. 
          THE WATER QUALITY PROTECTIONS HAS CONTAINED IN THE, IN THE, IN THE LARGER ITEMS, THE LARGER ITEMS. YES. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO I THINK, AND I THINK THAT GOES WITHOUT SAYING, I THOUGHT, BUT THE MAYOR PRO TEM IS RAISING THAT SPECIFICALLY. 
          SO I WAS JUST REFERRING BACK TO IT THAT THE CITY CO-CHAIRS, THAT WOULD ENSURE THAT THESE W THESE WATER QUALITY ORDINANCES OR THE, THE, THE MAY, OR MOST OF THESE ORDINANCE CHANGES DON'T AFFECT SINGLE FAMILY OR MIDDLE THERE FOR A LARGER PROPERTY. 
          PERHAPS I SHOULD LAY OUT MY, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO PERTAIN TO AT ALL, BUT IT DOES DO SOME WATER QUALITY AND HE WANTS IT TO PERTAIN TO MOST OF THEM. 
          AND SO IT SHOULD JUST BE THAT WHEN YOU INITIATE THESE, YOU'RE NOT, DISINCENTIVIZING IT FOR THAT. 
          IT IS NOT A FULL STUDY ACROSS SINGLE FAMILY AND MISSING MIDDLE, WHICH WE SHOULD DO PERHAPS, BUT IS NOT IN THIS RESOLUTION. 
          CORRECT. 
          THAT'S WHY WE WERE TRYING TO PUT IN THE LANGUAGE THAT JUST TIES IT BACK TO THIS AND THEN INITIATING THE ORDINANCES. 
          YOU'RE ALREADY HAVE ORDINANCES THAT ARE INITIATED, AND YOU'RE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT THE ONES THAT YOU INITIATED IN HER RESOLUTION TO BEGIN WITH DON'T DISINCENTIVIZE IT, YOU'RE NOT INITIATING ADDITIONAL ORDINANCE MAYOR WITH ALL DUE RESPECT. 
          THIS SIDE OF THE DICE WOULD LIKE TO TALK TO. 
          SO I FEEL LIKE, I FEEL LIKE THE CONVERSATION IS HAPPENING OVER THERE AND WE'RE RAISING, I APOLOGIZE THAT POINT IS WELL TAKEN, BUT LOOK INTO MY LEFT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO I HAVE A COMMENT I'D LIKE TO MAKE ABOUT, ABOUT THE, UM, INITIATING. 
          UH, SO MY QUESTION IS I HAVE A BIT OF CONCERN ABOUT SAYING WE'RE GOING TO INITIATE CITY CODE AMENDMENTS BECAUSE I REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT THOSE ARE. 
          YOU KNOW, AS, AS MY COLLEAGUES HAVE ALREADY SAID I'D LIKE TO ECHO THAT. 
          SO I'M WONDERING, IS THERE A STEP IN BETWEEN HERE? AND THE, THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS, IS, YOU KNOW, COUNCIL MEMBER AVAILA, THEY MAY INITIATE SOMETHING WHICH IS NOT SOMETHING YOU WANT. 
          YOU KNOW, IF YOU, IF THERE IS A PROCESS FOR INITIATING BASED ON SOMETHING, THAT'S THIS, THAT THIS IS THIS VAGUE, YOU MAY GO THROUGH A WHOLE PROCESS OF INITIATION WITHOUT YOU HAVING THE CHANCE TO WEIGH IN ON WHAT YOU WANT TO BE INITIATED. 
          AND THEN BY THE TIME IT GETS TO COUNCIL, IT MAY NOT REALLY ADDRESS WHAT YOU WANTED TO ADDRESS. 
          SO THAT'S WHY THAT'S HELPFUL TO BE A BIT MORE SPECIFIC ON WHAT'S BEING INITIATED. 
          I KNOW YOU DON'T WANT TO SLOW THINGS DOWN BECAUSE WE DO NEED TO INITIATE A PROCESS. 
          SO MAYBE THERE'S, YOU KNOW, A STEP IN THERE SOMEWHERE THAT, THAT, THAT BRINGS IT BACK TO COUNCIL. 
          SO YOU CAN HAVE SOME OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT BEFORE THEY GO THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS 
          [06:45:01]
WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION, ET CETERA, YOU KNOW, SO I'M TRYING TO BALANCE OUT THE FACT THAT THESE ARE SET AND READY TO GO, UH, CHANGES WITH THE, THE, THE, UH, PROTECTIONS THAT I WANT TO PUT ON, ON HOUSING COSTS, WHICH KIND OF NEED TO WORK IN PARALLEL. 
          YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT THERE TO BE A BUNCH OF, UH, CHANGES, WATER, QUALITY, WATER PROTECTION CHANGES THAT WILL THEN RAISE HOUSING COSTS. 
          AND THEN STAFF COMES BACK AND SAYS, OH, AND BY THE WAY, THESE ARE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS ABOUT HOW WE COULD BALANCE THOSE OUT WITHOUT, YOU KNOW, I WANT TO BALANCE THOSE OUT. 
          I DON'T WANT TO JUST TALK ABOUT HOW WE CAN BALANCE THOSE OUT OR LOOK AT WHAT WE CAN BALANCE OUT. 
          I WANT THEM BALANCED THAT THAT'S KIND OF, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S A BROAD, UH, AMENDMENT WHERE STAFF TELL US HOW WE CAN DO THIS, BUT WE'RE GOING TO GET A CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT. 
          THE DAYAS, WE'LL BE ABLE TO LOOK AT IT, GO THROUGH THE SAME AMENDMENT PROCESS THAT WE'RE WE'RE GOING THROUGH RIGHT NOW. 
          AND ULTIMATELY, I THINK WE CAN, WE CAN, YOU KNOW, GET TO A PLACE WHERE WE HAVE A BILL THAT, THAT DOES WHAT WE WANT, WHAT WE ALL WANT TO DO, WHICH IS PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT, PREVENT FLOODING, BUT NOT AT THE COST OF INCREASED, UH, HOUSING EXPENSES, INCREASED HOUSING COSTS. 
          I'M TRYING REALLY HARD TO GET TO A PLACE HERE WHERE I CAN VOTE FOR THIS RESOLUTION AND RATHER THAN VOTING NO AT THE END OF THE DAY. 
          AND I, AND I'M ON A VOTE. 
          NO, IF IT'S LOOKING AT ONE SIDE OF THE EQUATION AND IS NOT LOOKING AT THE OTHER SIDE OF THE EQUATION, SO I'M TRYING REALLY HARD TO, TO BALANCE THAT OUT OR I'M A NO VOTE. 
          HOW ABOUT MY WORDS? IT SAYS THE INITIATED ORDINANCES WILL ENSURE THAT FOR THE SAME ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, THE CITY DOES NOT DISINCENTIVIZE. 
          SMALL-SCALE MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING PROJECTS. 
          I'M TRYING TO MAYOR ONE MORE TIME. 
          THE INITIATED ORDINANCES WILL ENSURE THAT COMMA FOR THE SAME ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME COMMA, THE CITY DOES NOT DISINCENTIVIZE SMALL SCALE MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING PROJECTS. 
          MAY I THINK THAT THAT DOES IT BECAUSE IT INITIATE, BUT IT ALSO IS FOCUSED ON THE CONCERN THAT COUNCIL MEMBER AVAILA FED, YOU KNOW, THAT THESE, THAT THESE OTHER THINGS THAT ARE MOVING DON'T END UP DISINCENTIVIZING. 
          SO I'M A KID EXCEPT THAT LANGUAGE, MAN. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          I THINK ME TO READ IT AGAIN. 
          DID YOU GET IT? NO. 
          I NEED YOU TO READ IT AGAIN, PLEASE. 
          I MEAN, IT SOUNDED VERY LIKE WHAT WE HAD ALREADY PUT IN THERE, BUT, BUT HOPEFULLY DIFFERENT ENOUGH TO GET PEOPLE TO AGREE. 
          THE INITIATED ORDINANCES WILL ENSURE THAT FOR THE SAME ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, THE CITY DOES NOT DISINCENTIVIZE. 
          SMALL-SCALE MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING PROJECTS, ANYBODY OBJECT TO THAT AMENDMENT. 
          OKAY. 
          I THINK THAT'S FINE. 
          I THINK THAT'S VERY MUCH IN KEEPING WITH THE LANGUAGE THAT COUNCIL MEMBER RENTERIA HAD ADDED ABOUT REALLY UNDERSTANDING THE FISCAL IMPACT, WHICH HAS BEEN IN THERE FROM THE BEGINNING. 
          I THINK THIS ADDS ANOTHER LEVEL OF DETAIL. 
          IT'S NOT INITIATING A WHOLE NEW SET OF ORDINANCES. 
          IT'S SIMPLY SAYING, HELP US UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT OF THOSE THAT WE'VE ALREADY INITIATED. 
          TRISH, DID YOU GET THAT LANGUAGE? THANK YOU. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SO WITHOUT OBJECTION, TOGO'S CHANGED TO VILLAS VERSION FOR IS INCLUDED WITH THE CHANGE TO THE, BE IT RESOLVED CLAUSE AS I JUST READ OUT LOUD, CONTINUING ON. 
          ARE THERE ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS TO THE SECTION AS MAYOR PRO TEM? THAT INCLUDES THE WHEREAS CHANGES. 
          IT INCLUDES. 
          OKAY. 
          WHAT WAS THE WHEREAS CHANGES? THEY'RE JUST THERE. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE CHANGED. 
          THEY'RE JUST DIFFERENT. 
          I WAS WORKING THE BASE DOCUMENT I WAS WORKING OFF OF WAS TOWBOATS CHANGES DEVELOPED FOR EXCEPT THE RESOLVE CLAUSE CHANGED. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS ANYBODY'S OFFERING TO THIS ONE? WE READY TO VOTE ON IT AS AMENDED. 
          I WAS IN FAVOR OF THIS, UH, ITEM 61 AS AMENDED, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. 
          THOSE OPPOSED PASSES UNANIMOUSLY ON THE DESK. 
          CANCELLATIONS. 
          YES. 
          MAY I KNOW IT'S LATE, BUT I DIDN'T HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REALLY SPEAK ABOUT THE RESOLUTION MORE GENERALLY. 
          AND I SIMPLY WANT TO JUST SAY, UM, FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU TO MY STAFF MEMBER, EIGHTH OF PHILLIPS WHO WORKED TREMENDOUSLY ON THIS. 
          UM, SHE WORKED IN CONCERT WITH MY COLLEAGUES. 
          WHO'S, CO-SPONSORED IT, UM, INCLUDING COUNCIL MEMBER, KITCHEN STAFF. 
          AND WE WORKED VERY CLOSELY WITH WATERSHED PROTECTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL, UM, OUR ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICERS. 
          AND I REALLY APPRECIATE ALL OF THEIR WORK AS WELL. 
          THESE, THESE ARE GOING TO SEE FORWARD SOME PROCESSES AND SOME, SOME NEW REGULATIONS FOR ENSURING WATER QUALITY THROUGHOUT OUR CITY. 
          UM, DESPITE WHAT WE'VE SPENT MOST OF THE TIME TALKING ABOUT THE RESOLUTION REALLY ADDRESSES AREAS THAT ARE LESS AS COUNT AS MAYOR PRO TEM POINTED OUT THAT ARE REALLY 
          [06:50:01]
MORE ABOUT MORE GENERAL ISSUES, UM, SUCH AS MAKING SURE THAT AS WE HAVE INDUSTRIES WITH POTENTIAL RISKS FOR POLLUTING THAT WE'RE ON TOP OF THAT, WE'RE MONITORING IT CLOSELY, UM, THAT WHEN THERE ARE LEVELS OF ECO-LINE NOTED IN PARTICULAR CREEKS, ESPECIALLY, UM, IN AREAS THAT, THAT, UH, THOSE THERE'S BETTER COMMUNICATION WITH AUSTIN WATER. 
          SO THOSE PIPES CAN BE, BE FIXED MORE QUICKLY. 
          UM, THERE'S A LOT ABOUT GREEN STORMWATER FINALLY MOVING FORWARD WITH SOME OF OUR GREEN STORMWATER METHODS. 
          AND AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE REALLY EQUITABLE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS EAST AND WEST IN OUR CITY, AND A VARIETY OF OTHER THINGS TO DO WITH, WITH, UM, SHORELINES. 
          SO AGAIN, I APPRECIATE ALL THOSE WHO CONTRIBUTED WORK HERE AND ESPECIALLY, UM, THE WORK OF, OF, UM, AVA. 
          OKAY. 
          LET'S MOVE ON TO THE NEXT TIME THEN WE'RE GOING TO DO, LET'S DO THE ASM V ITEM 52. 
          [52. Approve an ordinance amending the Austin Strategic Mobility Plan (Ordinance No. 20190411-033) and amending the Imagine Austin Comprehensive Plan.]
UM, TOMORROW I WANT TO MAKE THE MOTION TO PASS THIS ITEM. 
          COUNCIL MARPOL MAKES THE MOTIONS ARE SECOND COUNTS. 
          REMEMBER VELEZ SECOND TO, AND THEN I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS, JUST COUPLE QUICK QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. 
          OKAY. 
          AND I THINK OUR, UM, THESE ARE GOING TO BE LEGAL QUESTIONS, SO I'LL LET OUR TRANSPORTATION STAFF OFF THE HOOK AND I'M GOING TO THINK WHO'S BEEN DOING TRIPLE DUTY TONIGHT. 
          HOPE YOU'RE NOT TOO. 
          UM, TRISH, WE, WE HEARD FROM SOME OF, UH, THE NEIGHBORS IN MY DISTRICT SPECIFICALLY, AND SOME OF THE FOLKS WHO ARE STILL HERE THAT THEY'RE CONCERNED ABOUT EMINENT DOMAIN AND THE IMPACT OF THE CHANGES TO THE AUSTIN STRATEGIC MOBILITY PLAN, THE UPDATES TO IT THAT, UM, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE RIGHT AWAY IS PROTECTED. 
          UM, AND SO I HAD A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS THAT I WANTED TO ASK IN ORDER TO HIGHLIGHT THESE QUIET, THEIR CONCERNS, AND THEN HAVE THEM SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS IF I MAY DO THAT WITH YOU, JUST THREE QUESTIONS. 
          SO THE FIRST QUESTION, UM, IN ORDER TO, UM, I'M LOOKING TO CONFIRM THAT PEOPLE ARE INDEED PROTECTED FROM EMINENT DOMAIN DOMAIN TAKING OF THEIR, OF THEIR PROPERTY SPECIFICALLY UNDER THE S AND P IN THIS INSTANCE, DOES THE ASM P AS CURRENTLY DRAFTED OPEN THE DOOR TO TAKING PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHOUT NOTICE OR PROPER LEGAL PROCEDURES, UH, PATRICIA LENGTH, THE CITY OF AUSTIN LAW DEPARTMENT, NO COUNCIL MEMBER, IT DOES NOT, WE WOULD STILL NEED TO FOLLOW ALL OF THE PROCEDURES AND STATE LAW, NOTHING IN THE ACE AND P CHANGES THAT THANK YOU. 
          AND WHAT IS TO GUARANTEE THAT THE CITY WILL FOLLOW IT'S STANDARD PROCESS FOR OBTAINING PRIVATE PROPERTY. 
          SHOULD WE DECIDE TO DO THAT? BECAUSE STATE LAW APPLIES TO OUR ACTIONS, WE WILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH STATE LAW AND STATE LAW WOULD NOT ALLOW US TO USE THE S AND P AS A WAY TO BYPASS STATE LAW. 
          AND THE CITY OF AUSTIN IS NOT IN THE PRACTICE OF VIOLATING STATE LAW TO THE BEST OF OUR ABILITIES, TO THE BEST OF OUR ABILITIES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND MY LAST QUESTION, IF IN FACT IT IS CERTAIN THAT THE CITY WILL FOLLOW STANDARD PROCEDURES FOR OBTAINING PRIVATE PROPERTY. 
          SHOULD WE DECIDE TO DO THAT? WHY NOT WRITE THIS INTO THE CODE? AS SOME OF OUR SPEAKERS HAVE ASKED US TO DO AND DOING THAT, UM, IT CREATES, IT WILL CREATE CONFUSION FOR THE PUBLIC BECAUSE WE DON'T WRITE THAT IN EVERYTHING WE DO, WE ARE BOUND TO FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION AND THE STATE LAWS AS THEY APPLY. 
          AND WE DO THAT WITHOUT HAVING TO WRITE THAT INTO THE CODE. 
          OKAY. 
          MAYOR, THOSE WERE THE QUESTIONS THAT I HAD FOR LEGAL AND I APPRECIATE TRISH OFFERING THOSE ANSWERS ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, THIS ITEM 52 THAT'S RIGHT. 
          KELLY. 
          I JUST WANT TO BE RESPECTFUL OF OUR COLLEAGUES WHO ARE PARTICIPATING VIRTUALLY. 
          I KNOW THAT A MOTION SHEET WAS JUST PASSED OUT ON THE DAY OF, AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S BEEN DISTRIBUTED TO THEM AS WELL, SO THEY CAN REVIEW IT IN A TIMELY MANNER. 
          I'M JUST CONFIRMING THAT WITH MY STAFF. 
          THANK YOU. 
          SO WHAT'S BEEN HANDED OUT AS COUNCIL MEMBER, KATHY TOVO HAS HANDED OUT ON ITEM 52 EMOTION SHEET AMENDING THAT, UH, ASM P TO ADD LANGUAGE. 
          HOW IS THIS BEING MADE AVAILABLE TO, UM, COUNCIL MEMBERS, ELLISON I'M ROBINSON? I WILL HAVE TO CONFIRM WHETHER OR NOT IT'S BEEN EMAILED YET. 
          UM, BUT I CAN CERTAINLY READ IT IN THE MEANTIME, AND THAT IS, I APPRECIATED THAT OR POSTING TO THE MESSAGE BOARD IF IT'S EASIER THAN EMAILING. 
          [06:55:02]
AND, AND IN THE MEANTIME, I'LL READ THE LANGUAGE, I'M AMENDING THE ASN P TO ADD THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE IN SEPTEMBER, 2012, THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECTED THE CITY MANAGER TO REQUEST THE WITHDRAWAL OF SH 45 SOUTHWEST FROM THE CAMPO 2035 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN TO ALIGN WITH THE GOALS OF THE IMAGINE AUSTIN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RESOLUTION NUMBER XXX, EXCESS REAFFIRM, THE CITY COUNCIL'S POSITION THAT QUOTE THE PROPOSED SH 41 45. 
          SOUTHWEST IS NOT PART OF THE FUTURE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK OF BOSTON AND REAFFIRMS ITS OPPOSITION TO SH 45 SOUTHWEST. 
          AND SO THUS, AND THIS IS THE ACTION WE'RE DIRECTING THE STAFF TO REMOVE THE REFERENCE TO THE UNCOMPLETED SECTION OF SH 45 BETWEEN, UM, FARM ROAD, 16, 26 AND 35 MAYOR. 
          UH, I JUST WANTED TO LET, UM, OUR COUNCIL MEMBERS KNOW THAT OUR VIRTUAL, THAT I JUST TEXTED THEM BOTH THE AMENDMENT. 
          SO I KNOW THAT THEY'LL GET AN EMAIL, BUT THEY'VE ALSO GOT IT BY TEXT KAISER KELLY. 
          I THINK IT'S GREAT THAT THEY GOT A TEXT ABOUT THE MOTION SHEET, BUT IN THE INTEREST OF BEING TRANSPARENT WITH THE PUBLIC, IF IT COULD BE POSTED ONLINE SOMEWHERE, I THINK THAT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL. 
          YES, WE'RE WORKING ON. 
          YES, I DIDN'T MEAN INSTEAD OF, I WAS JUST TRYING TO BE HELPFUL. 
          IS THERE A SECOND TO THIS, UH, AMENDMENT COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN SECONDS IT DISCUSSION. 
          YES. 
          ALICE, THANK YOU. 
          UM, I, I'M SUPPORTIVE OF DOING THIS AT THIS POINT IN TIME. 
          I KNOW THAT THIS HAD BEEN ADDRESSED IN 2019 WITH THE ORIGINAL ADOPTION OF THE ASM P UM, BUT I KNOW I'VE BEEN HEARING FROM MANY CONSTITUENTS ABOUT THE CONCERNS ABOUT IF THIS, YOU KNOW, THE IMPLICATION OF IT BEING INCLUDED IN THIS ASM P AT THIS POINT IN TIME, BUT ALSO THE ULTIMATE, UM, ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE AND IMPACT TO THE COMMUNITY THAT MIGHT HAPPEN IF THIS ROADWAY WERE EVER CONNECTED. 
          UM, A LOT OF, YOU KNOW, I REPRESENT THE AREA THAT'S OVER THE EDWARDS AQUIFER AND BARTON SPRINGS, AND, UM, WE ARE ALREADY STUCK IN END TO END TRAFFIC ALREADY. 
          AND SO WE NEED TO BE MINDFUL OF HOW WE'RE CONNECTING HIGHWAYS, HOW WE'RE MANAGING HIGHWAY EXPANSION, ESPECIALLY THROUGH ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE ZONES. 
          SO I, I APPRECIATE THIS AMENDMENT BEING BROUGHT FORWARD. 
          OKAY. 
          IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO THIS AMENDMENT BEING INCLUDED? OKAY, GO AHEAD. 
          I REMEMBER TOBO FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD. 
          I ALSO THINK IT IS JUST APPROPRIATE BECAUSE IT REFLECTS PREVIOUS ACTIONS, UH, THAT THE COUNCIL HAS TAKEN. 
          SO IT'S REALLY JUST CORRECTING THE ASM P TO ALIGN WITH WHAT WE'VE ALREADY SAID. 
          STAFF WANT TO SPEAK TO THIS ISSUE. 
          GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL COLE, KITTEN, AUSTIN TRANSPORTATION. 
          SO, UM, I THOUGHT I'D PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND, UM, ABOUT SH 45. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, THIS AMENDMENT PROCESS DIDN'T PROPOSE ANY CHANGES TO WHAT WAS ADOPTED IN 2019. 
          UM, AND IN FACT, IN 2019, WE HAD THE SAME CONVERSATION ABOUT SH FORTY-FIVE AND, AND WHY IT'S IN ACMP. 
          UM, SO, UM, THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS ADDED IN 2019 WAS ABOUT, UM, PROVIDING FURTHER GUIDANCE, UH, TO THE CITY TO ENSURE THAT IF TECHSTOP MOVES FORWARD WITH THE PROJECT, THAT THE CITY OF AUSTIN WOULD WORK WITH TECHSTAR TO ENSURE, UM, IT'S DONE IN THE MOST SENSITIVE, UH, ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE MANNER. 
          UM, SO THAT LANGUAGE WAS ADDED TO THE, TO THE PLAN. 
          UH, THE MAP ALSO CHANGED, UH, THE LINE WORK, UM, FROM A SOLID LINE TO A DASHED LINE TO INDICATE THAT IT'S BEING TREATED DIFFERENTLY THAN THE OTHER LINES IN THE STREET NETWORK MAP. 
          UM, SO THAT WAS THE DECISION MADE IN 2019 TO KEEP IT IN THE PLAN, UM, WITH THE REASON BEING THAT THE STREET NETWORK IS USED FOR RIGHT WAY DEDICATION AND, AND RESERVATION, UH, THROUGH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, UM, JUST IN CASE, UH, THAT PROPERTY REDEVELOPS, UH, THAT LINE ON THE MAP INDICATES THAT, UM, THAT PROPERTY CAN'T, UM, LOCATE BUILDINGS IN THE FUTURE PATH OF THAT HIGHWAY. 
          UM, SO, UM, IT'S INCLUSION IN THE PLAN. 
          ULTIMATELY DOESN'T CONSTITUTE A COMMITMENT TO BUILD THE ROADWAY IT'S SOLELY IN THERE FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION PURPOSES. 
          [07:00:01]
UM, MY CONCERN AT THE STAFF LEVEL IS THAT IF IT'S REMOVED FROM THE PLAN, UM, UH, DEVELOPMENT COULD LOCATE A BUILDING IN THAT PATH. 
          AND ULTIMATELY, UH, IN THE FUTURE OF TXDOT MOVES FORWARD WITH THE HIGHWAY PROJECT, IT WOULD LEAD TO, UH, DISPLACEMENT OF WHATEVER GETS BUILT THERE. 
          AND HOW WAS IT TREATED IN 2019? IT REMAINED IN THE PLAN INSTEAD OF BEING TAKEN OUT, BUT IT WAS DOTTED. 
          YES, THE LINE WORK WAS CHANGED, INDICATED THAT IT WAS, UM, BEING TREATED DIFFERENTLY, UH, THAT ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE WAS ADDED TO THE MAP AS WELL AS TO AN ACTION ITEM. 
          UH, SO THAT STAFF, UH, FOLLOWED, UM, UH, GUIDANCE ON HOW TO TREAT IT WITH TXDOT. 
          AND WHAT WAS THAT ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE OR THE DESCRIPTION OF THE DATA? WHAT A DOTTED LINE WAS. 
          IT WAS THAT IF TECH STOCK MOVES FORWARD WITH THE PROJECT, THE CITY WOULD WORK WITH, UH, WORK WITH TXDOT STAFF TO ENSURE IT IS DONE IN THE MOST ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE MANNER. 
          OKAY. 
          SO IF, IF, UH, IF, IF THE STATE DECIDES TO MOVE ON WITH IT, IF THERE ANY WAY THAT WE COULD STOP THEM FROM DOING IT, I DON'T BELIEVE SO. 
          UM, THE PREVIOUS, UH, SECTION OF SH 45 FROM 1626 TO LOOP ONE AT A SIMILAR LEVEL OF, UM, CONFLICT WITH, UM, CITY POLICY AT THE TIME, BUT IT CONTINUED TO MOVE FORWARD, UM, WAS CONSTRUCTED, UH, WITH ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL, UM, SENSITIVITIES AND IT'S, IT'S BEING USED AS A MODEL FOR HOW TO, HOW TO CONSTRUCT A FACILITY LIKE THAT IN A SENSITIVE ENVIRONMENT. 
          AND IF WE WERE TO REMOVE THAT, UH, AND THE STATE DECIDED TO JUST GO AHEAD AND BUILD IT, WILL WE HAVE, UH, INPUT, UH, SAY ANY KIND OF INPUT ON THAT? RIGHT? SO THE CITY WILL ALWAYS BE A, UH, A PARTNER AGENCY THROUGHOUT THE NEPA PROCESS DURING THE ENVIRONMENTAL, UH, ANALYSIS. 
          AND IF WE DECIDED NOT TO PUT IT IN THE CITY WILL, AND THE STATE DECIDES TO GO AHEAD AND GO FORWARD WITH IT, WILL WE BE, BE INVITED TO PARTICIPATE? RIGHT. 
          WE WOULD BE INVITED, UM, BY VIRTUE OF BEING, UH, IN THE JURISDICTION THAT IT'S, THAT IT'S IN. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND WE HAVE A MOTION AND AMENDMENT AND MOOD, AND SECOND IN FRONT OF US AND FURTHER DISCUSSION MAYOR PRO TEM. 
          SO WE WANT TO STOP AND EVERY, MAKE IT MORE EXPENSIVE WITH MORE EXPENSIVE RIGHT AWAY, THAT WOULD HELP IN MY, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS, READY TO TAKE A, VOTE THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS AMENDMENT. 
          PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. 
          THOSE OPPOSED COUNTS. 
          REMEMBER AT THREE ABSTAINS, OTHERS VOTING AYE PASSES LET'S, UH, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE SMP AIR PRO TIME. 
          UM, I DON'T HAVE AN AMENDMENT. 
          I ACTUALLY, UM, WANTED TO JUST THANK STAFF FOR THE HARD WORK THAT WENT INTO THIS PROCESS. 
          THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF, UM, DISCUSSION, A LOT OF QUESTIONS, AND I THINK I KNOW THAT, UM, YOU'VE ALWAYS BEEN ABLE TO BE PRESENT IN MY DISTRICT AND TALKING TO MY CONSTITUENTS WHEN, UM, WE'VE ASKED FOR ASSISTANCE, THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING CAN GET TECHNICAL REALLY QUICKLY AND CAN BE CONFUSING FOR THE PUBLIC, BUT IT IS NONETHELESS REALLY IMPORTANT FOR US TO BE ABLE TO, UM, MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN ASSURE THAT FUTURE DEVELOPMENT HAS TO CONTRIBUTE THE APPROPRIATE RIGHT AWAY FOR OUR NEEDS AS A CITY, UM, AND THAT WE CAN PLAN OUR MOBILITY NEEDS. 
          UM, A LOT OF THE DISCUSSION OVER THE SMP HAS BEEN ABOUT, UM, YOU KNOW, SPECIFIC ASSIGNMENTS OF LEVELS AND, AND SOME OF THOSE WERE ADJUSTED AS THEY NEEDED TO BE, UM, THROUGH THE PROCESS. 
          UM, BUT THERE ALSO WERE SOME REALLY SIGNIFICANT AMENDMENTS TO THE POLICY FOCUS. 
          AND I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT A COUPLE OF THOSE. 
          UM, SO I APPRECIATE THE INCLUSION OF TWO NEW POLICIES RELATED TO ONE FUTURE PROOFING, OUR TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE AND OPERATIONS, AND TO IMPROVING COORDINATION BETWEEN REGIONAL PARTNERS FOR EMERGENCY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING. 
          UM, THE LETTER'S REALLY IMPORTANT FOR OUR WILDFIRE PREVENTION AND PREPAREDNESS WORK. 
          I WAS ALSO ABLE TO WORK WITH STAFF TO UPDATE AN ACTION ITEM RELATED TO DISASTER PREPAREDNESS AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE COORDINATION TO BETTER ADDRESS THE WILDFIRE THREAT AND THE NEED TO BETTER PLAN FOR EVACUATIONS. 
          UM, SO I APPRECIATE, UM, STAFF'S EFFORTS THERE. 
          UM, SO THANK YOU, COLE AND OTHER STAFF WHO, WHO LED THIS PROCESS. 
          [07:05:04]
THANKS. 
          I WANTED TO ADD MY, THANKS TO EVERYBODY IN AUSTIN WHO HAD ENGAGED IN THE PROCESS WITH THE ASAP AND CITY STAFF. 
          I WANTED TO THANK CITY STAFF FOR YOUR HARD WORK, UM, AND NOT JUST FOR THAT HARD WORK, BUT ALSO FOR LISTENING TO THE PUBLIC. 
          FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE FIRST ROUND OF THE PUBLIC INPUT, THERE WERE CONCERNS THAT RECLASSIFICATION OF LEVEL ONE STREETS TO LEVEL TWO STREETS MIGHT MISCONSTRUE TO ALLOW THE CITY TO INCREASE RIGHT AWAY OR TAKE PRIVATE PROPERTY. 
          AND IN RESPONSE TO THESE CONCERNS, THE CITY REMOVED PROPOSED STREET LEVEL RECLASSIFICATIONS FOR STREETS IN SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          I'M ALSO REASSURED BY, UH, THE INPUT FROM OUR ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY TRICIA LINK TODAY THAT HOMEOWNERS ARE PROTECTED BY ALREADY EXISTING STATUTES, SHOULD THE CITY TRY TO EXPAND RIGHTS OF WAY? SO I THANK YOU ALL AGAIN FOR YOUR HARD WORK AND I'M READY MAYOR TO VOTE IN SUPPORT OF THIS ITEM, THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS ITEM, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. 
          THOSE POSED ANY ABSTAINING MAYOR. 
          I HAD A QUICK POINT, I WANTED TO SAY, BUT I'M STILL VOTING FOR CUSTOMER ELLIS. 
          I JUST, AS COUNCIL MEMBER POOL WAS, WAS LAYING OUT THINGS THAT SHE WAS EXCITED TO SEE IN THIS. 
          UM, IT REMINDED ME OF THE CALL-OUT FOR STREETS AS PLACES FOR PEOPLE, WHICH IS VERY MUCH IN LINE WITH HEALTHY STREETS. 
          THE BLOCK PARTY PROGRAM PLAYS STREETS AND LIVING STREETS, AND ALSO IS IN LINE WITH COUNCIL MEMBER POOL'S SHOP THE BLOCK PRO GRAHAM, WHICH I KNOW PEOPLE ARE STILL VERY EXCITED ABOUT. 
          SO I'M GLAD THAT THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT HAS, HAS A VERY FORWARD-THINKING MINDSET. 
          AND I'M EXCITED TO SEE THIS INCLUDED, OKAY, LET'S TAKE THE VOTE THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS ITEM, 52, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. 
          THOSE POSED DATA MISS ON THE DYES 52 PASSES, UH, THAT GETS US 
          [66. Approve a resolution initiating amendments to Title 25 Land Development Code to increase housing capacity and support transit investments by relaxing compatibility and parking regulations on 
corridors.]
UP TO, UM, UH, 66, WHICH IS THE CORRIDORS ISSUE I'VE HANDED OUT, UM, UH, SOMETHING THAT, UH, IS ENTITLED VERSION TWO IN THE UPPER RIGHT-HAND CORNER, NUMBER 66, DOES ANYBODY NOT HAVE IT? IT'S BEEN POSTED AND CIRCULATED. 
          I HAVE EXTRA COPIES. 
          IF SOMEONE NEEDS ONE VANESSA, IN CASE YOU CAN'T FIND HERS, NOT A PROBLEM, THIS IS WHAT'S BEEN POSTED. 
          IT'S ACTUALLY BEEN OUT FOR A LONG TIME. 
          THERE'S A RED LINE. 
          THAT'S PICKED UP MANY OF THE AMENDMENTS THAT, UH, UH, WERE, UH, OFFERED, UH, TO THIS, UH, ITEM. 
          UH, SO YOU CAN NEVER GET A, UM, WHY DON'T YOU GO AHEAD, UH, REPRE TIME. 
          YOU WANT TO LAY IT OUT. 
          YOU WANT ME TO MAKE THE MOTIONS AND YOU WANT TO MAKE THE MOTION COUNCIL MEMBER, MAYOR PRO TEM MAKES MOST AGE PASSING ITEM NUMBER 61 66 RATHER, IS THERE A SECOND TO THE MOTION COUNCILOR POOLS, SECONDARY AIR PROTECT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, SO WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE US IS ITEM 66, UM, WHICH IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO MOVE FORWARD, TO ADD, UM, INCREASED DENSITY ALONG OUR CORRIDORS, RECOGNIZING THAT NOT EVERY CORRIDOR IS THE SAME AND ALLOWING FOR US TO, UM, TIE CHANGES IN COMPATIBILITY AND PARKING WITH AFFORDABILITY. 
          UM, AND I THINK THAT THIS IS A WAY FORWARD THAT IN PROVIDING THREE DIFFERENT TYPES OF CORRIDORS, UM, A LIGHT RAIL CORRIDOR, LARGER CORRIDORS AND MEDIUM CORRIDORS, AND ALLOWING FOR THAT TRANSITION, I THINK THIS, UM, RESOLUTION SETS US ON A PATH, UM, TO ACHIEVE MANY OF OUR GOALS THAT WE SHARE, UM, AS A DIOCESE, UM, AND DOES SO IN A WAY THAT I THINK IS FAIR AND BALANCED. 
          UM, AND I'M EXCITED TO SEE US, UM, TAKE THIS STEP THIS EVENING, HOPEFULLY, UH, CO-SPONSORS ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SPEAK TO THIS? THERE'S THAT JUST, JUST FOR THE, FOR THE RECORD? CAUSE WE, I KNOW WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS. 
          UM, THERE ARE CERTAIN, UH, ROADS AND STREETS, UH, THAT, UH, UH, THE, THE SPONSORS DO NOT THINK ARE COVERED BY THE DESCRIPTION OF CORRIDORS THAT WE HAVE. 
          [07:10:01]
UM, AND WE THINK THAT THOSE STREETS THAT ARE NOT CONTAINED WITHIN THOSE CORRIDORS INCLUDE EAST 11TH STREET EACH IN NAVIS, EAST OF NAVASOTA HE'S 12TH STREET, EAST OF A POQUITO 38TH STREET, EAST OF GUADALUPE, 38 AND A HALF STREET, 45TH STREET, UM, SH 45 WEST OF MOPAC FM 1826 BIRKMAN DRIVE NORTH OF 51ST BLUFF SPRINGS BRODY LANE DAVIS LANE, DUVALL ESCARPMENT BOULEVARD, INFIELD EXPOSITION CANUCK LANE, FM 2222 LIGHTSEY ROAD METRIC BOULEVARD, MONTOPOLIS DRIVE OLTORF PLEASANT VALLEY NORTH OF WESTERVILLE ROAD ROSEWOOD HAVE A NEW ROSS ROAD, SOUTHWEST PARKWAY, SPEEDWAY, SPICEWOOD SPRINGS ROAD ST. 
          ELMO ST JOHN'S AVENUE STASSNEY STECH AVENUE, TERRY ROAD, WEST GATE BOULEVARD, WINDSOR ROAD, WOODLAND AVENUE, AND A WOODWARD STREET. 
          YOU KNOW, AS WE, AS WE GO THROUGH THIS, I WILL ADMIT HONESTLY, THAT FROM A POLICY PERSPECTIVE, I WOULD LIKE FOR US TO BE GOING FURTHER ON RELAXING COMPATIBILITY AND PARKING, UH, UH, RELAXING OUR, UH, REQUIREMENTS. 
          UH, AND I RECOGNIZE THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF, UH, PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY WOULD LIKE US TO GO FARTHER. 
          I ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE IN OUR COMMUNITY THAT WOULD LIKE US NOT TO CHANGE THE EXISTING SITUATION OR CHANGE IT SIGNIFICANTLY LESS. 
          UH, BUT THIS IS AN ATTEMPT THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT SINCE, UH, EARLIER THAN NOVEMBER TO TRY TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT MAY BE HARD FOR US ALL TO DO, BUT MIGHT ACTUALLY BE WHERE THE VENN DIAGRAM CROSSES AND, AND ALLOW US TO BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD. 
          I THINK IT'S MORE CRITICAL NOW THAN IT HAS EVER BEEN TO INCREASE, UH, DENSITY IN HOUSING, UH, ON THESE CORRIDORS. 
          UH, AND, AND I THINK WE THAT'S OUR EXISTENTIAL CHALLENGE AND, UH, I HOPE WE'RE ABLE TO, TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS. 
          AND THEN I ALSO, UH, RECOGNIZE THAT, UH, THE, THE ORANGE LINE, UH, GOES UP, UH, GUADALUPE. 
          I WAS ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT, UH, THE IMPACT THAT THIS WOULD HAVE IN, IN, UH, UH, UH, GUADALUPE, UH, DISTRICT, UH, HYDE PARK AREA. 
          I CHECKED WITH LEGAL STAFF THAT CONFIRMED MY UNDERSTANDING, UH, WITHIN THE GUADALUPE DISTRICT PAR 12 SECTION FOR THE NCCD. 
          UM, IT GENERALLY ESTABLISHES MAXIMUM HEIGHTS OF 40 FEET FOR PROPERTIES NORTH OF 40TH STREET, 60 FEET SOUTH OF 40TH STREET. 
          UH, ADDITIONALLY, WHILE EXCEPTIONS EXISTS THROUGHOUT THE ORDINANCE MAXIMUM HEIGHTS WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL SPEEDWAY DEVAL ON WEST 38TH STREET, DISTRICTS ARE GENERALLY CAPPED AT 30 FEET, AND THEN STAFF WILL APPLY THE RESTRICT TO PROVISIONS OF AN NCCD IN THE EVENT OF A CONFLICT WITH BANK BASED ZONING REGULATIONS, OR JUST DOESN'T HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT, LOOKED AT THE DEPTH OF THE TRACKS ON GUADALUPE. 
          AND IT JUST WASN'T THE BINDING EVEN WEEKSVILLE ONE OF THE LARGER TRACKS WAS ABOUT 150 FEET. 
          SO I JUST THROW THAT OUT THERE. 
          UM, AND I, AND I HOPE, UH, THAT WE'RE ABLE TO MAKE IT AT LEAST THIS MEASURED MOVEMENT, UM, TOWARD, UH, UH, RELAXING TOWARD CONTRIBUTING TO HOUSING, UM, UH, SUPPLY IN THE CITY COUNCIL, BARBER KITCHEN. 
          UH, YES, MAYOR, THANK YOU. 
          I APPRECIATE THE EFFORT THAT WENT INTO THIS AND THE, UM, I APPRECIATE THE APPROACH AS YOU JUST DESCRIBED IT. 
          I THINK THAT THAT WAS, UM, WAS VERY HELPFUL AND I REALLY DO APPRECIATE THAT. 
          UM, I JUST HAVE TWO QUESTIONS, JUST SO I'M UNDERSTANDING THIS. 
          SO THE FIRST QUESTION IS THAT, UM, UH, A MINUTE AGO YOU READ OUT SOME, SOME LIST OF STREETS AND, UM, I'M WANTING TO JUST UNDERSTAND IS THAT BY WAY OF DIRECTION TO STAFF, THAT THOSE SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED OR, UM, I'M NOT QUITE SURE WHAT HAPPENS WITH THAT LIST OF STREETS. 
          THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. 
          WELL, I READ IT INTO THE RECORD BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT EXCEPTIONS. 
          THEY'RE JUST NOT THE STREETS THAT WE'VE DEFINED, UH, BUT TO MAKE REALLY CLEAR SO THAT PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY WEREN'T THINKING THAT A STREET THAT WAS NOT IN THE IDENTIFIED ELEMENTS MIGHT SOMEHOW OR ANOTHER BE INCLUDED. 
          WE HAD SOME CHALLENGES WITH THAT BEFORE THE GROUP DECIDED NOT TO INCLUDE IT. 
          CAUSE IT'S REALLY NOT AN EXCEPTION BECAUSE IT'S NOT ONE OF THE STREETS LISTED, BUT SOME OF THOSE ARE, 
          [07:15:01]
UH, I, I THINK I'LL GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE LIST, UM, AND YOU, AND YOU READ IT FAST, BUT I THOUGHT I HEARD ONE, THAT WAS AN IMAGINE AUSTIN CORRIDOR, BUT MAYBE I WAS MISTAKEN. 
          SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WHAT Y'ALL DID IS YOU COMPARED THAT LIST WITH YOUR DEFINITIONS AND YOUR UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THAT LIST IS NOT INCLUDED IN THESE DEFINITIONS. 
          THAT'S CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          MY SECOND QUESTION IS THEN I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE, THE REFERENCE TO THE, UM, LEVEL FIVE STREETS, MAJOR HIGHWAYS, BECAUSE THE REASON I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THAT, CAUSE IT'S GOT IN PARENTHESES MAJOR HIGHWAYS. 
          SO I WANT TO UNDERSTAND FROM STAFF THAT THE STAFF IS GOING TO INTERPRET THIS AS THE LEVEL FIVE PARTS OF MAJOR HIGHWAYS, BECAUSE SOME PARTS, SOME MAJOR HIGHWAYS, THE ACCESS ROADS ARE LEVEL FOUR AND THE HIGHWAY ITSELF IS LEVEL FIVE, OR THERE MAY BE OTHER ASPECTS OF THESE MAJOR HIGHWAYS THAT ARE LEVEL FOUR AND FIVE MOPAC FOR EXAMPLE HAS LEVEL AND FIVE I, 35 HAS LEVEL FOUR AND FIVE AND SODAS BEEN WHITE. 
          SO I'M ASSUMING I WANT THE, I I'M FINE WITH THIS. 
          I DON'T, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT. 
          I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE STAFF IS INTERPRETING THIS AS LEVEL FIVE, MAJOR HIGHWAYS, JUST LEVEL FIVE. 
          AND TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE'S SOME LEVEL FOUR INVOLVED, THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE THE LEVEL FOUR AREAS BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING. 
          THAT WAS THE INTENT HERE. 
          YEAH. 
          IT'S LEVEL FIVE AREAS OF FIVE HOURS, UH, COLE KITTEN, AUSTIN TRANSPORTATION, UH, OUR LEVEL FIVES ARE IN OUR STREET NETWORK MAP. 
          IT IS THE, UH, HIGHWAY SYSTEM. 
          SOME LEVEL FIVE HIGHWAYS DO HAVE FRONTAGE ROADS AND THOSE WOULD BE LEVEL FOURS. 
          UM, SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE MAP, ALL LEVEL FIVE STREETS INCLUDE 6 23 61 83. 
          UM, AND, AND THE LIKE, OKAY, BUT WHERE THERE'S A, WHERE THERE'S A ACCESS ROAD, THAT'S A LEVEL FOUR. 
          THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO THOSE LEVEL FOUR STREETS. 
          THAT'S NOT WHAT I UNDERSTAND THE INTENT TO BE. 
          SO I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT I'VE WHY WOULDN'T YOU WANT IT? IF IT'S A LEVEL FIVE HIGHWAY AND IT'S ON A LEVEL FIVE HIGHWAY, I WOULD THINK IT WOULD BE INCLUDED. 
          IT'S NOT ACCORDING TO YOU WHAT YOU'VE WRITTEN HERE. 
          AND IT'S ALSO, I DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE IN SOME PLACES THERE THEY'RE LEVEL FOUR FOR A REASON, IN SOME PLACES IT'S NOT EVERYWHERE ALONG THE HIGHWAY. 
          WELL, BUT EVERYWHERE THERE'S A FRONTIER, BUT FRONTAGE ROADS SEEM TO BE A DIFFERENT SITUATION, CAN BE IN A FRONTAGE ROAD OR ON A LEVEL FIVE HIGHWAYS, PRETTY MUCH PART OF THE HIGHWAY. 
          ARE YOU THINKING ABOUT AREAS WHERE THERE'S NOT A LEVEL FIVE HIGHWAY INVOLVED? I HAVEN'T AND I HAVEN'T STUDIED IT, ET CETERA. 
          I JUST WANTED TO NOTE THAT THERE ARE LEVEL FOUR AREAS. 
          IF THERE'S A LEVEL FOUR AREA, THAT'S NOT A FRONTAGE ROAD ON A LEVEL FIVE HIGHWAY, IT'S NOT TO BE INCLUDED. 
          THAT'S WHY I ASKED FOR THE INTERPRETATION, BECAUSE YOU'RE NOW SAYING DIFFERENT SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT IS WRITTEN HERE. 
          THIS SAYS LEVEL FIVE. 
          SO I JUST WANTED TO BE CLEAR THAT THAT'S WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT. 
          I WOULD THINK THAT FOR ALL THE REASONS YOU'D WANT IT TO BE ON LEVEL FIVE, YOU, YOU WOULDN'T WANT AN INTERVENING FRONTAGE ROAD TO DISPLACE THAT SOUND  DEVELOPMENT OFFICER AUSTIN TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT. 
          SO IF YOU INCLUDE LEVEL FIVE, THAT WILL AUTOMATICALLY INCLUDE, UH, THE FRONTAGE ROADS. 
          BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT OUR FRONTAGE ROADS, THERE CANNOT BE ANY FRONTAGE ROADS WITHOUT LEVEL FIBER HIGHWAYS BEING THERE. 
          SO IF YOU NOTE THIS AS LEVEL FIVE, THAT WILL INCLUDE ALL THE HIGHWAYS, THE FRONTAGE ROAD IS PART OF THE LEVEL FIVE HIGHWAY SYSTEM. 
          CORRECT. 
          I JUST WANT TO NOTE THAT THERE ARE PLACES ON THE MAP THAT SAY LEVEL FOUR. 
          I, YOU KNOW, I, MAYBE I DON'T, YOU KNOW, I COULDN'T ZONE IN REALLY CLOSELY TO LOOK AT WHAT THOSE WERE. 
          SO IT SOUNDS LIKE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS IT'S PART OF THE HIGHWAY SYSTEM, IT'S A LEVEL FIVE, SO, OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          SO I GOT THAT. 
          AND IN PLACES WHERE IT'S AND THE MAYOR HAS CONFIRMED THAT LEVEL FIVE IS THE INTENT. 
          SO THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO CHECK. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          HAZARA, TOVO TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, UM, A COUPLE OF THE AMENDMENTS THAT I THINK ARE NEW HERE TODAY, UM, THERE IN YOUR VERSION THAT YOU JUST DISTRIBUTED SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT WERE INCLUDED IN 66. 
          SO ON PAGE THREE OF FIVE NUMBER F OR LETTER F UM, IT WOULD EXEMPT THE FOLLOWING FROM COMPATIBILITY REGULATIONS. 
          THE SECOND ONE IS ANY BUILDING THAT'S JUST RESIDENTIAL THAT 
          [07:20:01]
HAS A MAXIMUM OF 12 UNITS AND A MAXIMUM OF 35 FEET IN HEIGHT. 
          THAT ONE I UNDERSTAND, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT OF, OF I LITTLE, I ANY USE PERMITTED IN AN SF SIX OR MORE RESTRICTIVE ZONING DISTRICT. 
          SO YOU'VE GOT, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW YOU SPUNKY ONES IN HERE, BUT IN ANY CASE, IT SOUNDS LIKE THEN YOU WOULD HAVE, SO THOSE ARE ALSO KEPT, THOSE WOULD ALSO BE A HEIGHT OF 35 FEET, BUT YOU'RE NOT, YOU'RE NOT SPECIFYING THAT THESE ARE RESIDENTIAL USES NECESSARILY. 
          WELL, ALSO USE THIS PERMITTED IN SF SIX. 
          CAN, CAN SOMEONE TALK ME THROUGH THE RATIONALE HERE? I'M NOT, I DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE CONCERNS, BUT I JUST NEED TO UNDERSTAND, I NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE, WHAT THIS EXACTLY DOES AND WHY THE INCLUSION AND WHAT'S, WHAT'S THE, WHAT'S THE IMPACT ON THE VALUE HERE? SO I THINK THIS WAS COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER MADISON'S, UM, UH, PROPOSED AMENDMENT THAT WE INCORPORATED, AND IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY HAD A SINGLE FAMILY SF SIX USE OR SOMETHING THAT WAS CONSISTENT WITH SF SIX. 
          IT SHOULDN'T BE TRIGGERING COMPATIBILITY SO, SO I THINK BOTH OF THESE, UM, WERE ABOUT, UM, NOT MAKING, UM, OR TRYING TO FACILITATE MISSING MIDDLE IN THESE AREAS, UM, BY NOT REQUIRING THE TWENTY-FIVE FOOT SETBACK FOR MISSING MIDDLE. 
          SO IT STILL HAS SETBACKS THAT ARE DEFINED, UM, ON THE CHART THAT HAS, UM, THE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, BUT IT WOULD ALLOW THE SETBACKS TO BE SMALLER, DEPENDING ON WHICH SF, UM, ZONE IT WAS. 
          SO YOU WOULD STILL HAVE SETBACKS, BUT THEY WOULDN'T BE AS LARGE AS THE 25 FOOT SETBACK. 
          AND SO IT'S ALLOWING THE MISSING MIDDLE MORE MISSING MIDDLE TO HAPPEN BECAUSE YOU'RE MAKING USE OF THE SETBACK AND YOU'RE NOT REQUIRING CAUSE YOU COULD HAVE A MISSING MIDDLE, UM, THAT'S HOW SCALE EVEN, AND IT WOULD HAVE TO BE FURTHER AWAY THAN IF IT WAS SINGLE FAMILY IS HOW I'M UNDERSTANDING IT. 
          SO THE SETBACK AND I WOULD BE GOVERNED BY THE SETBACK THAT YOU WOULD BE USING WOULD BE THE ONE, THE WAY IT'S SF FOUR, FOR EXAMPLE, THE SETBACK WOULD BE, LET'S SAY I'VE ONLY GOT FOUR, A M FROM THE REAR YARD. 
          WELL, LET ME USE SF FIVE. 
          UM, IT WOULD BE THE REAR YARD SETBACK OF 10, INSTEAD OF IT WOULD, IT WOULD, OF COURSE IT WOULD SWITCH TO THE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARD REGULATIONS. 
          SO, SO WHAT HAPPENS IS COMPATIBILITY DOESN'T REALLY MATTER, CAUSE THEY'RE ALL CAPPED AT 35 FEET. 
          IT ONLY MATTERS FOR WHAT THE SETBACK IS IN THOSE CASES OF SF SIX OR LESS. 
          AND SO THEN YOU, WHAT THIS IS ALLOWING IS FOR THAT SETBACK OF THE 25 FEET, NOT TO, IT'S ALLOWING THEM TO BUILD IN THAT 25 FOOT STEP BACK. 
          SO THE A HUNDRED FIT, YOU KNOW, THE A HUNDRED FOOT DISTANCE, ET CETERA, NONE OF THAT, NONE OF THAT MATTERS BECAUSE THEY'RE CAPPED AT 35 FEET AND THERE'S ZONE. 
          OKAY. 
          AND WE DON'T HAVE ANY BONUS PROGRAMS OR ANYTHING. 
          AND SO IT'S ALLOWING THE SETBACKS, THE STEP BACK TO NOT BE TWENTY-FIVE FEET. 
          OKAY. 
          SO IF YOU PUT A TRIPLEX OR A QUAD OR, WELL, YOU KNOW, THIS, THAT YOU, YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO, TO BUILD IT, IT ONLY IF IT WAS ON THE CORRIDORS, IT'S ONLY APPLIES ON THE CORE, BUT IT'S ANY USE. 
          IT'S NOT NECESSARILY RESIDENTIAL USE. 
          I MEAN, MOST, I MEAN, THERE ARE LOTS OF USES THAT ARE CONDITIONAL OR PERMITTED IN, IN ZONING CATEGORIES UP TO SF SIX THAT ARE NOT RESIDENTIAL. 
          THIS YOU'RE NOT SPECIFYING OR COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER, MADISON, AND HER AMENDMENT IS NOT SPECIFYING USES THAT ARE RESIDENTIAL IT'S ANY USE THAT WOULD CURRENTLY BE PERMITTED IN SF SIX OR MORE RESTRICTIVE. 
          SO IT COULD BE, UM, COMMUNITY RECREATION, OTHER KINDS OF ANYTHING PRETTY MUCH ON OUR CHART, LOCAL UTILITY SERVICES. 
          I MEAN, IT COULD BE ANYTHING THAT'S THAT FALLS WITHIN A USE ALLOWED IN SF SIX OR MORE RESTRICTIVE. 
          IT'S NOT LIMITED TO, IT'S NOT LIMITED TO RESIDENTIAL. 
          [07:25:01]
I THINK THERE'S ALSO PROVIDES THAT IF YOU WERE BUILDING AN SF ONE OR AN S S SIX, USE A USE, THERE WAS ALLOWED IN SF SIX AND YOU WERE BUILDING IT IN SAY AN MF FOUR ZONE THAT, THAT USED BECAUSE IT DOESN'T TRIGGER COMPATIBILITY, WON'T TRIGGER COMPATIBILITY. 
          SO IF IT'S AN SF ONE S F SIX USE DEVELOPED IN A DIFFERENT CATEGORY, IT DOESN'T TRIGGER COMPATIBILITY IF IT'S SIX OR LESS RESTRICTIVE. 
          CAUSE THAT DOESN'T, THAT DOESN'T TRIGGER COMPATIBILITY. 
          THAT'S HOW I READ THE AMENDMENT. 
          YES. 
          YOU GUYS REMEMBER KITCHEN? UM, I'M WONDERING, I WOULD THINK THAT THE INTENT HERE IS RESIDENTIAL USE. 
          SO WOULD IT BE ACCEPTABLE TO YOU TO JUST SAY ANY RESIDENTIAL USE PERMITTED? BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE IS ALLOW FOR THESE MISSING MIDDLE IF I'M UNDERSTANDING THIS CORRECTLY. 
          AND SO I THINK THAT BECAUSE SEE THE DOUBLE EYE IS SPECIFIC, IT SAYS ANY BUILDING CONSISTING OF ONLY RESIDENTIAL USERS WITH A MAXIMUM OF 12 UNITS. 
          SO IT'S GOT THAT. 
          SO WHEN I WAS READING THIS ORIGINALLY, I WAS THINKING THAT THE INTENT WAS THAT IT'S RESIDENTIAL. 
          IS THAT NOT THE INTENT? I THINK THAT'S THE INTENT, BUT RESIDENTIAL, I THINK HAS A MORE RESTRICTIVE USE. 
          I THINK RESIDENTIAL IS LIMITED TO LIKE THREE UNITS IN SF SIX WOULD GIVE YOU SIX, AT LEAST SIX UNITS WHO ARE NOT SURE THAT THAT IS CALLED RESIDENTIAL. 
          UH, OKAY. 
          WELL, UM, SO, SO, SO WHAT THE LANGUAGE SAID WAS ANY USE THAT WAS ALLOWED IN SF SIX OR BELOW? WELL, BUT IT SHOULD BE A HOUSING NEWS MAYBE, RIGHT? MAYBE ANY HOUSING USE, MAYBE RESIDENTIAL IS NOT THE RIGHT TERM, BUT ANY HOUSING USE IS THERE, CAN WE ASK STAFF OR YEAH, WE CAN ASK STAFF. 
          I MEAN, THAT MIGHT BE OKAY. 
          YEAH. 
          WE'RE IN RESIDENTIAL WITH A LITTLE R I'M NOT, I'M NOT POSITIVE. 
          IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE, BUT THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING. 
          YES. 
          YEAH. 
          I WAS JUST GOING TO SEE IF, IF, UM, MR. RESTHAVEN MIGHT HELP US OUT HERE. 
          I, I THOUGHT RESIDENTIAL USE MIGHT COVER IT. 
          I WASN'T, I MEAN, I THINK WE USE RESIDENTIAL USE TO TALK ABOUT MULTIFAMILY AND SINGLE FAMILY AND SINGLE FAMILY SIX, BUT, AND THAT WAS THE ISSUE. 
          I DON'T WANT TO ACCIDENTALLY USE A FOURPLEX AND HAVE IT NOT COUNT AS RESIDENTIAL BECAUSE IT'S CALLED MULTIFAMILY, UH, CONSOLE, JURY. 
          I WAS THROWING THE HILLS AND PLAYING DEPARTMENT. 
          WE DO HAVE CLASSIFICATIONS IN THE CODE CATEGORIES IN A CODE, IF YOU WILL, SUCH AS RESIDENTIAL CIVIC, INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL THAT DO HAVE A VARIETY OF USES UNDER EACH ONE OF THEM THAT IS LAID OUT IN THE CODE TODAY. 
          SO, SO W WITH ALL RESIDENTIAL USES ALLOWED IN SIX OR BELOW BE CALLED RESIDENTIAL USES. 
          YES. 
          OKAY. 
          AND FOR THAT MATTER, MULTIFAMILY USES WOULD ALSO BE RESIDENTIAL, RIGHT? I MEAN, THE RESIDENTIAL EXTENDS TO ANYTHING. 
          THAT'S NOT THOSE OTHER THINGS. 
          IT'S NOT INDUSTRIAL. 
          IT'S NOT SORRY. 
          IT LISTS, IT LISTS, IT HAS RESIDENTIAL AND IT LISTED BELOW IT, THE DIFFERENT VARIETIES OF, UH, RESIDENTIAL DEFINED, DECODE MULTI-FAMILY AND CONDO AND TOWNHOUSE, ET CETERA, ARE ALL ARE LISTED UNDER THE HEADING. 
          SO, SO MAYOR, WOULD IT BE ACCEPTABLE TO YOU TO JUST INSERT IN LITTLE I, ANY RESIDENTIAL USE TO INSERT IN A LITTLE I, YEAH. 
          UM, ANY RESIDENTIAL USE PERMITTED, ET CETERA. 
          UM, ANY RESIDENTIAL USE ADDING THE WORD RESIDENTIAL IN FRONT OF USE? YES. 
          OUR UPPER MADISON. 
          ARE YOU OKAY WITH THAT? THIS WAS TAKING IN YOUR, YOUR AMENDMENT. 
          I'M OKAY WITH THAT. 
          AND I, AND FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S HELPFUL AT ALL, BUT I'M LOOKING AT, UM, THE, THE, UM, UH, SPECIFICATIONS UNDER RESIDENTIAL IT'S BED AND BREAKFAST, RESIDENTIAL BED AND BREAKFAST, RESIDENTIAL GROUP TWO CONDOMINIUM RESIDENTS. 
          SO, I MEAN, THERE ARE MULTIPLE USES UNDER RESIDENTIAL, IN WHICH CASE I'M FINE WITH, INCLUDING THE WORD RESIDENTIAL. 
          OKAY. 
          THEN THAT'S ACCEPTED. 
          I HAVE A DIFFERENT QUESTION, A DIFFERENT QUESTION ABOUT THE SAME, WHAT THE INTENT IS HERE. 
          I'M ASSUMING THAT IT SAYS EXEMPT THE FOLLOWING FROM COMPATIBILITY REGULATIONS. 
          I'M ASSUMING WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE HEIGHT ASPECT OF COMPATIBILITY, NOT THE NOT DUMPSTERS LIKES, UM, NOISE, OTHER KINDS OF THINGS WITH THESE SMALLER, UH, MULTI-FAMILY. 
          YOU'RE NOT GOING TO LIKELY HAVE ANY OF THOSE ISSUES, BUT IF YOU GET UP TO, UH, UM, IF YOU GET UP TO LIKE 12 UNITS, YOU COULD HAVE POTENTIALLY, YOU KNOW, LIKE WHERE THE DUMPSTERS PLACED AND STUFF LIKE THAT. 
          SO I'M 
          [07:30:01]
ASSUMING THAT THIS WAS INTENDED TO, WHEN IT SAYS COMPATIBILITY REGULATIONS, IT WAS INTENDED TO SPEAK TO THE, TO THE HIGH RESOLUTION. 
          IS THAT RIGHT? IS THAT THE INTENT? I THINK YOU'RE NODDING. 
          YES. 
          RIGHT. 
          COUNCILMEMBER HARPER AM. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, UM, IF THE, IF THE STAFF UNDERSTANDS IT TO MEAN THAT THAT'S FINE. 
          I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU WOULD WORD IT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR, BUT CAN I HEAR FROM STAFF, UM, THAT THEY WOULD READ THIS TO ME IN THE HEIGHT, I GUESS, FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH WHEN, WHENEVER WE HEAR THAT SOMETHING TRIGGERS COMPATIBILITY WITH EXCLUSIVELY TALKING ABOUT HEIGHT. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO THEY'RE NOT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION SOME OF THE OTHER REGULATORY MEASURES. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          CONSUMMATED, IF I MAY, FOR ALL OF YOU JUST CLARIFY COMPATIBILITY TRIGGERS, SEVERAL DIFFERENT THINGS, HIGH RESTRICTIONS ARE ONE OF THEM, BUT THERE ARE OTHER PORTIONS REGARDING LIGHTING, DUMPSTER LOCATION, ET CETERA, FENCING. 
          UM, SO I DO THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT YOU CLARIFY WHETHER THIS IS JUST RE UM, JUST APPLYING TO THE HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS OR WHETHER IT'S APPLYING TO THE OTHER RESTRICTIONS AS WELL. 
          THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD NEED, UH, TO BE CODIFIED, NOT, NOT, UH, NOT IMPLIED. 
          SO WOULD IT WORK TO SAY EXEMPT THE FOLLOWING FROM COMPATIBILITY REGULATIONS RELATED TO HEIGHTS AND SETBACKS, WOULD THAT COVER EVERYTHING? ARE YOU OKAY. 
          ADDING HEIGHTENED SETBACK? WE MIGHT WANT TO PUT THAT AT THE TOP WHERE IT SAYS MODIFIES THE HEIGHT, COMPATIBILITY REGULATIONS, AS LONG AS THAT ALSO INCLUDES THE TWENTY-FIVE FOOT SETBACK, UH, NUMBER FOUR. 
          UM, CAUSE I THINK WE WOULD WANT TO CLARIFY THAT FOR EVERYTHING. 
          CAUSE IT WAS NOT THE INTENTION TO CHANGE THE OTHER OKAY. 
          THE OTHER, THE OTHER ITEMS. SO MR. , IF WE PUT IT UNDER NUMBER FOUR AND SAY MODIFIES THE HEIGHT COMPATIBILITY REGULATIONS TO, UM, AND THEN TO HOW YOU DID SET BACK REGULATIONS, RIGHT. 
          MODIFIES THE HEIGHT AND SETBACK COMPATIBILITY REGULATIONS. 
          AND THEN, AND THEN THE PARKING MODIFICATIONS THEN IN A SEPARATE SECTION. 
          THANK YOU FOR POINTING THAT OUT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO NUMBER FOUR, SAY MODIFIES THE HEIGHTENED SETBACK COMPATIBILITY REGULATIONS TOO. 
          SO, SO AM I HEARING THE OTHER SIDE SETBACKS THAT WE HAVE TO CONSIDER? IS THAT JUST IN THE ZONE? IT'S THE, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE NOT OTHER, CAUSE WE'VE BEEN TALKING TO ME ABOUT THE SETBACK FOR WHEN YOU CAN START BUILDING HEIGHT. 
          AND THERE ARE ALSO SIDE AND REAR SETBACKS THAT WE WERE NOT TALKING ABOUT MODIFYING. 
          SO I WANNA, IT SEEMS LIKE THE HEIGHT ONE WOULD THE SIDES OF XR IN THE BASE ZONE. 
          SO, UM, AS LONG AS WE'RE UNDERSTANDING THAT IF WE SAY MODIFIES THE HEIGHT AND SETBACK COMPATIBILITY THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, THAT KIND OF CHART WHERE IT'S 25 FEET AND THEN A HUNDRED, RIGHT. 
          IS THAT, IS THAT, UM, CLAIRE, MR. WESTOVER IN THAT WAY OR MISS LINK, COULD YOU REPEAT IT FOR ME PLEASE? SO IF WE SAID MODIFIES THE HEIGHT AND SEPT, UH, THE COMPATIBILITY, HEIGHT AND SETBACK REGULATIONS THAT WE WOULD ONLY BE TALKING ABOUT BECAUSE THE, THE, THE REAR END SIDE AND FRONT ONES WOULD BE BY THERE WOULD BE DETERMINED BY THEIR BASE ZONING. 
          OKAY. 
          YES. 
          WE UNDERSTAND BY COMPATIBILITY. 
          YES. 
          THAT WOULD WORK TO DO THE MODIFIES, THE COMPATIBILITY HEIGHT, AND SET BACK REGULATIONS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          IS THAT OBJECTION THAT HAD BEEN BEEN IS INCORPORATED. 
          IS IT GOING IN TWO PLACES? IS THAT NO, IT'S THE NUMBER FOUR. 
          SO IT JUST COVERS ALL UP NUMBER FOUR. 
          OH, BECAUSE F K I NEED IT. 
          AND DID WE NEED A, UM, DO WE NEED ANYTHING ON NUMBER FIVE FOR THAT? I THINK IT'S, IT'S JUST THE COMPATIBILITY. 
          I DON'T THINK SO. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS? 2 66. 
           GO AHEAD. 
          UM, SO UNDER FIVE A YOU'RE THINKING THAT REFERENCE, I DIDN'T HEAR WHAT Y'ALL SAID. 
          THIS HAS TO END COMPATIBILITY REGULATIONS. 
          WOULD YOU NOT NEED HEIGHTENED SETBACK THERE ALSO, THAT JUST MEANS THAT YOU ONLY LOOK BEYOND A HUNDRED FEET. 
          DOES NOT. 
          DOES THAT SET OFF COMPATIBILITY? 
          [07:35:01]
IS THAT TRUE ABOUT ABILITY? YEAH. 
          SO I THINK WE COULD ADD HEIGHT THERE BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO NOT HAVE THE DUMPSTER REGULATIONS ONCE YOU GET BEYOND A HUNDRED FEET. 
          FOR INSTANCE, I DON'T, I DON'T THINK THAT'D BE A PROBLEM. 
          OKAY. 
          SO FIVE 80. 
          WE'RE GOING TO PUT HEIGHT ALSO, RIGHT? OKAY. 
          HI, DAN SETBACK, COMPATIBLE COMPATIBILITY, HEIGHTENED SETBACK REGULATIONS ON FIVE EIGHT. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          WE, OUT OF THE BASE DOCUMENT, WE CAN GO TO OTHER AMENDMENTS. 
          HAS THERE EVER BEEN PROVO IT'S I DISTRIBUTED, UM, EMOTION SHEET WITH TWO QUICK AMENDMENTS, THE FIRST PROHIBITS, UM, TYPE TWO AND TYPE THREE SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN UNITS ALONG THESE CORRIDORS. 
          UM, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF WORK FROM THE WORKING GROUP AND I APPRECIATE IT ON THINKING THROUGH COMPATIBILITY AND HOW WE MIGHT ADJUST COMPATIBILITY IN REASONABLE WAYS TO CREATE MORE HOUSING AND TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT HOUSING STAYS HOUSING AND DOESN'T BECOME HOTELS. 
          I THINK WE SHOULD TAKE ACTION AND PROHIBIT TYPE TWO AND TYPE THREES ALONG THESE AREAS, ALONG THESE CORRIDORS, THE SECOND AMENDMENT ASKS FOR SOME ADDITIONAL, UM, FOR SOME ADDITIONAL TOOLS TO HELP UNDERSTAND HOW COMPATIBILITY WILL LOOK, HOW THE DEVELOPMENT POST, THESE COMPATIBILITY CHANGES WILL LOOK, UM, ON DIFFERENT LOTS SIZES AND DEPTHS. 
          SO, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOTTEN SOME CHARTS WHICH ARE USEFUL AND I APPRECIATE THE STAFF PROVIDING THEM. 
          SOMETIMES THEY'RE JUST SCALES SOMETIMES THEY'RE NOT, BUT I THINK WE NEED TO SEE A COUPLE, YOU KNOW, NOT, UM, I DON'T THINK THIS ADDS TIME. 
          I DON'T THINK IT ADDS EXPENSE, JUST SOME, SOME MODELING AND SOME VISUAL ILLUSTRATION OF WHAT SOME OF THE USING DIFFERENT LOT DEPTHS AND DIFFERENT LOT SIZES, WHICH I THINK VARY A LOT, DEPENDING ON WHETHER YOU'RE IN THE CENTRAL CITY OR IN THE SOUTH OR THE NORTHERN PART OF THE CITY. 
          UM, BUT TAKING SOME DIFFERENT KINDS OF, LOT SIZES AND DEPTHS, UM, MAP OUT AND PROVIDE US WITH SOME ILLUSTRATIONS THERE. 
          SO THOSE ARE MY AMENDMENTS AND I CAN OFFER THEM TOGETHER OR SEPARATELY. 
          ARE WE TALKING ABOUT A BONE, THE BONUS UNITS IN NUMBER ONE, I'M ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT ALL THE UNITS AGAIN, I'M TALKING ABOUT ALL THE UNITS. 
          I THINK WE HAVE, UM, AS, AS HAS BEEN SAID, MULTIPLE TIMES A HOUSING CRISIS, WE'RE TRYING TO, WE'RE LOOKING AT WAYS TO CREATE MORE HOUSING AND TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT REMAINS HOUSING AND NOT HOTELS. 
          UM, I WOULD URGE THAT WE PROHIBIT SHORT-TERM RENTALS. 
          I'M NOT PROHIBITING TYPE ONE, WHICH WE KNOW HOMEOWNERS ARE USING IN PART TO HELP PAY THEIR PROPERTY TAXES AND TO OFFSET THE COSTS, UM, GENERATE ADDITIONAL REVENUE. 
          BUT I AM, I AM SUGGESTING WE PROHIBIT TYPE TWO AND THREE, WHICH ARE INVESTOR OWNED PROPERTIES THAT ARE REALLY HOTELS. 
          EVERYBODY WANTS TO SPEAK TO, UH, AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE, RAPPER DEM. 
          UM, I JUST HAVE A QUESTION TO CLARIFY. 
          CAUSE BROADLY SPEAKING, I, I AGREE WITH THE SENTIMENT. 
          ARE YOU SAYING IF THEY ACCESS THE BONUS THEN FOR THEIR ENTIRE PROPERTY, THEY CAN'T DO THOSE OR JUST FOR THE BONUS PART OR NO MATTER WHERE YOU ARE, WHETHER YOU USE THE BONUS OR NOT ON THESE CORRIDORS? YEAH, I WOULD, I WOULD LIKE TO GO WITH THE LAST OF THOSE BORDERS AND NOT HAVE TO, UM, SHORT-TERM RENTALS. 
          OKAY. 
          SO IT WOULD NOT, UM, I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE FOUND IN SECTION FIVE BECAUSE THAT'S ONLY ABOUT THE BONUS PROGRAM. 
          SO, UM, WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THAT WOULD GO AND THEN WE SHOULD DISCUSS WHETHER, WHETHER WE WANT TO, WHETHER WHETHER THE DIOCESE WANTS TO DO THAT. 
          UM, IT COULD JUST BE A NUMBER EIGHT, BUT, UM, IT COULD JUST BE A NUMBER EIGHT, BUT IT WOULDN'T GO UNDER FIVE BECAUSE THEN IT WOULDN'T SEEM TO APPLY. 
          IT WAS ONLY ON THE BONUS BRIEF QUESTIONS. 
          STR WOULD BE LESS THAN 30 DAY RENTALS. 
          YEAH. 
          I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY, CAUSE I DON'T WANT TO IMPACT, FOR EXAMPLE, LIKE A 90 DAY LEASE OR, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN, ANOTHER SHORT-TERM TYPE OF LEASE. 
          UH, IT WOULD BE, THESE WOULD BE STRICTLY THE CITY CODE REGULATIONS. 
          I BELIEVE ONLY APPLY THEM. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT'S FINE. 
          AND IT WOULD STILL ALLOW SOMEBODY WHO OWNS A PROPERTY TO DO A TYPE ONE VERSION. 
          RIGHT? IF YOU LIVED ON THE CORRIDOR, YOU COULD STILL SHORT-TERM RENTAL YOUR PROPERTY WITHIN THE LIMITS THAT ARE UNDER, UNDER THE CODE FOR SHORT TERM RENTAL TYPE ONE, ANY OBJECTION TO THIS ITEM, NUMBER ONE. 
          OH, WE'RE GOING TO CREATE 
          [07:40:01]
IT THOUGH IN A NUMBER EIGHT PROHIBIT TYPE TWO AND TYPE THREE SHORT TERM RENTALS USE IN UNITS ALONG THESE CORRIDORS. 
          SO I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO VET THAT CONCEPT OR ANYTHING, BUT I'M OKAY. 
          PASSING THIS ORDINANCE AND MOVING THAT ALONG AND THEN SEEING HOW THAT CONVERSATION GOES AS THIS ORDINANCE IS DEVELOPED. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THAT COMES IN AS A NEW SECTION EIGHT AND THEN SECTION TWO, A ASKING STAFF TO PROVIDE MODELING OR VISUAL ANALYSIS OF THE LOT SIZES. 
          UH, ANYBODY HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO THAT? OKAY. 
          YES. 
          I DON'T OBJECT TO IT. 
          WE JUST HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHERE, WHERE IT GOES. 
          IT SEEMS TO ME IT WOULD BE, UH, AN ADDITIONAL, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED. 
          UM, PERHAPS, UM, I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT BEFORE THE LAST ONE RIGHT BEFORE THE LAST ONE. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THIS WILL BE THE PENULTIMATE. 
          UM, THEY RESOLVED SECOND TO LAST OBJECTION, HEARING NONE THAT'S INCLUDED ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS TO BE OFFERED TO A 66 BEFORE WE VOTE HAS BEEN VELA MARRIAGES HAVE ONE, THE ONE THAT I'VE PASSED OUT, UH, MY, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE'S NO WAIVER OF COMPATIBILITY REGARDLESS OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OR SITUATION. 
          AND, UH, I THINK ALL LAWS SHOULD HAVE SOME KIND OF WAIVER OR EXCEPTION WHEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES SO WARRANT. 
          AND SO I'M OFFERING AN AMENDMENT TO ALLOW THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO WAVE COMPATIBILITY AND, UH, THAT CAN BE APPEALED TO A CITY COUNCIL. 
          UM, DO YOU THINK STAFF CAN EXPLAIN HOW THE BOARD OF VARIANCES WORKS? CAUSE I THINK WE ALREADY HAVE THAT PROCESS OR IF ADJUSTMENTS ARE GENERALLY SPEAKING, GENERALLY SPEAKING THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTS, VARIANCES TO SITE DEVELOPMENT AND USE REGULATIONS IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 25 TO, UM, THEY DO THAT WHEN THEY MAKE A FINDING THAT THERE IS A HARDSHIP IN A PARTICULAR CASE, WOULD THIS BE AVAILABLE IF SOMEONE WANTED TO GET A VARIANCE HERE, WOULD THIS BE AVAILABLE FOR A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT VARIANTS? YES. 
          YES. 
          AND I HAVE A QUESTION COUNCILOR KITCHEN. 
          SO IF I'M HEARING CORRECTLY, THIS, THIS WOULD BE THE BOARD, THIS CITATION IS A REFERENCE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? IS THAT CORRECT? IN THE DRAFT, IN THE MOTION SHEET, IT SAYS LAND USE COMMISSION. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THIS WOULD BE IN FRONT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, RIGHT? YEAH. 
          SO CURRENT CODE, UM, IN 25 TO 10 81 ACTUALLY HAS A PROCESS, UM, WHERE YOU CAN GO IN UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, YOU GO TO THE LAND USE COMMISSION, ARE THERE OTHERS UNDER OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES, YOU WILL GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. 
          SO WE COULD DO SOMETHING THE SAME APPLY THAT SAME TO THESE PARTICULAR, THIS SET OF REGULATIONS. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          WHAT'S THE PUBLIC INPUT PROCESS PART OF THIS UH, OR IS THERE A PUBLIC INPUT PROCESS AS PART OF THIS REQUEST? SO BECAUSE IT WOULD BE A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM IN FRONT OF A LAND USE COMMISSION, IT'LL FOLLOW THE NOTICE HEARING NOTICE REQUIREMENTS THAT THEY FOLLOW. 
          OKAY. 
          IF IT'S IN FRONT OF THE BOA, THEY WILL FOLLOW THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, UH, NOTICE PROCEDURES. 
          OKAY. 
          AND SO WHAT WOULD DETERMINE WHICH ONE THEY GO UNDER? IS IT THE TYPE OF ENTITY, A TYPE OF REQUEST OR SOMETHING OR THAT'S ALL RIGHT. 
          IF YOU DON'T HAVE IT RIGHT THERE, I ASSUME IT'S SOMETHING MAYBE MAYBE DURING THIS, OR THAT'S WHY I BELIEVE YOU REFERRED TO YOU AS A CERTAIN SECTION OF THE CODE ALLOWS THE COMPATIBILITY. 
          HE GOES THROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION IS SUPPOSED TO BE AWAY. 
          UM, WITH REGARDS TO YOUR QUESTION ABOUT WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE AS FAR AS PUBLIC INPUT, THOSE TWO GO, OF COURSE THEY BOTH HAVE PUBLIC HEARINGS LIKE WE'RE HAVING HERE TODAY. 
          UM, BUT THERE'S A MAJOR DIFFERENCE IN WITH REGARD TO THE PI THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, BECAUSE IT'S CONSIDERED TO BE A QUASI JUDICIAL BOARD. 
          YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO LOBBY ANY SITES THAT HAVE A LOT IN LAB, NOT THE PUBLIC, NOT AN APPLICANT, NO ONE MAY LOBBY, NOT THE STAFF MAY LOBBY THE BOARD, THE BOARD HEARS EVERYBODY AT THE SAME TIME DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND THEN THEY MAKE YOUR DECISION. 
          WHEREAS THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS SIMILAR TO THE CITY COUNCIL. 
          IT ALLOWS FOR, UM, LOBBYING CONTACT BETWEEN THE COMMISSION MEMBERS AND THE PUBLIC. 
          OKAY. 
          SO I'M WONDERING IF, UM, COUNCIL MEMBER AVAILA WOULD BE, UH, AMENABLE TO, UM, 
          [07:45:01]
UH, TO ADDING TO THE END, SOMETHING, TO THE EFFECT, WHICH MAY BE APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND WHICH PROVIDES FOR AN INAPPROPRIATE PUBLIC PUBLIC INPUT PROCESS. 
          YEAH. 
          I WOULD HAVE NO OBJECTION TO ADDING THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, AND IF I, THE OTHER REASON THAT, UH, UH, I'M BRINGING THIS IS THAT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT HARDSHIP AS DEFINED IS A EXTREMELY HIGH STANDARD WHERE IT WOULD OTHERWISE LIKE THE PROPERTY WOULD BE KIND OF UNDEVELOPABLE IF NOT FOR THE WAIVER AND THIS WOULD NOT BE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A SITUATION WHEN THE PROPERTY IS UNDEVELOPABLE, WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT A SITUATION WHERE MAYBE THERE'S JUST ONE TRIGGERING PROPERTY THAT IS CUTTING DOWN A NUMBER OF, UH, OF UNITS. 
          AND FOR EXAMPLE, THAT HOMEOWNER MIGHT EVEN BE ABLE TO SAY LIKE, YOU KNOW WHAT, I DON'T CARE. 
          YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? THAT'S, THAT'S FINE. 
          UH, BUT THERE'S NO PROCESS VIA THE CITY TO ACTUALLY DO THAT. 
          YOU KNOW, AND AGAIN, I JUST WANT THE, OUR PLANNING COMMISSION AND OUR CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER IT. 
          AND IF IN THE PROPER CIRCUMSTANCES TO WAIVE IT, I'M FINE WITH THAT. 
          AS LONG AS WE'RE INCLUDING SOME KIND OF PUBLIC INPUT PROCESS, I'M NOT OKAY WITH IT. 
          I DON'T, I THINK WE ALREADY HAVE A PROCESS. 
          WE HAVE A PROCESS THAT ALLOWS US TO WAIVE COMPATIBILITY AT OUR LAND USE COMMISSIONS. 
          AND I THINK THIS IS KIND OF CREATE A LOT OF HAVOC, UM, FOR OUR PLANNING COMMISSION THROUGH ALL SORTS OF THINGS. 
          AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO GET ALL SORTS OF CASES WHERE IT'S THESE LITTLE DIFFERENT THINGS AND WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO WAIVE COMPATIBILITY AT OUR LEVEL. 
          UM, I JUST THINK THAT THAT REALLY COMPLICATES THINGS. 
          I THINK WE GET, THINK ABOUT THIS AND SEE IF WE CAN COME UP WITH A SOLUTION BY THE TIME THE ORDINANCE COMES BACK, BUT I'M NOT COMFORTABLE ORDERING THAT. 
          WE HAVE TO HAVE THIS PROCESS WHEN WE HAVE AN EXISTING PROCESS. 
          UM, AND THE RAMIFICATIONS ARE HUGE FOR THE PROCESS DOWN THE LINE, IN TERMS OF THE VAGARIES OF HOW THINGS GET HANDLED AND THE LEVEL OF LOBBYING THAT WILL HAPPEN IF IT'S ASSIGNED TO ONE OF THE LAND USE COMMISSIONS THAT CAN BE LOBBIED AS OUR KITCHEN. 
          UM, I, I, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A RESOLUTION, SO IT STILL HAS TO COME BACK TO US, RIGHT. 
          I MEAN, THAT'S THE INTENT, SO WE'D REVIEW IT. 
          WE'D HAVE TO REVIEW THE AMENDMENTS AND THEN VOTE ON THEM AGAIN. 
          SO I, I, I DON'T HAVE A ISSUE AROUND PROCEEDING WITH THIS. 
          I THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO GO AHEAD AND PROCEED WITH IT. 
          I DON'T THINK WE WANT TO EMPOWER OUR LAND USE COMMISSION TO MAKE WILLY-NILLY COMPATIBILITY DECISIONS BASED ON THE CRITERIA. 
          I MEAN, BUT IT DOESN'T SAY THAT I KNOW, BUT THE ONLY THING, WE ALREADY HAVE A PROCESS FOR A LOT OF SITUATIONS. 
          AND SO IF YOU, IF YOU, IF YOU START TO ASSESS, WELL, THEY SAY, WELL, THEY CAN DO THIS MUCH MORE. 
          IF YOU GET RID OF COMPATIBILITY, THEN YOU DON'T HAVE A COMPATIBILITY RULE. 
          YOU JUST HAVE A RULE THAT YOU GO TO YOUR, YOUR LAND USE COMMISSION AND YOU WAVE WHAT YOU'RE DOING. 
          SO WHAT IS THE PROCESS THAT WE ALREADY HAVE, UM, STAFF CAN QUESTION AT, AND I'M LOOKING AT A VERSION I CAN ACTUALLY SEE, OKAY. 
          SO THE WAIVERS, THE COMPATIBILITY PROVISIONS OF THE CODE INCLUDE A WAIVER SECTION AND 10 80 IT'S 25 TO 10 81, WHICH IS REFERENCED IN COUNCILMAN  MOTION. 
          AND IT CRE IT AUTHORIZES THE LAND USE COMMISSION AND ON APPEAL TO COUNCIL TO WAIVE A REQUIREMENT OF THE ARTICLE. 
          IF THE LAND USE COMMISSION OR COUNCIL DETERMINED THAT A WAIVER IS APPROPRIATE AND WILL NOT HARM THE SURROUNDING AREA, THERE ARE SOME PARAMETERS AROUND THE LAND COMMISSIONER COUNCIL CAN DO IN TERMS OF A SETBACK. 
          UM, IT ALSO ADDRESSES WHEN THE LAND USE COMMISSION OR COUNCIL CAN ADDRESS A HEIGHT RESTRICTION AND THEN, SORRY, IT HAS ANOTHER LIMITATION ABOUT, UH, THE AUTHORITY RELATED TO HEIGHT. 
          UM, BUT ON TOP OF ALL OF IT, IT DOESN'T PREVENT SOMEONE GOING TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO MAKE A VARIANCE REQUEST. 
          SO THERE IS A PROCESS IN PLACE. 
          UM, WHAT WE WOULD DO IF THIS PASSES IS WE WOULD ENSURE THAT THIS PARTICULAR SET OF REGULATIONS WOULD BE ABLE TO UTILIZE THE SAME PROCESS IN 25 TO 10 81. 
          SO I'LL TELL YOU WHAT MY CONCERNS ARE NEW. 
          TELL ME HOW TO, HOW TO DEAL WITH THEM RIGHT NOW. 
          THE, THE WAIVER, UH, UH, PROVISION, UH, 
          [07:50:02]
SAYS, YOU CAN HAVE, YOU CAN, YOU CAN WAIVE THINGS, BUT THEN IT PUTS IN PARAMETERS FOR WHEN YOU CAN WAIVE OR NOT WAIVE WHAT KINDS OF THINGS CAN BE CONSIDERED OR NOT. 
          AND I THINK BY PUTTING IN THOSE KINDS OF DIRECTION, PEOPLE KNOW KIND OF THE FIELD WITHIN WHICH THEY WOULD BE POTENTIALLY, THINGS WOULD BE WAIVED. 
          DO YOU WANT TO GO OUTSIDE THAT YOU GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS? I AM CONCERNED THAT IF WE BEGIN THIS SUMMER WITH A WAIVER POSITION, THAT DOESN'T HAVE ANY PARAMETERS ON IT, THAT WE'RE GOING TO SPEND THE NEXT TWO OR THREE MONTHS HEARING FROM PEOPLE THAT WE PASS, SOMETHING THAT WOULD ENABLE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO TOTALLY DISREGARD COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS AND JUST WAIVE IT IN ALL CASES. 
          NOT THAT THAT WOULD EVER HAPPEN, BUT THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED BY A STRICT READING OF A WAIVER PROVISION THAT DOESN'T HAVE ANY PARAMETERS OR LIMITATIONS. 
          AND I BE CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS IN THE PUBLIC DEBATE OVER THE NEXT TWO MONTHS. 
          IF WE HAVE THAT, I THINK WHAT I WOULD RATHER HAVE COUNCIL MEMBER VAILA WOULD BE TO HAVE THIS CONCEPT DEVELOPED AND MADE PART OF THE PROCESS SO THAT IT COULD COME BACK FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH A WAIVER PROVISION THAT HAD PARAMETERS IN IT THAT HAD GONE THROUGH THAT PROCESS. 
          OTHER THAN I JUST SEE MYSELF WITH THOUSANDS OF EMAILS FROM THE CONSTITUENT GROUPS, GOING TO THE CONSTITUENT GROUPS THAT I'M SENDING OUT EMAILS OF HIS NAME, BUT YEAH, BUT THAT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN IN THE ANSWER AS WELL, IT COULD CAUSE THAT COULD CAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE WORDS SAY. 
          SO I'M INCLINED NOT TO SUPPORT THIS NOW, BUT URGE YOU AND OTHERS TO DEVELOP THAT AS PART OF THE ORDINANCE DRAFTING PROCESS TO BRING IT BACK. 
          UH, UH, I, I FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT MAYOR AND I, UH, MY GOAL WOULD NOT BE TO, UH, COMPLICATE THE WORKING GROUPS DRAFT. 
          UH, AND I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND I'LL WITHDRAW THE AMENDMENT. 
          UH, AND I WILL LOOK TO, UH, MAYBE HAVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION INITIATE SOMETHING OR TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT THE, UH, AT THE WAIVER PROCESS FOR COMPATIBILITY. 
          AND LET'S LET GO AHEAD AND LET THIS PROCESS KIND OF FINISH AND THEN MAYBE WE CAN PICK UP, UH, ANOTHER PROCESS DOWN THE ROAD. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          AND I THINK WHEN YOU DO THAT, YOU KNOW, WE SHOULD BE REALLY ADHERING TO OUR EXISTING PROCESS AND MAKING SURE THIS WORKS THROUGH THE EXISTING PROCESS, BUT BECAUSE WE ARE ALREADY ESSENTIALLY WAVING STUFF, LIKE, I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU HAVE TO WAVE IN THIS CASE FOR, FOR, FOR THE HARDSHIPS, THAT WOULD BE DIFFERENT THAN WHAT'S IN OUR EXISTING PROCESS. 
          AND THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND AND ABSENCE HAVING, UM, A DETAILED LOOK AT THAT PROCESS. 
          I THINK IT'S, IT'S, IT'S FINE. 
          UM, YEAH, SO IT'S DEVELOPMENT COME BACK. 
          I THINK THERE MIGHT BE AROUND THERE BECAUSE WHOEVER KELLY, THANK YOU. 
          I JUST WANT TO MAKE NOTE THAT IT'S 10 O'CLOCK AND WE SHOULD PROBABLY VOTE TO CONTINUE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          IS THERE A MOTION AND A GOOD, GOOD STAND TO WORK PAST 10 COUNCIL MEMBER AT THE ROOMMATE'S MOTIONS THERE A SECOND. 
          THAT'S WHERE I'VE ADDED A SECOND. 
          IS THERE ANY OBJECTION SAYING THAT I HAVE TO ABSTAIN JUST TO GET MY RECORD MAYOR PRO DEMS ABSTAINING. 
          THERE WERE NO OBJECTIONS. 
          WE WILL PROCEED PAST 10, BUT LET'S SEE IF WE CAN MOVE QUICKLY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANY OTHER CHANGES TO 66 BEFORE WE VOTE? WE'VE LOST KATHY. 
          KATHY GO. 
          I THINK SHE JUST STEPPED AWAY. 
          I THINK SHE JUST WENT TO THE BACK FOR A MOMENT IN THE MEAT. 
          YES. 
          SO, AND I HAVE ONE, UH, QUESTION ON THE, UH, THE CIVIC USES THAT I KNOW THAT MY COFFEE GO THE, UM, IN, IN THE VERSION TWO THAT IS OFFERED, IT SAYS THAT IT WOULD JUST, IT WOULD NOT BE THE USE. 
          IT WOULD ONLY BE THE ZONING CATEGORY THAT WOULD TRIGGER COMPATIBILITY. 
          HOWEVER, UH, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE ARE, FOR EXAMPLE, UH, CIVIC USES, UH, I BELIEVE CAMP MAYBERRY IS, UH, . 
          I THINK THAT THERE ARE CHURCHES AND OTHER, UH, ORGANIZATION OR OTHER, YOU KNOW, THAT ARE SF THREE. 
          THERE'S NOT AN SF THREE USE ON THE PROPERTY, BUT IT IS STILL TRIGGERING COMPATIBILITY, UH, AS, AS A, UH, UH, A ZONE. 
          THAT'S A THREE. 
          SO WHAT ABOUT COMBINING SAYING THAT, YOU KNOW, IT HAS TO BE BOTH AN SF, UH, ZONED PROPERTY PLUS A SINGLE FAMILY USE, YOU KNOW, NOT A CHURCH, FOR EXAMPLE, ON A SINGLE FAMILY'S OWN PROPERTY OR NOT, YOU KNOW, SOME OTHER TYPE OF, KIND OF CIVIC USE ON AN S3 PROPERTY. 
          THAT'S TRIGGERING COMPATIBILITY. 
          I KNOW, UH, THAT HAS BEEN AN ISSUE, UH, WITH A HANDFUL OF, UH, OF, UH, OF PROPERTIES AND IT CAN BE, UH, YOU KNOW, IT CAN BE A REAL, 
          [07:55:01]
UH, IT CAN BE PROBLEMATIC. 
          OKAY. 
          REQUIRING BOTH USE IF THERE IS ANY AND THE ZONE, IF THERE'S NO USE, THEN IT'S JUST THE ZONE. 
          YES. 
          IF THERE'S A USE THAT IT HAS TO BE USED THEN ZONE THAT'S WHAT I WOULD BE. 
          IT WOULD BE BOTH SF THREE ZONING AND SF THREE USE, NOT SF THREE ZONING THAT IS USED BY A NON. 
          THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME, LET ME CHECK WITH THE OTHER COLLEAGUES. 
          SO WHAT IS THE, I'M SORRY, AND JERRY, YOU WANT TO SAY FIRST, I BELIEVE COUNCIL MEMBER POOL. 
          FUCK. 
          THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. 
          SORRY. 
          I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR YOU TO MAYBE, UM, GIVE US A LITTLE BIT OF SURE. 
          SO, SO I THINK THAT THE EXAMPLE OF CUSTOMER AVAILABLE RAISES, UM, AS OCCURRED IN THE PAST SEVERAL TIMES, AS HE SAID, UM, I PERSONALLY DON'T BELIEVE IT WAS WHAT COMPATIBILITY WAS INTENDED FOR AND IT'S TRUE THAT, UM, CHURCHES ARE ALLOWED IN EVERY ZONING CATEGORY IN THE CITY, INCLUDING SINGLE FAMILY. 
          SO WE HAVE HAD SITUATIONS WHERE CHURCHES ON SINGLE FAMILIES OWN PROPERTY DID TRIGGER COMPATIBILITY. 
          WE ALWAYS LOOKED AT IT AS INTENDED FOR RESIDENTIAL USES, AS OPPOSED TO RELIGIOUS SERVICES USE ITSELF. 
          UM, THAT AMENDMENT ME WOULD MAKE SENSE WITH REGARD TO, YES. 
          SO, UM, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY LIKE, MAYBE WE CAN DO IT AS OUR, WHAT WE HAVE IN TERMS OF BY THE ZONING AND THEN EXPLORE THE COMBINATION. 
          UM, IT'S LIKELY FINE. 
          AND I CAN DO, YOU KNOW, A HUNDRED PERCENT, I KNOW WE HAVE SOME SCHOOLS THAT ARE TRIGGERING IN SOME AREAS WHERE THIS, THIS MATTERS, BUT, UM, WITHOUT, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT DOESN'T CREATE A PROBLEM. 
          W YOU KNOW, WE, WHEN WE PUT TOGETHER, UM, THIS PROPOSAL, WE REALLY WENT THROUGH AND SCOURED LOTS OF EXAMPLES OF THINGS. 
          SO I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S ABSOLUTELY SOMETHING WE SHOULD EXPLORE THROUGH THIS PROCESS. 
          UM, SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN, IF WE CAN SAY, YOU KNOW, DO IT FOR SURE WITH THE, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT TRIGGERED BY, UM, USE OF BY ZONING AND THEN EXPLORE HOW YOU WOULD DO THAT COMBINATION. 
          UM, I THINK IT SHOULD BE, IT SHOULD BE FINE BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, CAN'T, MAYBE HE SHOULDN'T BE TRIGGERING IT. 
          NOT THAT THERE'S ANYTHING MUCH AROUND IT, THAT WOULD BE AN ISSUE. 
          UM, BUT WE DO HAVE SCHOOLS FOR INSTANCE, THAT ARE SF SF ONE, UM, THAT ARE, THAT ARE TRIGGERING THINGS THAT WOULD BE A GOOD CANDIDATE FOR IT. 
          I WOULD JUST BE A LOT MORE COMFORTABLE IF WE COULD SAY DO IT OUR WAY AND THEN ADD A THING AND EXPLORE, PUT THAT IN THE EXPLORING SECTION. 
          UM, AND IF IT TURNS OUT THAT IT'S REALLY MAKES A LOT OF SENSE, WHICH IT MAY, UM, THEN WE, THEN WE JUST ADDED THE ORDINANCE, IT'S GIVEN AN OPTION TO DO IT. 
          UM, AND, AND I WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, IT CAN BE BROUGHT TO COUNCIL EVEN BEFORE WE FINALIZE AND, AND, AND SHARE IT. 
          AND WE CAN MAKE A DECISION. 
          WE CAN REPORT BACK WITH A SHARING OF THE INFORMATION OF WHICH CIVIC USES ARE ALLOWED IN SINGLE FAMILIES, ONLY CATEGORIES. 
          SO Y'ALL CAN SEE EXACTLY WHICH ONES THEY ARE, BECAUSE THAT SHE SAID IT'S MORE THAN JUST CHURCHES, AND WE CAN REPORT THAT BACK UP TO THE COUNTY. 
          RIGHT. 
          BUT IT'S ALSO, YOU KNOW, PART OF WHAT WE DID AS WE PUT THIS TOGETHER WAS REALLY LOOK AROUND THE CITY AND, AND SEE SORT OF THE IMPACT AND WHAT MADE SENSE ABSENT THE FULL PLANNING PROCESS. 
          AND SO I WOULD JUST, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY TO, TO THINK ABOUT THAT BEFORE DETERMINING ABSOLUTELY. 
          ABSOLUTELY. 
          YES. 
          BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS WE LEARNED AS WE WENT THROUGH DIFFERENT THINGS IS THAT SOME THINGS YOU DIDN'T EXPECT REALLY HAD BIG IMPACTS. 
          UM, SO I DO THINK IT'S SOMETHING I CAN GET BEHIND A HUNDRED PERCENT, BUT AT THIS STAGE I WOULD, I WOULD PROPOSE THAT WE PUT IT, UM, IN THE SECTION WHERE WE HAD THE EXPLORING, UM, SECTION THE THIRD TOE, LAST ONE, WHERE WE HAVE, UM, SORT OF APPLYING LIGHT RAIL OR LARGER CORRIDOR REGULATIONS TO TLDS AND PROVIDING THE ANALYSIS OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING CAPACITY YIELD OF THIS. 
          WHAT ABOUT, WHAT ABOUT PUTTING IT IN A NUMBER FIVE? IT SAYS, EXPLORE LIMITING TRIGGERS AS CONCERNED CIVIC USES HAD ALSO NON-RESIDENTIAL USES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES. 
          THAT SOUNDS EXCELLENT TO ME, UH, MAYOR. 
          AND JUST AS A NOTE, I BELIEVE THAT THE CAT  CLIPPED A FLOOR OFF OF ONE OF THE BULL CREEK, UH, BUILDINGS, UH, LONGER THAT'S I THINK WHERE, WHERE AT LEAST, YOU KNOW, MY STAFF AND I GOT THE INITIAL IDEA THAT, UH, THAT, THAT, YOU KNOW, I HAD NO IDEA. 
          AND THAT MAKES SENSE. 
          SO LET'S KEEP IT IN EXPLORE CATEGORY NUMBER FIVE, WE'LL SAY, EXPLORE LIMITING TRIGGERS AS CONCERNS CIVIC USES, AND ALSO NON-RESIDENTIAL USES 
          [08:00:01]
IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES. 
          ANY OBJECTION TO THAT? CAN YOU SAY IT ONE MORE TIME, EXPLORE LIMITING TRIGGERS AS CONCERNS CIVIC USES, AND ALSO NON-RESIDENTIAL USES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT'S INCLUDED ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS. 
          WE VOTE ON 66 AND LET'S VOTE ON 66. 
          THAT WAS IN FAVOR OF 66. 
          PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. 
          THOSE OPPOSED IS A COUNCIL MEMBER, HARPER, MADISON WITH US COUNTS BY MEMBER HOUSES WITH US. 
          UH, SO I SEE, UH, THAT'S, UH, UNANIMOUS ON THE DAY OF 66 PASSES, ACTUALLY I'M MAYOR. 
          MY, MY HAND IS RAISED, THERE WAS ONE OF MY AMENDMENTS THAT WE DIDN'T COVER. 
          OKAY. 
          AND IT WAS THE FIRST ONE. 
          THIS WAS INCLUDING OPTIONS FOR A COMPATIBILITY SETBACK DISTANCES, CORRECT? UM, WE INCLUDED THE PROVIDE ANALYSIS OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING CAPACITY YIELD OF THIS RESOLUTION, UM, IN THE THIRD TO LAST BIT RESOLVED AS OPPOSED TO THE OTHER OPTIONS. 
          I DON'T THINK THAT WAS HER AMENDMENT THOUGH. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER, MADISON, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THAT? THE, THE ONE THAT YOU POSTED ON THE MESSAGE, IT SAYS INCLUDE OPTIONS FOR COMPATIBILITY SETBACK, DISTANCES OF TWENTY FIVE, FIFTY, A HUNDRED SIXTY FIVE FEET SOONER. 
          MY OWN, MY ONLY CONCERN WITH THIS WAS THAT WE'RE, WE'RE TRYING TO SEND A MESSAGE TO THE COMMUNITY THAT WE'RE TRYING TO FIND THAT PLACE WHERE THE VENN DIAGRAMS OVERLAP AND WE'RE GOING TO BE GONE FOR THE NEXT TWO MONTHS. 
          AND I'M JUST REAL CONCERNED ABOUT OUR COMMUNITY THAT GETS WRAPPED AROUND THE AXLE FOR THE NEXT TWO MONTHS, THINKING THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO SOMETHING WITH COMPATIBILITY AT 25 FEET OR 50 FEET. 
          I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHERE THE WILD WHILE I MAY WOULD DO THAT. 
          IF IT WAS JUST ME, UH, THAT'S NOT KINDA WHAT THIS EXERCISE IS, AND I'M JUST AFRAID THAT THAT WOULD INVOLVE US IN A COMMUNITY DEBATE OR DISCUSSION THAT WASN'T ON POINT AND WE WOULD LOSE MOMENTUM. 
          BUT I DO THINK THAT ASKING THE QUESTION ABOUT WHAT IS THE YIELD WITH THESE OTHER OPTIONS IS A FAIR QUESTION TO ASK. 
          UH, AND, AND THAT'S THE KIND OF THING THAT I WERE THAT EACH OF US HAVE THE ABILITY TO ASK STAFF. 
          AND WE IN FACT, ARE ASKING STAFF TO COME BACK WITH THAT DATA. 
          SO WE WOULD HAVE THAT DATA AND THAT INFORMATION, UH, AND, AND CERTAINLY IF THE CONSENSUS POINT CHANGES, SOMEONE COULD MOVE TO AMEND THIS LATER ON. 
          BUT IN THIS STATEMENT, WE'RE SAYING AT THIS POINT WHERE WE THINK THE EVENT DIAGRAMS INTERSECT. 
          SO MY REQUEST WOULD BE THAT WE DON'T TRY TO TRIGGER SOMETHING THAT, THAT IS DIFFERENT THAN TRYING TO REACH THE COMPROMISE WE PUT IN HERE TO GETTING THE ANALYSIS. 
          AND WE ARE ALL ASKING FOR THE ANALYSIS OF THESE DIFFERENT DISTANCES. 
          SO WE'LL HAVE THE INFORMATION IN CASE THERE'S A CONSENSUS OR MOVEMENT TO AMEND THIS AS PART OF THE ORDINANCE APPROVAL PROCESS MAY CAUSE , MAY I MAKE A SUGGESTION ON MAYBE THE PROVIDE ANALYSIS OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING CAPACITY YIELD OF THIS RESOLUTION, MAYBE, AND OTHER POSSIBLE, UH, COMPATIBILITY OPTIONS, OR, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT WHERE, YOU KNOW, UH, I, I, GOING, THIS GOES FROM THE VMU ANALYSIS THAT STAFF GAVE US, WHICH I THOUGHT WAS VERY HELPFUL WHERE, YOU KNOW, THEY WERE AWARE, THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT THE COMPETITIVE ABILITY LIMITATIONS ON VMU IN THE, IN THE, IN THE MAP THAT THEY PUT TOGETHER. 
          AND THEN LIKE, YOU KNOW, SAYING THAT IF YOU DO IT AT THIS LEVEL, WE BREAK, YOU KNOW, WE CAPTURED 30% OF THE PROPERTIES. 
          AND THEN AT THIS LEVEL, 50% OF THE PROPERTIES FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, AND I THINK JUST FROM A POLICYMAKER PERSPECTIVE, THAT WAS VERY HELPFUL. 
          AND I THINK HE MIGHT BE ONTO SOMETHING THAT I DON'T WANT TO CALL IT AN OPTION. 
          CAUSE I THINK THAT'LL THAT'LL DATA. 
          BUT WHAT IF WE SAID PROVIDED ANALYSIS, AFFORDABLE HOUSING CAPACITY, THIS RESOLUTION AND OTHER COMPATIBILITY DISTANCES? I THINK, I THINK THAT LANGUAGE IS, IS FINE. 
          IF, IF A COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER MEDICINE 
          [08:05:01]
IS OKAY WITH HIM, I GUESS I JUST WANT TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT, THAT MY INTENTION IS UNDERSTOOD MAYOR. 
          I HEARD WHAT YOU SAID. 
          AND, UM, IT KIND OF SOUNDS TO ME, UM, LIKE YOU'RE CONCERNED THAT, THAT MY ATTEMPT IS TO SORT OF STEIN THE PROCESS, BUT I REALLY AM JUST ASKING FOR INFORMATION. 
          UM, AND SO HOPEFULLY THAT'S HOW YOU UNDERSTAND IT. 
          WELL, I WAS, I WAS SEEING THE WORD OPTIONS AND OTHER THINGS, AND THAT MADE ME THINK IT WAS LIKE ALTERNATIVES. 
          AND I DIDN'T WANT TO GO TO OPTIONS OR ALTERNATIVES BECAUSE THIS RESOLUTION IS ABOUT THIS AND THE STANDARDS WE HAVE HERE REPRESENT WHERE WE THINK THE COMPROMISE IS AND WHERE THE VENN DIAGRAMS CROSSING, WHERE WE, WE MIGHT GET THE, YOU KNOW, A HIGHER NUMBER OF VOTES. 
          I ALWAYS WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR THAT WE'RE NOT PASSING THIS WITHIN INTENT TO CONSIDER OTHER OPTIONS OR ALTERNATIVES, BUT TO THE DEGREE THAT YOU'RE ASKED, JUST ASKING FOR DATA, WHICH PEOPLE CAN DO DIRECTLY TO STAFF. 
          OTHERWISE I WAS SEEING WHETHER THERE COULD BE AGREEMENT ON JUST SAYING IN OTHER COMPATIBILITY DISTANCES, WHETHER THAT SUFFICIENTLY SEPARATED US IS THEIR LANGUAGE. 
          THEY COULD DIFFERENTIATE THEORY, BUT I JUST, I WANT TO JUST MAKE SURE THAT I'M BEING REALLY CLEAR THAT WE ARE ON THE SAME PAGE AS WE MOVE FORWARD. 
          UM, I, YOU KNOW, I I'VE SAID BEFORE THAT OUR GREAT ALL THE TIME, THESE LAND USE CONVERSATIONS, THEY REALLY INVOLVE A LOT OF COMPLEX CONCEPTS THAT CAN REALLY FLY OVER THE HEAD OF OUR CONSTITUENTS AND LAYPEOPLE. 
          AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, AS WE WADE THROUGH THESE SUPER THICK WEEDS, UM, YOU NEED TO BE A SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT TO REALLY HACK THROUGH IT ALL. 
          SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, GIVEN THAT AS COUNCIL MEMBERS, WE HAVE SO MUCH ON OUR PLATE CONSISTENTLY. 
          SO MANY CONSIDERATIONS, YOU KNOW, THE BUDGET, PUBLIC SAFETY, PUBLIC HEALTH, UM, I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE TRYING TO GUIDE THE, THE, YOU KNOW, CONSTRUCTION OF A WORLD-CLASS TRANSIT SYSTEM. 
          I THINK OUR BANDWIDTH IS STRETCHED PRETTY THIN AND IN MY MIND'S EYE OF, BE BEST TO LEAVE IT TO THE TRAINED EXPERTS ON OUR STAFF, TO, TO DO THEIR JOBS AND, AND BRING US COMPREHENSIVE OPTIONS. 
          AND SO I WAS REALLY JUST ASKING THAT, YOU KNOW, AS A POLICY MAKING BODY, THAT WE HAVE THE DATA TO MAKE THOSE DATA DRIVEN DECISIONS, UM, IN WHICH CASE I CERTAINLY WASN'T, YOU KNOW, MAKING ANY ATTEMPT TO HAVE PEOPLE BE FEARFUL, UM, THAT WE ARE INITIATING ANYTHING THAT, THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HADN'T DISCUSSED WITH THEM. 
          I, I DO WANT, YOU KNOW, YOU, ALL MY COLLEAGUES AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND THAT I JUST REALLY WOULD LIKE TO KNOW, UM, BASED ON EXPERT PRODUCED DATA, WHAT SOME OF THE OPTIONS COULD BE. 
          SO LET'S DO THIS CAUSE I, I HAVE RODNEY SITTING NEXT TO ME HERE AND I ASKED RODNEY, UM, UM, YOU'RE NOW MAKING THE REQUEST FOR THAT DATA AND THAT INFORMATION FOR OTHER DISTANCES. 
          AND I'M ASKING RODNEY, IF, IF YOU WILL PROVIDE THAT TO A COUNCIL MEMBER, UPPER MADISON, WE CERTAINLY WILL. 
          OKAY. 
          IF WE TAKE ANSWER REQUESTS, WE'LL PROVIDE THAT DATA. 
          OKAY. 
          I THINK YOU SHOULD JUST, YOU SHOULD CONSIDER IT AS A REQUEST CAUSE WE'VE ALL HEARD IT AND THEN PROBABLY SHE'S NOT ALONE IN MAKING THAT REQUEST. 
          SO MY QUESTION FOR YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER, HOPPER, MADISON, GIVEN THAT, AND THE COMMITMENT JUST MADE BY RODNEY HERE IN OPEN SESSION, UH, YOU'RE GOING TO GET THE INFORMATION AND DATA, AS YOU JUST SAID. 
          UM, ARE YOU OKAY THEN NOT PUTTING IT INTO THE RESOLUTION ITSELF? OH, IT FEELS LIKE THE CONVERSATION IS JUST BETWEEN THE TWO OF US RIGHT NOW. 
          I WOULDN'T MIND HEARING FROM SOME OF OUR COLLEAGUES TOO, TO GAUGE FROM THEM. 
          YOU KNOW, HOW THEY'RE FEELING ABOUT MOVING FORWARD WITH IT AS A PART OF THE RESOLUTION OR JUST INFORMATION THAT WE'VE RECEIVED FROM ACM COUNSELORS AND STAFF SOUNDS GOOD. 
          I THINK IF YOU SUBMIT A QUESTION TO, FOR DATA FROM STAFF, THEY SHOULD PRESENT IT TO YOU. 
          AND I WOULD PREFER TO HAVE IT DONE THAT WAY BECAUSE WE'RE A KITCHEN. 
          I WOULD SUGGEST IT WOULD BE DATA THAT WOULD BE PRESENTED TO THE ENTIRE COUNCIL. 
          AND, AND THERE WOULD BE A RECOGNITION BY THE COUNCIL THAT IT COULD BE DATA THAT WE MIGHT WANT TO USE WHEN THIS COMES BACK TO US. 
          OKAY. 
          COULD YOU PLEASE PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION BECAUSE I WAS TO EVERYONE. 
          ABSOLUTELY. 
          AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, THAT THAT WAS OUR INTENTION WAS TO PROVIDE THE RESPONSES. 
          I FIGURED IT WAS, I JUST WANT TO SPECIFY, BUT I THINK THAT, UM, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER, MADISON IS ALSO ASKING TO HAVE INFORMATION THAT SHE OR OTHERS MAY WANT TO POINT TO WHEN THIS COMES BACK TO US, THERE WOULD BE NOTHING STOPPING ANYONE. 
          OKAY. 
          JUST WANT TO, I JUST WANT TO PUT THAT ON THE RECORD. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN. 
          I APPRECIATE 
          [08:10:01]
THAT. 
          THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER, HARPER, MADISON, ANY OTHER, ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS TO THE 66 COUNCILMEMBER KITCHEN? UM, I THERE'S, WE HAD A CONVERSATION THAT, UM, WE HAD A CONVERSATION AT WORK SESSION THAT I DON'T SEE REFLECTED IN HERE. 
          AND SO I JUST WANT TO RAISE IT AGAIN. 
          IT MAY BE SIMILAR TO WHAT WE JUST DID. 
          IT MAY BE A DIRECTION KIND OF THING, AS OPPOSED TO ANY LANGUAGE. 
          UM, WE HAD A CONVERSATION ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF OUR CITY POLICY TO PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING THROUGHOUT THE CITY. 
          AND WE ALSO HAD A CONVERSATION ABOUT THE, YOU KNOW, ABOUT ENSURING THAT WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT MAKING THESE KINDS OF CHANGES, WHICH ARE LINKED TO CORRIDORS AND AFFORDABILITY, THAT WE REALLY BE LOOKING THROUGHOUT THE CITY. 
          I AM CONCERNED THAT WE REALLY HAVEN'T ACCOMPLISHED THAT. 
          I'M CONCERNED THAT, UM, THAT THIS IS FOCUSED IN CERTAIN PARTS OF THE CITY AND NOT IN OTHERS. 
          I THINK THAT'S JUST A FUNCTION OF THE WAY THAT WE HAVE DEFINED THINGS IN THE PAST. 
          SO I WOULD LIKE TO ASK, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK IF THERE'S ROOM FOR, FOR STAFF TO, TO CONSIDER, UM, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF CONSIDERING OR EXPLORING ADDITIONAL TRANSIT CORRIDORS AS NEEDED TO PROMOTE THE CITY'S POLICY TO LOCATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING THROUGHOUT THE CITY. 
          I'M JUST ASKING IF THERE'S ANY HA WE, WE, I DON'T THINK WE'VE ADDRESSED THAT AND I'M WANTING TO, I'M REQUESTING OR ASKING IF THERE'S ROOM TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION WHEN THIS COMES BACK TO US. 
          AND I WOULD THROW THAT OUT FOR MY COLLEAGUES TO SEE IF THERE'S INTEREST IN EITHER A DIRECTION OR ADDING SOME LANGUAGE TO THAT EFFECT. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN. 
          IF I COULD, AND STAFF CAN HELP LET THIS CONVERSATION, YOU MAY RECALL THAT WE HAVE THE STRATEGIC COUNSELING BLUEPRINT AND THAT SORT OF A STRATEGIC HOUSING BLUEPRINT HAS GOALS BY DISTRICT FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          AND SO THAT'S OUR OVERARCHING, UH, PROGRAM THAT WE IMPLEMENT AS STAFF. 
          AND SO IN EVERYTHING THAT WE DO, WE ARE ALWAYS GOING TO ATTEMPT TO ACHIEVE THOSE GOALS BY DISTRICT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO I'M HEARING THAT TO SAY IN EVERYTHING WE DO. 
          SO HERE WE ARE HERE, WE ARE LOOKING AT MAKING CHANGES TO COMPATIBILITY ALONG SPECIFIED CORRIDORS. 
          SO AS STAFF WORKS ON THIS, WHEN YOU COME BACK TO US, I WOULD LIKE PART OF THAT CONVERSATION OF WHAT COMES BACK TO US TO TELL US, YOU KNOW, IF YOU RECOMMEND OR SUGGEST, OR JUST IDENTIFY THAT THIS TOOL THAT WE'RE PUTTING IN PLACE IS REALLY NOT ADDRESSING PARTS OF THE CITY. 
          IF THAT'S THE CASE, I'D LIKE TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION THEN ABSOLUTELY. 
          I CAN, I CAN, UH, ASK STAFF TO CONFIRM THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE BRING THIS BACK, THAT, YOU KNOW, AS WE LOOK AT THE CORRIDORS THAT WE'LL ALSO LOOK AT IT BY DISTRICT TO GIVE YOU THAT INFORMATION. 
          OKAY. 
          IF, IF, UH, I'M FINE WITH THAT, AS LONG AS I'M JUST WANTING TO LET MY CA WELL, YOU KNOW, I'M THE ONLY ONE TALKING HERE, ASK OTHERS IF IT'S JUST ME, BUT, UM, ASK WHAT OTHERS THINK. 
          BUT I, I AM CONCERNED. 
          I DON'T, I DON'T SEE THIS AS, AS REALLY, YOU KNOW, IF SOMEONE, WELL, ANYWAY, IF THE INFORMATION COMES BACK AND SAYS, WELL, WE'VE ALREADY GOT A LOT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND CERTAIN DISTRICTS, WE DON'T NEED TO WORRY ABOUT THIS TOOL. 
          THAT'S GREAT. 
          BUT IF IT COMES BACK AND SAYS, WE'RE USING THIS TOOL, OR WE'RE NOT USING THIS TOOL IN PARTS OF THE CITY WHERE WE REALLY NOT GETTING MUCH AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR OUR GOALS, THEN WE REALLY OUGHT TO HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT WHETHER WE OUGHT TO USE THESE TOOLS. 
          THAT'S ALL I'M TRYING TO SAY. 
          OKAY. 
          SOUNDS GOOD. 
          SO I JUST WANT TO ADDRESS THAT BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE DOING AND WE SEE ON OUR AGENDA IS THAT WE HAVE MANY TOOLS, UM, TO ADDRESS HOUSING AND THEY DON'T ALL FIT EVERY PART OF TOWN. 
          SO WE PASSED A ADU, UM, RESOLUTION. 
          I THINK WE'VE PASSED THE PLANNING RESOLUTION. 
          UM, COMPATIBILITY IS NOT WHAT IS THE COMPATIBILITY AND PARKING OR NOT? WHAT IS CONSTRAINING, UM, GROWTH IN MY DISTRICT SINCE I THINK THIS IS DIRECTED AT ME, UM, WE LOOKED AT SEVERAL PLACES THAT ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THIS AND CHANGES IN COMPATIBILITY AND CHANGES IN PARKING. 
          THEY DON'T HAVE ANY TRANSIT. 
          THEY'RE NOT CONSTRAINED BY COMPATIBILITY, THEIR UNDERLINING ZONING, 
          [08:15:01]
DOESN'T GO ABOVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT. 
          SO REALLY THE PLANNING DISTRICT PROCESS, THE ADU PROCESS, UM, THOSE ARE BETTER TOOLS. 
          THE PROCESS THAT WE'RE UNDERGOING WITH UT THOSE ARE BETTER TOOLS FOR ADDRESSING, UM, THE GROWTH IN OTHER PARTS OF TOWN. 
          UM, THIS TOOL ITSELF ON ITS OWN IS NOT GOING TO GET THERE. 
          AND IT WON'T, I MEAN, ONE COULD ADD IT TO MAKE ONE, FEEL LIKE WE'RE DOING MORE ON OTHER PARTS, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY GONNA HAVE ZERO IMPACT. 
          UM, AND IT'S JUST BECAUSE OF WHAT'S THERE ON THE GROUND. 
          AND, AND IF WE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD, WE HAVE TO BE USING THOSE OTHER TOOLS. 
          UH, THAT WAS NOT, I WAS NOT TRYING TO FOCUS ON DISTRICT 10. 
          THAT WAS NOT MY INTENT. 
          UM, BUT MY INTENT WAS JUST TO ASK THE QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER THIS IS A TOOL IT'S REALLY TO ASK THE QUESTION THAT YOU JUST RAISED, YOU KNOW, IS, IS THIS A TOOL THAT REALLY WE SHOULD USE IN OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY? THAT'S THE QUESTION I'M ASKING, MAYBE IT ISN'T, AND MAYBE IT IS, I JUST WANT US TO BE OPEN TO HAVING THAT CONVERSATION. 
          THAT'S ALL, YOU KNOW, WE DO HAVE TRENT, WE DO HAVE TRANSIT IDENTIFIED CORRIDORS AND OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY THAT WE DIDN'T INCLUDE IN HERE. 
          WE DIDN'T INCLUDE OUR TRANSIT PRIORITY NETWORK FOR GOOD REASONS, BUT THERE ARE OTHER, THERE ARE OTHER ROADS THAT ARE PART OF THE TPN THAT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE TO INCLUDE. 
          ALL I'M SAYING IS LET'S JUST, I JUST WANT TO, I JUST DON'T WANT TO HAVE THIS COME BACK TO US IN SEPTEMBER AND HAVE IT SAID, BECAUSE WE DIDN'T, DIDN'T PUT ANYTHING IN THIS RESOLUTION THAT WE CAN'T HAVE THE CONVERSATION, THEN THAT'S ALL I'M TRYING TO SAY. 
          AND I, AND I I'M COMFORTABLE AT THIS POINT, LETTING THAT DEVELOP AS PART OF THE ORDINANCE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, I THINK IT'S A GOOD POINT TO MAKE. 
          AND AS THE ORDINANCE GOES THROUGH THE PROCESS, IT CAN BE FURTHER DEVELOPED BY THE OTHER STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS AND OTHER PROCESSES. 
          I WOULD SUGGEST WE PASS THIS AND LET'S MOVE ON. 
          WE HAVE GOT ONE PERSON OVER THERE THAT WAS, I JUST WANTED TO AGREE. 
          I WAS MAKING VERY SIMILAR, UH, ARGUMENTS ON, ON, ON TUESDAY. 
          AND I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL AND VERY REASONABLE TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, STAFF MAYBE LOOK AT WHAT OTHER CORRIDORS WE COULD ROLL INTO, UH, AS, UH, AS PART OF, UH, AS PART OF THIS PROCESS, YOU KNOW, PARTICULARLY, UH, I MEAN, WE'VE GOT A LOT OF TRYING TO, FOR EXAMPLE, IN MY DISTRICT, I MEAN, MY ENTIRE DISTRICT IS, YOU KNOW, IS, IS, IS CORE, MEDIUM AND LARGE CORRIDORS. 
          UH, BUT OTHER DISTRICTS DON'T, WE DO WANT TO, YOU KNOW, PUT HOUSING THERE TOO. 
          UH, SO I JUST WANT TO SAY, I WOULDN'T BE VERY SUPPORTIVE OF, UH, OF, UH, WHAT CUSTOMER KITCHEN IS, UH, IS PROPOSING AND WHAT WE TRIED TO DO. 
          AND I FIND IT AS IT GOES THROUGH THE PROCESS, IF PEOPLE CAN COME UP WITH EVEN TO IDENTIFY SPECIFIC ROADS THAT THEY THINK OUGHT TO BE INCLUDED, YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S, UH, YOU KNOW, WE, WE WERE TRYING TO COME UP WITH CATEGORIES. 
          WE WERE TRYING TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT WE COULD APPLY, BUT, BUT CERTAINLY IN THIS PROCESS, THEY COULD COME BACK TO US FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WITH A SPECIFIC ROAD ON IT THAT WASN'T INCLUDED. 
          AND THERE'S NOTHING TO STOP THAT FROM HAPPENING AS PART OF THE PROCESS. 
          ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON 66. 
          READY THOSE IN FAVOR OF 66, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. 
          THOSE POSED SHOULD ANIMOUS ON THE DICE. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          WE DID. 
          OKAY. 
          WELL, AGAIN, IT'S UNANIMOUS. 
          UH, BUT THEN, BUT THEN, AND THEN THAT'S ALL RIGHT THEN. 
          UH, BUT THEN THE COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER, MADISON RECOGNIZED OR POINTED OUT TO ME THAT SHE WAS, HAD HER HAND RAISED AND I DIDN'T CALL ON HER. 
          SO WE DOUBLED BACK. 
          ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO ONTO THE NEXT ITEM NOW. 
          [124. Approve a resolution initiating City Code amendments to the East Sixth/Pecan Street Combining District Regulations.]
ALL RIGHT. 
          I THINK THAT GETS US UP TO, UM, WHAT IS IT? 1 24 AS WE HAVE A HOPPER MADISON MAYOR, DO YOU WANT TO TAKE 81ST OR A SUIT? 1 24 REAL FAST BY 24. 
          COUNCILMEMBER HOPPER, MADISON. 
          THANK YOU, MARY. 
          I APPRECIATE IT. 
          UM, THE SIXTH STREET ITEM IS ONE THAT I'M CERTAIN, WE ALL BEEN GETTING A LOT OF EMAILS ABOUT. 
          UM, AND SO, UH, I, I'M PRETTY HAPPY TO BE BRINGING THE ITEM FORWARD. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S ONE OF OUR OLDEST AND MOST ICONIC PARTS OF THE CITY. 
          AND SO IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT AS SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES HAVE ALREADY RECOGNIZED THAT WE DO AS MUCH AS WE CAN TO MAKE IT AS VIBRANT AND ROBUST AS POSSIBLE. 
          SO, UH, I'M MOVING THAT WE, UM, UH, BREAK FORWARD ITEM NUMBER 24. 
          OKAY. 
          CATHERINE, WE'RE TOPO. 
          YOU PULLED THIS COUNCIL MEMBER HOPPER, MADISON MOVES, PASSAGE OF ITEM NUMBER 24 OR SECOND TO THAT COUNCIL MEMBER, KELLY SECONDS ADD CAUSE WE WERE TOBO. 
          YOU PULLED THIS. 
          I DID. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER, MADISON TALKED ABOUT THE HISTORIC NATURE OF IT, AND I'VE PASSED 
          [08:20:01]
OUT A MOTION SHEET THAT, THAT ACTUALLY TALKS ABOUT THAT HISTORIC NATURE. 
          AND THE FACT THAT THIS IS WITHIN A NATIONAL REGISTER HISTORIC DISTRICT. 
          ONE OF THE VERY FEW THAT WE HAVE HERE IN AUSTIN, UM, I CAN TALK ABOUT THESE AMENDMENTS OR NOT, BUT, UM, I'LL JUST LEAVE IT OUT THERE FOR NOW, BUT THIS WILL ENSURE THAT WE GET, WE ACTUALLY GET A HISTORIC REVIEW, WHICH I THINK IS APPROPRIATE, NECESSARY, CRITICAL. 
          UM, THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THE APPLICANT OR THE ATTORNEY FOR THE APPLICANT HAS REVIEWED THE AMENDMENTS AND IS COMFORTABLE WITH THEM. 
          THIS IS, YOU KNOW, TO KIND OF SET THIS STAGE. 
          I MEAN, THIS IS, UH, A CODE AMENDMENT THAT HAS BEEN REQUESTED BY AN APPLICANT WHO OWNS BLOCKS OF, OF SIXTH STREET AND HAS INITIATED, UM, OR REQUESTED THE INITIATION OF THESE CODE AMENDMENTS TO CONSTRUCT A REDEVELOPMENT. 
          IS IT THE APPLICANT AGENTS HERE? ARE YOU OKAY WITH THESE AMENDMENTS? I REMEMBER AS THE COUNCIL, MY NAME'S RICHARD SETTLE, I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE UPSTREAM PROPOSING THESE AND YES, WE'RE OKAY WITH THE AMENDMENTS. 
          I GO ANY FURTHER, ANY OBJECTION TO THESE AMENDMENTS BEING INCLUDED HERE? YES. 
          CAN WE CHANGE ONE WORD IN THE ORDINANCE OF, SHE SAID IT'S ALREADY AT, HEY, I'M SORRY, BUT JUST CHANGE THE WORD APPLICANT TO DEVELOPER ON, UM, WHERE IT SAYS AFTER LINE 16 IS WE TRULY DON'T HAVE AN APPLICANT. 
          THIS IS THE CURRENT LIMIT. 
          SO I THINK DEVELOPER WOULD BE BETTER WORD. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU, MR. . 
          IN FACT, YOU SHOULD PROBABLY SAY, YOU ALREADY SAY A DEVELOPER IN DENS RATHER THAN THE DEVELOPER. 
          WELL, IT IS, BUT IT IS A VERY PARTICULAR, I MEAN, THIS IS A CODE AMENDMENT THAT IS RESPONDING TO A VERY PARTICULAR REQUEST FROM A SPECIFIC DEVELOPER. 
          SO I THINK WE SHOULD BE TRANSPARENT ABOUT, BUT IS IT, BUT DOES IT SAY THAT IN THE, IN THE BODY OF THIS, I MEAN, IT'S ASKING FOR A WIDER STUDY. 
          I MAY, I MAY, I MAY REMEMBER IT WRONG, THE BASE DOCUMENT. 
          IT DOES NOT. 
          AND FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH MERIT, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW THAT I BELIEVE THAT THAT'S NECESSARY. 
          I THINK WE FIND INSPIRATION OFTEN FROM A MULTITUDE OF SOURCES AND WE DON'T ALWAYS MAKE REFERENCE TO THAT AS A PART OF THE, THE PROCESS OF ADOPTING, UM, THE ITEM. 
          SO I THINK FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, WE CAN ACCOMPLISH WHAT WE'RE ATTEMPTING TO ACCOMPLISH, ESPECIALLY WITH COUNCIL MEMBER, TOVO HIS AMENDMENTS ACCEPTED BY THE APPLICANT? UM, I PERSONALLY, I MEAN, I HAVE A FEW REMARKS I'D LIKE TO MAKE, BUT I THINK WE CAN MOVE FORWARD. 
          OKAY. 
          WELL, JUST KEEP IT WE'LL CHANGE APPLICANT TO DEVELOPER, UH, ANY OBJECTION TO THIS AMENDMENT BEING INCLUDED CAFE, THERE'S ANOTHER REFERENCE TO APPLICANT TO IF THEY COULD CHANGE BOTH OF THE REFERENCES TO, FROM APPLICANT TO DEVELOPER. 
          SO THAT IT'S NOT THE SAME. 
          I JUST HAVE A QUESTION IF IN OUR DISCUSSIONS RELATED TO INITIATING CODE AMENDMENTS, SUCH AS THIS, IF IT REALLY MAKES ANY DIFFERENCE WHERE IT COMES FROM, UM, I'M NOT SURE THAT I'VE EVER EXPERIENCED THIS TYPE OF INITIATION AND SORRY, I JUST WANT THE PUBLIC TO ALSO UNDERSTAND IF IT MATTERS HOW WE GOT TO THIS POINT, IF WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH A GOAL, UM, REGARDLESS OF WHERE IT COMES FROM, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. 
          OKAY. 
          I THINK IT DOES INFORM ME. 
          I THINK THAT FOR THE OVERALL SAFETY AND CULTURE AND, AND I BELIEVE SADIE, I THINK THERE'VE BEEN A LOT OF US THAT FOR YEARS HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT ENCOURAGING, UH, MORE FAMILY USES ON THAT STREET. 
          SO I THINK THIS HAPPENS IN THIS WITHOUT ANY DEVELOPER MOVING FORWARD, BUT I'M HAPPY THAT THERE IS SOMEONE INDICATING INTEREST. 
          AND I APPRECIATE THAT BECAUSE TO ME IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT VEHICLE THE, UH, INITIATION COMES TO COUNCIL WITH. 
          IF COLLECTIVELY WE AGREE IT'S A GOOD THING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH. 
          WE ABSOLUTELY SHOULD DO THAT GOOD POINT. 
          UM, I JUST WANT TO SPEAK ON THE PROCESS, CAUSE I'M REALLY UNCOMFORTABLE ABOUT AN AMENDMENT, UH, AN INITIATIVE OF THIS MAGNITUDE BEING INITIATED BY COUNCIL WITHOUT THE COUNCIL MEMBER, WHOSE DISTRICT IT'S IN BEING PART OF THE QUORUM. 
          UM, THAT IS NOT A PRECEDENT THAN I AM REAL COMFORTABLE WITH. 
          UM, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT HAPPENED OR, OR WHATEVER. 
          UM, BUT I THINK THAT'S REALLY UNFORTUNATE. 
          UM, PEOPLE ARE ELECTED TO REPRESENT THEIR DISTRICT AND THEY HAVE SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE AND IT'S SOMETHING ON THIS MAGNITUDE. 
          UM, THAT REALLY, UM, SHOULD BE PART OF WHAT, OF WHAT WE SEE. 
          OKAY. 
          WE HAVE A ITEM ON 24 HAS ADMITTED. 
          I WANT TO THANK MY COLLEAGUE AND JUST SAY IT CERTAINLY INTRODUCES A NEW PRECEDENT. 
          OKAY. 
          WE HAVE 1 24 HAS BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED HAS BEEN AMENDED AND FURTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE WE VOTE COUNTS. 
          REMEMBER HARPER, MADISON. 
          THANK YOU, MARY. 
          I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          UM, I DID HAVE A FEW MORE 
          [08:25:01]
WORDS I'D LIKE TO SHARE, BUT BRIEFLY I'LL, I'LL RESPOND TO, TO MAYOR PRO TEMPS CONCERNS. 
          AND, UM, JUST SAY, UH, YOU KNOW, THE, THERE WAS A LOT OF CONSIDERATION THAT WENT INTO THE PROCESS AND I'M HAPPY TO SHARE WITH YOU OFFLINE IF YOU'D LIKE TO KNOW EXACTLY, YOU KNOW, HOW WE CAME TO THE DECISION TO, UM, TO MOVE FORWARD. 
          LIKE WE DID, UM, INCLUDING, YOU KNOW, WHICH I'M HAPPY TO SHARE PUBLICLY, INCLUDING, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THIS DICE WILL LOOK LIKE NEXT YEAR. 
          UM, AND SO IN MY MIND'S EYE, THE BEST PATH FORWARD IS THE EASIEST WAY TO GET GOOD RESULTS, UM, WHEN THE TIME IS RIGHT. 
          AND SO, UM, ALL OF THOSE THINGS HAPPENED TO CULMINATE NOW. 
          UH, AND I SAID, YOU KNOW, I, I RECOGNIZE ESPECIALLY, YOU KNOW, BEING AN AUSTINITE AND HAVING SIXTH STREET BEING SO MUCH TO MY FORMATIVE EXPERIENCE AND HAVING, YOU KNOW, SIXTH STREET BE TRULY A PART OF, YOU KNOW, ME GROWING UP, UM, IN THIS CITY. 
          UH, I, I DO APPRECIATE THAT. 
          UM, THE DISTRICT IS NOT MINE BY WAY OF MY PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY, BUT IT VERY MUCH FEELS LIKE A PART OF ME, UM, AS A PERSON WHO'S FROM THE CITY. 
          AND SO, UM, WHILE I CAN APPRECIATE THERE'S NO PRECEDENT NECESSARILY I WILL, UM, REQUEST SOME GRACE, UH, AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT AS AN AUSTIN. 
          I, I MEAN, IT IT'S THE CITY CENTER AND IT, AND IT MEANS A LOT OF THINGS TO ME PERSONALLY, UM, WHICH WAS A LARGE PART OF WHY I DECIDED TO BRING THE ITEM FORWARD AND A LARGE PART OF, YOU KNOW, ME RECOGNIZING THAT PEOPLE FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD, YOU KNOW, COME TO THIS TOWN. 
          I I'VE BEEN ALL OVER THE WORLD AND TOLD PEOPLE TO GO TO STATE STREET. 
          IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S GROUND ZERO FOR SOUTH BY SOUTHWEST. 
          YOU KNOW, IT'S HAD MULTIPLE IDENTITIES OVER THE PAST TWO CENTURIES. 
          YOU KNOW, SOME OF THOSE THINGS ARE, ARE NOT PROUD MOMENTS FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN. 
          SOME OF THOSE THINGS ARE REALLY PROUD MOMENTS FOR, UH, PEOPLE OF AFRICAN DESCENT AFRICAN-AMERICANS AND, YOU KNOW, AND IN THE MIDDLE OF CENTRAL TEXAS, IT, THERE ARE A LOT OF SPECIAL, THERE IS RATHER A LOT OF SPECIAL SYMBOLISM IN THIS HISTORIC DISTRICT. 
          UM, AS COUNCIL MEMBER TOBO POINTED OUT, UH, BUT I'LL SAY, YOU KNOW, IN THE LAST SEVERAL DECADES AND, YOU KNOW, I WAS PROBABLY ON THE FRONT END OF THAT. 
          I'M MIGHT, YOU KNOW, IN MY HIGH SCHOOL DAYS, YOU KNOW, IT'S EVOLVED INTO A RAWKUS ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S LINED WITH SHOPPERS AND WE ALL KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS. 
          YOU KNOW, WHERE, WHERE ARE THE PROBLEMS WITH THAT GRIEF? I THINK MANY FOLKS HAVE BEEN TALKING FOR YEARS ABOUT TRYING TO TRANSFORM, UM, WHAT IS CURRENTLY SIXTH STREET INTO A MORE MIXED USE, MORE FAMILY FRIENDLY ENVIRONMENT. 
          YOU KNOW, I REMEMBER DISTINCTLY THE MOMENT WHERE I DECIDED IT WAS NOT OKAY TO BRING MY CHILDREN DOWNTOWN AFTER DARK. 
          UM, AND I'D LIKE FOR US TO FIX IT, YOU KNOW, AND I, I THINK WITH ALL KINDS OF BUSINESSES THAT ACTIVATE THE STREET, YOU KNOW, DAY AND NIGHT, WE'RE MORE INCLINED TO, TO GET CLOSER TO MEETING THAT GOAL. 
          SO I APPRECIATE COUNCIL MEMBER CIOBO HIS LEADERSHIP, UM, IN MULTIPLE WAYS, BUT ON THE EFFORTS TO ADDRESS SAFETY IN THIS AREA, UM, WE'RE DEFINITELY TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, UH, AND IT IS CLEARLY BECOME MORE OF AN ISSUE OVER THE YEARS. 
          SO I THINK MY RESOLUTION, UH, HERE WORKS HAND IN HAND WITH, WITH THAT, WITH THAT PREVIOUS EFFORT HAS PREVIOUS INTENTIONS AND COMMITMENT TO THE DISTRICT BY UNLOCKING LAND USE CONSTRAINTS THAT I THINK PREVENT MORE DIVERSE USES HERE. 
          OKAY. 
          ANY OTHER STATEMENTS ON THIS ITEM? YES. 
          YOU KNOW, GROWING UP HERE IN AUSTIN, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE A SITE WHERE WE'RE A SEGREGATED CITY AND THE AFRICAN-AMERICANS HAD ONE BLOCK SIDE OF THE BLOCK IN THAT AREA. 
          UH, THE MEXICAN AMERICAN PACK, ONE SIDE BLOCK RIGHT ACROSS THE RED STATE OR WHICH, YOU KNOW, AND YOU KNOW, THIS, THIS AND THE CHRISTIAN MUSLIMS HAD DERRICK SECTION RIGHT THERE ON RED RIVER. 
          AND WE HAD OUR BARS RIGHT THERE BY SIXTH STREET BY WALNUT CREEK. 
          AND, UH, YOU KNOW, IT WAS AN AREA WHERE ALL RACES COULD COME TOGETHER AND IT WAS AN AMAZING SET UP THE WAY IT WAS SET UP IN A SEGREGATED CITY. 
          LIKE IT WAS BACK THEN. 
          AND, UH, UH, WE WERE ALL GOT TO GO TOGETHER. 
          YOU KNOW, WE, WE HAD THERE THE BLACK BUSINESS THERE THEY HAD, BUT ON THE, ON THE EAST SIDE OF RED RIVER, IT WAS IN, UH, AN INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS CAR REPAIR, ALL KINDS OF SMALL BUSINESSES THAT, UH, JUST DIDN'T FIT IN THERE IN THAT AREA. 
          AND THAT'S WHAT, 
          [08:30:01]
WHERE WE'RE FACING RIGHT NOW. 
          WE'RE PACING AN AREA THERE THAT HAS BEEN EXERTED OVER A YEARS AFTER YEARS AFTER YEARS. 
          AND THEY HAVE BECOME KNOWN TO BE LITTLE CHEAP BARS THAT SELLS LIQUOR ALL NIGHT LONG, AND PEOPLE HANG OUT THERE LATE AT NIGHT, WE'RE HAVING SHOOTINGS STABBINGS DOWN THERE AND IT'S TIME THAT WE CLEAN UP THAT WHOLE AREA. 
          UH, AND, AND THIS IS WHY I'M SUPPORTING THIS, UH, THE ONES THAT I HAVE HISTORIC SIGNIFICANT, THE BUILDING TO THAT WE SHOULD MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE PRESERVED AND THEY COULD BUILD BEHIND IT ALL ON TOP OF IT. 
          BUT, UH, IT WASN'T THE, THE GOOD SIDE OF DOWNTOWN. 
          IT WAS MORE LIKE A LITTLE RED LIGHT DISTRICT DOWN THERE. 
          SO, UH, UH, UM, I'M REALLY GONNA SUPPORT, THAT'S WHY I'M SUPPORTING THIS BECAUSE I THINK THAT WAS WALNUT CREEK AND THE INVESTMENT THAT WE'RE MAKING NOW THEY'RE ON WALNUT CREEK. 
          THIS IS THE HIGH OPPORTUNITY AREA WHERE WE CAN MAKE IT THE PLACE WHERE PEOPLE WANT TO COME AND VISIT, YOU KNOW, FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH. 
          I REALLY APPRECIATE THE HISTORICAL ANECDOTES AND PERSPECTIVE. 
          YOU GIVE US AN EYE WHEN THE DAY COMES IN. 
          YOU'RE NOT ON THIS COUNCIL ANYMORE. 
          THAT THAT INFORMATION IS GOING TO BE JUST SORELY MISSED. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I APPROACHED THEM. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, I JUST WANT TO EXPLAIN MY VOTE ON THIS. 
          I'M GOING TO ABSTAIN. 
          I BELIEVE THIS IS PROBABLY THE RIGHT PROCESS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH, BUT I'M UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE PROCESS. 
          AND I DO BELIEVE THAT WE NEED TO, UM, RESPECT THE EXPERTISE OF, OF DISTRICTS. 
          THAT DOESN'T MEAN SOMEONE HAS TO BE THE LEAD, BUT I, BUT I THINK THAT VOICE AND THAT INFORMATION SHOULD BE, SHOULD BE PART OF IT. 
          UM, I TOO BELIEVE WE NEED TO TAKE STEPS FORWARD, UM, ON SIXTH STREET, BUT I JUST WANTED TO EXPLAIN MY VOTE, UM, DUE TO THE PROCESS ON THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE I'M GONNA KIND OF COME OUT. 
          I JUST TAKE A VOTE THOSE IN FAVOR, SORRY, COUNCIL MEMBER TOPO. 
          YEAH. 
          I HAD COMMENTS, YOU KNOW, WE'VE SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON THIS DIOCESE OVER THE LAST YEAR TALKING ABOUT SIXTH STREET AND THERE ARE, AND MY COLLEAGUES ARRIVED. 
          I THINK COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER, MADISON, YOU SAID IT'S BEEN A GOAL FOR A LONG WHILE TO, OR ACTUALLY IT WAS THE MAYOR TO CHANGE THE USES. 
          AND THERE ARE ALL KINDS OF WAYS TO DO THAT. 
          THIS IS, UM, A CODE AMENDMENT THAT'S BEING INITIATED TO RESPOND TO A DEVELOPER'S PROPOSAL WHO OWNS 28 PROPERTIES. 
          CERTAINLY ONE OPTION WOULD BE TO LEASE OUT SOME OF THOSE PROPERTIES TO DIFFERENT KINDS OF USES. 
          YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT AS A PROPERTY OWNER. 
          I AM INTRIGUED CERTAINLY BY THE PROPOSAL I'VE MET WITH THE DEVELOPER MULTIPLE TIMES. 
          I APPRECIATE, I APPRECIATE THAT OUTREACH. 
          I'M INTERESTED IN SEEING MORE DETAILS AROUND THE COMMITMENTS THAT THEY'VE SAID THEY'LL MAKE TO STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS. 
          AND SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED FOR AWHILE, UM, AND SOME OF THE AMENDMENTS SPEAK TO THAT AND DIRECT THAT KIND OF WORK. 
          AND I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING THE RESULTS OF THAT. 
          BUT FOR ME, I REALLY, BECAUSE IT'S BEING PAIRED WITH SOME PRETTY EXTENSIVE DEMOLITIONS IN OUR NATIONAL REGISTER HISTORIC DISTRICT, I'M GOING TO RELY ON OUR PRESERVATION COMMUNITY FROM PRESERVATION AUSTIN, TO OUR LANDMARK COMMISSION, TO REALLY BETTER UNDERSTAND WHAT THE IMPACT IS GOING TO BE ON THE HISTORIC CHARACTER AND THE STORE FABRIC IN, IN WHAT IS A PRIME NATIONAL REGISTER HISTORIC DISTRICT. 
          SO I'M NOT PREPARED TO SUPPORT THIS TODAY. 
          I'M GOING TO HAVE TO STAIN AND CONSIDER IT CAREFULLY AS IT GOES THROUGH THE PROCESS. 
          OKAY. 
          I STARTED TO SUPPORT THIS RESOLUTION. 
          I THINK THAT, UH, BASICALLY WITH THE, UH, ADDED, UH, UH, LANGUAGE IN THIS, IT REALLY EQUATES TO A SMALLER AREA PLAN, UH, WHICH WE NEED TO BE DOING THIS PARTICULAR SMALL AREA PLAN, I THINK DESERVES THIS, UH, PRIORITY IN PART BECAUSE, UM, OF THE SAFETY ISSUES THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH, AND THIS HAS BEEN A LONG TIME GOAL TO REALLY DEAL WITH THIS AND THE OPPORTUNITY THAT WAS UNIQUELY PRESENTED ITSELF, UH, BECAUSE OF WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE MARKETPLACE. 
          UH, AND WITHOUT THAT, WE DON'T HAVE THE SAME, UH, OPPORTUNITY. 
          SO HAVING BEEN PRESENTED WITH THIS OPPORTUNITY AND HAVING PULLED BACK SO THAT IT'S NOT PRESCRIPTIVE, BUT REALLY ALLOWING FOR A SMALL AREA PLAN. 
          AND I, AND I ABSOLUTELY AGREE THAT NOW'S THE TIME TO BRING IN THE EXPERTISE THAT WE HAVE ON STAFF FROM ALL DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS, UH, TO, TO HELP WITH THIS, I'M GOING TO VOTE FOR IT BECAUSE WE'RE TOPO. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I FORGOT THAT. 
          I HAD A QUESTION FOR THE SPONSOR ABOUT THIS LAST RESOLVED, WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT THE SMALL AREA PLAN. 
          THERE'S A, THE FIRST LINE TALKS ABOUT AS PART OF THE ORDINANCE PROCESS, THE CITY STAFF STAKEHOLDERS, RELEVANT COMMISSIONS, AND THE PUBLIC MAY CONSIDER POTENTIAL AND REGULATED AND RELATED REGULATION OR ORDINANCE CHANGES IN ADDITION TO, OR INSTEAD OF THOSE ABOVE. 
          I'M NOT SURE, I'M NOT SURE WHAT THAT MEANS IN THE CONTEXT OF INITIATING CODE AMENDMENTS. 
          DOES THAT MEAN THAT MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC 
          [08:35:01]
CAN SUGGEST OTHER CODE AMENDMENTS ALONG THE WAY? AND THEY'LL GET FOLDED FOLDED INTO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROCESS? WHAT IS, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR THE SPONSOR, BUT FOR ME WHAT THIS, I DUNNO. 
          I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          CAN YOU REPEAT THAT? THE LANGUAGE, UM, BEGINNING ON PAGE 33, I MEAN, ONLINE 33 SAYS AS PART OF THE ORDINANCE PROCESS INITIATED ABOVE THE CITY STAFF STAKEHOLDERS, RELEVANT COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC MAY CONSIDER POTENTIAL AND RELATED REGULATION OR ORDINANCE CHANGES IN ADDITION TO, OR INSTEAD OF THOSE DESCRIBED ABOVE, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE ROLE OF THE PUBLIC IS. 
          THERE IS THE ROLE, ARE YOU, ARE YOU DESCRIBING THE PUBLIC PROCESS? THAT IS THE SAME AS WHAT WE WOULD ORDINARILY FOLLOW IN A CODE AMENDMENT THAT THEY CAN GO AND PROVIDE FEEDBACK AT THE BOARDS, OR ARE YOU ACTUALLY SUGGESTING, SUGGESTING THAT THE PUBLIC CAN CONSIDER POTENTIAL AND REGULATED REGULATION AND ORDINANCE CHANGES? IN ADDITION TO WHAT YOU'VE DESCRIBED HERE, THIS IS WHAT THE LANGUAGE SAYS THAT IN ADDITION TO WHAT'S DESCRIBED HERE, THE PUBLIC, IT SOUNDS LIKE THE PUBLIC CAN SUGGEST OTHER KINDS OF CODE AMENDMENTS AND ASK THAT THEY ALSO BE INCLUDED IN THE PROCESS. 
          UM, I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT WE DO ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF THE PARAMETERS OF WHAT WE WOULD NORMALLY DO IN TERMS OF PUBLIC INPUT AND CONTRIBUTION TO THE PROCESS. 
          SO YOUR LANGUAGE THERE IS INTENDED JUST TO REFER TO THE PUBLIC, PROVIDING FEEDBACK ABOUT THE AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN INITIATED, NOT WOULD YOU WORD THAT DIFFERENTLY IN ORDER TO CONVEY THAT I PROBABLY WOULD HAVE TALKED ABOUT IT IN TERMS OF PUBLIC FEEDBACK, UM, RATHER THAN THE PUBLIC CONSIDERING OTHER, YOU KNOW, OTHER POTENTIAL RELATED REGULATION AND ORDINANCE CHANGES. 
          I UNDERSTAND IT THE, TO GIVE THEM THE ABILITY TO GO BEYOND THE PRESCRIPTION IS CONTAINED IN THIS MORE IN THE NATURE OF A SMALL AREA PLAN. 
          SO IT CAN GO BEYOND AND BE DIFFERENT THAN WHAT'S PRESCRIBED HERE. 
          UH, BUT IT'S TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IS THE BEST WAY FROM A PLANNING PERSPECTIVE TO LOOK AT THIS STRETCH OF ROADWAY. 
          SO THIS THE THINGS THAT ARE LISTED IN HERE, GOOD GUIDES COULD COME BACK THAT WAY, BUT MAYBE NOT AS IT GOES THROUGH THE PROCESS. 
          SO I SEE THIS AS BEING MORE OPEN-ENDED THAN A SPECIFIC DIRECTION TO AUTHORIZE AN INITIATE AN ORDINANCE, UH, TO, TO REPLAN THIS AREA IN A PARTICULAR WAY. 
          ALSO, I, I GUESS, UH, THE, SO AS I'M READING THIS AND I'M SEEING WHAT, HOW THE WORDS MATTER, THE CITY STAFF COMPONENT, THE RELEVANT COMMISSIONS COMPONENT. 
          SO WHEN WE GO ON TO SAY, UM, LAND USE IN THE DISTRICT, THIS COULD INCLUDE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AN ALTERNATE OR ADDITIONAL SMALL AREA PLAN. 
          SO I, I THINK, UM, IT'S IMPORTANT TO SORT OF POINT OUT THAT THERE'S DIFFERENT SYMBOLISM FOR DIFFERENT MEMBERS OF THIS GROUP. 
          WELL, THAT'S INCLUDED, SO CITY STAFF STAKEHOLDERS, RELEVANT COMMISSIONS AND PUBLIC. 
          SO, YOU KNOW, THE CITY STAFF AND THE PUBLIC OBVIOUSLY HAVE DIFFERENT ROLES, DO THEY OPERATE IN DIFFERENT CAPACITIES? AND SO I'D SAY THE PART ABOUT, UM, THE, UH, CONSIDER POTENTIAL AND RELATED REGULATION OR ORDINANCE CHANGES IN ADDITION TO, OR INSTEAD OF THOSE DESCRIBED ABOVE, I WOULD SAY THAT'S THE CITY STAFF RELEVANT COMMISSIONS MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS. 
          AND MY HOPE IS THAT THAT IS TO SOME DEGREE, UM, INSPIRED BY INFLUENCED BY, UM, THE CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDERS WHO AREN'T A PART OF THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON ITEM. 
          CAN I ASK ABOUT HOW WOULD A PLAN GET INITIATED AS DESCRIBED? AND THIS MIGHT BE A QUESTION FOR MR. RESTHAVEN IF THERE WERE TO BE A SMALL AREA PLAN, CAN THAT GET INITIATED WITH THIS ACTION, OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT THE, THAT THE COUNCIL OR THE PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD NEED TO INITIATE AS A SEPARATE ACTION? ARE YOU ASKING, I'M SORRY, CAN JURY'S COMING TO THE DIET? I WAS JUST ASKING, I WAS ASKING, UH, JERRY, WHETHER WHETHER THIS ACTION IS ENOUGH TO INITIATE A SMALL AREA PLAN, OR WHETHER THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WOULD NEED TO BE INITIATED AS A SEPARATE ACTION, EITHER BY COUNCIL OR THE PLANNING COMMISSION. 
          I CAN TELL YOU COUNSEL, UM, SMALLER PLANTS HAVE IN THE PAST BEEN INITIATED BY NODDING FROM COUNCIL. 
          SO, UM, IF IT WORKS BE INCORPORATED INTO AN IDEA FROM COUNCIL, IT COULD BE DONE THAT WAY, BUT WOULD YOU, WOULD YOU, 
          [08:40:01]
WE'RE NOT EXACTLY INITIATING. 
          I MEAN, THAT'S NOT REALLY WHAT THIS LAST PASSAGE IS DOING. 
          IT'S KIND OF SAYING IF ALONG THE WAY, OTHERS SUGGEST THAT THAT'S A GOOD APPROACH. 
          IT COULD THEN BECOME THE APPROACH IS IF I'M UNDERSTANDING THIS CORRECTLY, BUT THAT WOULD STILL THEN NEED ANOTHER ACTION FROM THE COUNTY. 
          GENERALLY, WE WOULD GENERALLY LIKE TO HAVE SPECIFIC DIRECTION TO DIVA AND ENGAGE IN A PLANNING ENDEAVOR, COME TO CASTLE WITH THE COMMISSION. 
          SO IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT WOULD THEN NEED TO BE AN ACTION THAT TAKES PLACE AT COUNCIL. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          TAKE A VOTE THOUGH. 
          I DON'T KNOW WHO ADDED THIS, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THIS WAS COUNCIL MEMBER PEPPER MEDICINE, OR IF IT WAS ONE OF THE CO-SPONSORS, BUT IF THERE IS AN INTENT TO HAVE A SMALL AREA PLAN, I THINK THAT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE. 
          AND I THINK THAT BY READING THIS IS THAT THEY CAN COME BACK AND RECOMMEND THAT. 
          OR IF THE PROCESS ENABLED THEM TO COME UP WITH A PLAN AND DIRECTION, THEY CAN COME BACK WITH THAT. 
          BUT THEY'RE NOT LIMITED TO JUST THE PRESCRIPTIVE THINGS THAT WERE DESCRIBED HERE. 
          I THINK THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          AND I DON'T REMEMBER 25, THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND AT BEST 1 24, 1 24. 
          THANK YOU. 
          1 24. 
          RAISE YOUR HAND. 
          THOSE THE POETS THERE'S AN ATMOS ON THE DIE. 
          NO, I'M SORRY. 
          TWO ABSTENTIONS WAS OVER. 
          IT WAS A MAYOR PRO TEM AND COUNCIL MEMBER TOBA ABSTAINING, OTHERS VOTING. 
          AYE. 
          IT PASSES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          WELL, I THINK TWO THINGS THAT ARE LEFT. 
          LET'S DO, UH, VMU 
          [80. Conduct a public hearing and consider an ordinance amending City Code Chapter 25-2, Subchapter E, Section 4.3 relating to Vertical Mixed Use buildings.]
ITEM NUMBER 80, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER. 
          THERE'S A, UM, DRAFT ORDINANCE THAT HAS COME BACK FROM STAFF IN RESPONSE TO THE RESOLUTION WE PASSED LAST FALL. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN HAS PROPOSED, UM, UM, AMENDMENTS TO THAT AND HAS REQUESTED THAT THAT'D BE USED AS THE BASE MOTION THAT WE CONSIDER. 
          AND I'M GOING TO TREAT IT THAT WAY, BUT THEN WE'LL GO THROUGH COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN'S AMENDMENTS, UH, TO SEE AND TAKE A VOTE ON WHETHER OR NOT TO, TO, TO INCLUDE THEM COUNTS OF EVER KITCHEN. 
          UH, YES, UH, MAYOR, I'D LIKE TO MAKE THE MOTION AND THEN, UH, EXPLAIN A BIT ABOUT WHAT'S IN HERE SO PEOPLE WILL UNDERSTAND IT. 
          THAT'S FINE. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, I MOVE, I MOVE, UH, PASSAGE OF, UM, THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION, WHICH IS MARKED AT THE TOP AS HOUSING AND PLANNING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION. 
          VMU OKAY. 
          NOT QUITE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION, CAUSE IT'S THE FIRST ONE OUT. 
          OH, IT IS JUST THAT'S OKAY. 
          IT JUST THE MOTION. 
          UH, IT IS SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER POOL. 
          EVERY KITCHEN YOU CAN SPEAK TO IT FIRST. 
          OKAY. 
          BY WAY OF EXPLANATION, UH, THIS IS THE VERSION THAT I PASSED OUT TO EVERYONE. 
          IT IS IN BACKUP NOTED AS THE VERSION THAT WAS VOTED OUT OF THE HOUSING AND PLANNING COMMITTEE AS A RECOMMENDATION. 
          AND IT SAYS CORRECTED OUT OF AFTER IT, BECAUSE WE HAD TO. 
          YEAH. 
          SO YOU ALL HAVE THAT IN FRONT OF YOU. 
          UM, THERE ARE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THIS VERSION AND WHAT THE STAFF BROUGHT BACK OR YELLOWED. 
          SO YOU CAN TELL THAT THERE ARE ALSO DIFFERENCES THAT ARE IN A DARK BLUE, AND THOSE ARE THE AMENDMENTS FROM COUNCIL MEMBER BAYLA THAT WE, THAT I ACCEPTED IN THE HOUSING AND PLANNING COMMITTEE AND THE HOUSING PLANNING COMMITTEE VOTED OUT. 
          SO THAT, THAT SHOULD GIVE YOU AN EXPLANATION OF WHAT THE DIFFERENCES ARE. 
          SO I KNOW ALSO THAT A NUMBER OF PEOPLE HAVE OTHER AMENDMENTS AND I HAVE ONE OTHER AMENDMENT TO, SO, UH, MAYOR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO GO THROUGH THIS DOCUMENT FIRST AND THEN TAKE UP OTHER AMENDMENTS? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, UM, WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO TALK THROUGH EACH SECTION OR HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO DO THIS? WE COULD, UH, OR, OR NOW YOU'VE TALKED TO A GENERALLY SPEAK TO GENERALLY SEE PEOPLE WANT TO SPEAK TO A GENERALLY AND THEN WE'LL JUST GO THROUGH THE PAGES AND WE'LL HIT THE HIGHLIGHTED YELLOW AND THE ISLAND BLUE THINGS. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          SO FOR ME, I'M PROBABLY I'M GOING TO VOTE FOR THE STAFF'S PROPOSED RESOLUTION MEAN THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE, BECAUSE I THINK IT REFLECTS WHAT IT WAS THAT WE SAID WE WANTED TO DO. 
          MOST IMPORTANTLY, I THINK IT KEEPS VMU, UH, HAPPENING AS A MATTER OF RIGHT. 
          UH, WHICH I THINK IS, IS, IS, UM, A THRESHOLD FOR ME. 
          I THINK IF WE DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN VMU BY RIGHTS, WE'RE NOT MEETING THE, THE MOMENT THAT WE HAVE THE, THE ROW CHALLENGE, THAT EXISTENTIAL CHALLENGE WE HAVE WITH AN IMMEDIATE NEED TO DO HOUSING. 
          [08:45:01]
AND I THINK IT WOULD BE JUST A HUGE, INSIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE. 
          SO I'M GOING TO VOTE AGAINST THE CHANGES THAT HAVE ANYTHING OTHER THAN THIS BEING JUST A CHANGE WITHIN THE, THE VMU, UH, UH, SO ZONED CATEGORY. 
          SO MAYOR THERE ARE MORE CHANGES THAT ARE, THAT DO NOT, DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER IT'S BY RIDE OR NOT. 
          THE CONCERN THAT YOU'RE RAISING ABOUT THE BUY-RITE PROCESS IS IN THE VERY LAST SECTION. 
          SO WHY DON'T WE TALK ABOUT THAT FIRST? WELL, WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT. 
          AND I THINK THAT IT'S, AS I WAS GOING TO GO ON, I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THE COMPATIBILITY THAT WE JUST PASSED IN 66. 
          AND I THINK THAT THAT'S WHAT THE COMPATIBILITY PROVISION SHOULD BE. 
          CAUSE IT'LL APPLY TO THIS, UH, WHEN, WHEN 66 COMES BACK AS A, AS AN ORDINANCE, UH, BECAUSE IT'S, UH, AFFORDABILITY PROVISION. 
          UH, AND THEN I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE KEEP TO THE PERCENTAGES THAT WERE ORIGINALLY PROPOSED BY STAFF. 
          AND I SAY THAT ALMOST BECAUSE WE JUST DON'T HAVE THE, UM, SO, SO, SO MAYOR, WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS I WOULD LIKE TO GO SECTION BY SECTION BECAUSE, AND I WOULD LIKE TO VOTE ON EACH SECTION. 
          THAT'S WHAT I WAS PROPOSING. 
          I THINK THAT THAT'S A BETTER WAY TO DO THAT. 
          UM, SO LET'S BE SPECIFIC. 
          SO LET'S START WITH THE ONE THAT IS, UH, DO PEOPLE NEED A MOMENT OR SHOULD I CONTINUE? HUH. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SO, UM, LET'S START WITH THE ONE AT THE END, UM, WHICH IS ON PAGE NINE, IT'S PART FIVE. 
          SO WHAT PART FIVE DOES, IS IT CREATES IT SPECIFIES WHAT THE PUBLIC, WHAT THE PUBLIC PROCESS IS FOR VMU TO NOW REMEMBER THAT THAT ONLY APPLIES TO, UM, TO, UM, PROPERTIES THAT ARE ALREADY ZONED VMU. 
          SO WHAT IT IS SAYING IS THAT TO ADD VMU TO, TO, TO, UH, PROPERTY THAT'S ALREADY ZONED V THAT THE PROCESS WOULD BE, UM, A ZONING PROCESS, ESSENTIALLY, WHICH CARRIES WITH IT A NOTICE, UM, INDIVIDUAL NOTICE TO, UM, PROPERTIES WITHIN A CERTAIN DISTANCE AND ALSO, UM, THE RIGHT TO PROTEST. 
          SO THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE. 
          UM, AND WHAT I WANT TO SAY, I WANT TO SAY HOW I GOT TO THIS POINT. 
          I REALLY, I REALLY BELIEVE THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, FIRST LET ME SAY THAT VMU IS A PROGRAM THAT WAS CREATED IN COLLABORATION WITH RESIDENTS OR RESIDENTS THROUGHOUT THE CENTRAL CITY IDENTIFIED PROPERTIES ALONG CORRIDORS THAT WERE, THAT THEY REALLY WANTED TO DESIGNATE FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          SO THIS WAS A, A COMMUNITY EFFORT THAT WAS THAT CREATED VMU. 
          SO I BELIEVE THAT TO, TO ME, IT'S FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS AND RESPECT FOR THE PUBLIC. 
          I BELIEVE THAT FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS AND RESPECT FOR THE PUBLIC REQUIRES THAT PEOPLE BE NOTIFIED WHEN LAND USE AROUND THEIR HOMES IS BEING CHANGED SO THAT THEY CAN EXERCISE THEIR RIGHT TO BE INVOLVED IN THE DECISION. 
          IF THERE IS CONCERN ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR APPROACH, YOU KNOW, THE ZONING APPROACH, IF THERE'S, IF THE ZONING APPROACH IS CONSIDERED TO BE, UM, YOU KNOW, TOO COMPLICATED, TOO EXPENSIVE, TOO COSTLY, UH, THEN LET'S TALK ABOUT ANOTHER APPROACH, BUT TO SUGGEST THAT BY RIGHT, WE'RE GOING TO SAY THAT THESE ORIGINAL PROPERTIES CAN GO TO 90 FEET, UM, IN LIGHT OF, AND ALSO HAVE, UH, CHANGES TO COMPATIBILITY. 
          BUT PEOPLE WHO LIVE NEAR THESE PROPERTIES ARE NOT HAVE NO RIGHT TO BE NOTIFIED THAT THEY'RE NEAR PROPERTY OR TO HAVE ANY PARTICIPATION IN PUBLIC. 
          AND IN THE PUBLIC PROCESS. 
          I, FOR ME PERSONALLY, I UNDERSTAND THAT PEOPLE MIGHT DISAGREE, BUT FOR ME PERSONALLY, I DON'T SEE HOW WE CAN DO THAT. 
          AND I HAVE PROPOSED THIS APPROACH. 
          I'VE ALSO SUGGESTED THAT THERE ARE OTHER APPROACHES FOR PUBLIC PROCESS. 
          WE COULD CONSIDER A CUP PROCESS, WHICH WE'VE DONE FOR OTHER THINGS. 
          BUT IF WE, IF WE STRIKE, 
          [08:50:01]
IF WE STRIKE SECTION SECTION FIVE, OR IF THE COUNCIL CHOOSES TO STRIKE SECTION FIVE, THEN WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IN EFFECT IS THAT THESE CHANGES GO INTO EFFECT. 
          PEOPLE HAVE NO RIGHT TO BE NOTIFIED ABOUT THIS CHANGE NEAR THEIR HOUSE, NOR DO THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT IT. 
          AND TO ME, THAT IS FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR. 
          SO, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO VOTE IT IF YOU MAY, OR IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION TO DELETE THIS, LET'S, THAT'S FINE. 
          LET'S HAVE A CONVERSATION AND LET'S VOTE ON IT. 
          OKAY. 
          I WOULD MOVE, WE KEEP THE, UH, WAY THAT THE STAFF HAD ORIGINALLY PROPOSED IT. 
          SO MAYOR, THAT'S NOT THAT'S THE MOTION IS TO, IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION, I WOULD SAY STRIKE PART FIVE. 
          CAUSE THAT'S WHAT, THAT'S WHAT IT WOULD DO, WHAT YOU WANT TO DO. 
          I UNDERSTAND THAT MY EMOTION GOT AN WELL, I MEAN, MY, MY MOTION IS TO STRIKE BY, IS TO KEEP IT BY. 
          RIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT'S JUST STRIKE PART FIVE. 
          IF YOU DO THAT, I MOVED TO STRIKE PART FIVE. 
          IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION MAYOR PRO TEM SEC, IS IT A DISCUSSION? LET'S TAKE A VOTE THOSE IN FAVOR OF STRIKING PART FIVE, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. 
          UM, VELA MAYOR PRO TEM, UH, ALLAH, A RENTER, UH, ME, THAT WAS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. 
          THOSE IN FAVOR, THOSE AGAINST THOSE AGAINST PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND AGAINST MY AMENDMENT. 
          IT IS, UH, UH, KITCHEN. 
          UM, UH, TOVO GET SHIT THOUGH. 
          VOTE POOL AND KELLY. 
          SO SEVEN FOR THE AMENDMENT PASSES. 
          WAS IT SEVEN? I ONLY COUNTED SIX WHERE THERE SEVEN WITH SEVEN WITH THE ONES ON. 
          OH, OKAY. 
          SO IT'S SEVEN, FOUR. 
          OKAY. 
          LET'S MOVE ON. 
          WAIT, COUNCIL MEMBER TOVA DID YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING? YEAH, I DIDN'T HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK BEFORE WE TOOK THE VOTE, BUT I JUST WANTED TO UNDERSCORE WHAT YOU HAD TO SAY AND, AND YOU KNOW, THIS IS, I MEAN, I WAS GLAD TO BE A CO-SPONSOR ON IT. 
          IT, IT CAUSED, UM, LOTS OF QUESTIONS AND WE ASSURED FOLKS THAT THIS WAS WELL IN ANY CASE. 
          I JUST THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE STICK TO WHAT WE HAVE HEARD AGAIN AND AGAIN, FROM THE PUBLIC THAT THEY WANT US TO DO, WHICH IS TO NOTIFY THEM AND TO OFFER THEM THE OPPORTUNITY WHEN, WHEN DEVELOPMENT, WHEN THERE ARE PROPOSALS THAT ARE SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT THAN THE ZONING ON THE GROUND, THEY WANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THEM AS, AS MY COLLEAGUES SAID. 
          AND I THINK IT'S, UM, IT'S A GRAVE CONCERN TO ME THAT WE'RE, WE'RE MOVING FORWARD POTENTIALLY WITH THAT VOTE IN A WAY THAT, UM, DOESN'T ALLOW FOLKS THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE PETITION RIGHTS. 
          OKAY. 
          LET'S MOVE ON TO THE NEXT, THE BEGINNING AT THE BEGINNING. 
          YES. 
          YES. 
          RIGHT HERE. 
          OKAY. 
          APOLOGIES. 
          UM, THERE ARE ADDITIONAL REFERENCES IN PART ONE THAT WE WOULD NEED TO STRIKE TO MAKE YOUR AMENDMENT, UM, IN PART OF REMOVING PART FIVE EFFECTIVE CALL THOSE OUT. 
          SO WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT, UM, THE EDITS IN PART ONE. 
          OKAY. 
          AND WAS YOUR HIGHLIGHTED PROPERTIES DESIGNATED AS V2? AND THEN IN PART TWO, 4.3 0.2, WE HAVE AN, A REFERENCE TO, UM, THE SECTION THAT WAS CREATED IN PART FIVE. 
          SO WE WOULD NEED TO STRIKE THAT AS WELL. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, UH, AND I WOULD IMAGINE IT'S GOING TO BE THE SAME VOTE TO STRIKE. 
          WE DON'T NEED TO VOTE ON THAT. 
          SO PART ONE AMENDMENT HIGHLIGHTED COMES OUT 4.3 0.6 COMES OUT IN 4.3, TWO. 
          ANYTHING ELSE? WHAT ABOUT SUBPART D? UH, NO, WE NEED TO KEEP D OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WE'LL MOVE ON TO THAT. 
          HANG ON, HANG ON. 
          SO STAFF LIKES, UH, PART THE D IN THAT, THAT ADDITION CHANGE, WE NEED TO KEEP THAT IT'S, IT'S NOT DEPENDENT ON THE V2 DESIGNATION. 
          WE HAVE IT IN THE STAFF VERSION AS WELL AS THIS VERSION, BECAUSE THE WAY THAT THE SECTION IS SET UP IN THE CODE, ARTICLE FOUR, IT USES THE REFERENCE VMU BUILDING. 
          SO WHY WAS, WHY IS THAT HIGHLIGHTED HERE IN YELLOW? IF IT'S ALREADY IN THIS? I APOLOGIZE. 
          IT WAS HIGHLIGHTED BECAUSE I MOVED IT FROM A DIFFERENT SECTION. 
          OKAY. 
          IS IT OKAY IN THIS SECTION OR SHOULD IT BE MOVED BACK TO THE OTHER SECTION? NO, IT'S FINE HERE. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          ANY OBJECTION TO HAVING D I'M NOT GOING TO MOVE TO TAKE THE OUT. 
          OKAY. 
          I WILL MOVE TO TAKE OUT, PLEASE GO NEXT IN ORDER TO HAVE AN AMENDMENT. 
          I AM TAKING THESE IN ORDER AND I'M RUNNING THIS. 
          I 
          [08:55:01]
AM, I'M RUNNING THIS. 
          YOU'VE MADE YOUR MOTION NOW I'M MAKING AMENDMENTS AND MAYOR, IF YOU WOULD, IF YOU WOULD LET ME, I KNOW WHAT'S IN HERE IN TERMS OF SUBSTANCE. 
          AND I THINK IF WE CAN TAKE IT IN A CERTAIN ORDER, IT'LL MAKE MORE SENSE FOR FOLKS. 
          WHAT'S YOUR D WHAT, UH, I WOULD LIKE TO GO TO THE NEXT MAJOR SECTION. 
          WHAT ABOUT COMPATIBILITY IS IN PART THREE? I THOUGHT WE'D COME BACK TO THAT. 
          THAT'S NOT THE MAJOR DIFFERENCE. 
          IT IS A DIFFERENCE. 
          WE JUST PASSED A COMPATIBILITY SECTION IN 6 60, 66, AND I WOULD MOVE TO TAKE OUT THE COMPATIBILITY HERE. 
          SO THE COMPATIBILITY OF 66 APPLIES. 
          OKAY. 
          SO HERE'S WHAT I'LL SAY ABOUT THIS. 
          UH, THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT, THAT WE INCLUDED AS PART OF OUR HOUSING COMMITTEE, BECAUSE THIS IS AN ORDINANCE AND IT PROVIDED FOR, UH, MORE IMMEDIATE CHANGES. 
          AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT, UM, THAT WE TALKED ABOUT HELPING OUT WITH PROJECT CONNECT, BUT IT IS COUNCIL MEMBER VELOZ, UM, AMENDMENT. 
          SO I WILL LET HIM SPEAK TO IT. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH. 
          WE'D LIKE TO KEEP IT IN. 
          THIS DOES HAVE IMMEDIATE EFFECT, WHEREAS ITEM 66 DOES NOT HAVE A IMMEDIATE EFFECT AND GIVEN EVERYTHING THAT'S MOVING FORWARD WITH PROJECT CONNECT, UH, I WOULD LIKE TO, UH, ENCOURAGE THE CONSTRUCTION OF, UH, HOUSING ALONG THIS LINE WITH THE AFFORDABILITY BONUS IN VMU, AS SOON AS WE CAN POSSIBLY GET IT. 
          I UNDERSTAND THAT THE, THAT THE COMPATIBILITY PROVISIONS IN, UH, ITEM 66 ARE POTENTIALLY BROADER. 
          I'M EXCITED ABOUT THAT, BUT, UH, I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP THIS AGAIN, THIS IS LIMITED TO ONLY TO THE, UM, ORANGE AND BLUE ONLY TO PROPERTIES THAT TOUCH THAT LINE. 
          IT TO ME, UH, DOVETAILS VERY WELL WITH OUR BROADER TRANSIT AND HOUSING GOALS. 
          UH, AND IT'S, UH, IT WILL ULTIMATELY, I THINK HELP WITH REGARD TO PROJECT CONNECT, UH, AND PULLING IN FUNDING FROM THE FEDS AS WELL. 
          IN, IN PREPARING FOR THIS, WE TALKED TO LOTS OF FOLKS WITH IT, YOU KNOW, ATP, UM, UH, RANDY CLARK IN, IN PUBLIC INTERVIEWS HAS MADE THE SAME KIND OF STATEMENT SAYING THAT, YOU KNOW, WE REALLY NEED TO, IF WE WANT THIS PROJECT TO BE A SUCCESS, WE'VE GOT TO CHANGE OUR LAND USE PATTERNS SURROUNDING OUR, THE, THE TRENDS THAT, THAT, THAT WE'RE INVESTING IN. 
          SO I, I WOULD, UH, UH, OPPOSE, UH, REMOVING THE COMPATIBILITY SECTIONS FROM THE VM U2. 
          OKAY. 
          ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ISSUE, LET'S TAKE A VOTE OR WE HAVE COUNCIL MEMBER, THE MAYOR PRO TEM WITH US. 
          SO YOU RIGHT BACK, SHE WANTS TO GO GET SOME ICE CREAM. 
          SO, SO MAYOR, MAYOR, ARE YOU MAKING A MOTION TO REMOVE PART THREE? WHAT IS YOUR MOTION? I MADE A MOTION TO REMOVE PART THREE AND IT WAS SECONDED. 
          THE COUNSEL SANDRA WANTED TO SECOND THE MOTION TO STRIKE PART THREE OR NO, WITHOUT A SECOND. 
          IT'LL FAIL. 
          OKAY. 
          PART THREE STAYS IN. 
          LET'S GO TO THE NEXT SECTION. 
          OKAY. 
          THE NEXT NEXT SECTION IS THE PARKING SECTION ON PAGE THREE, WHICH IS ALSO COUNCIL MEMBER VELOZ, UM, AMENDMENT. 
          SO I'LL LET HIM SPEAK TO THAT AGAIN. 
          THAT'S A, IT'S A, THE COMPANION VERSION TO WHAT WE HAD JUST DISCUSSED. 
          AND, UH, I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP IT IN THE SAME REASONS, SAME LOGIC, SAME EVERYTHING. 
          OKAY. 
          DOES ANYBODY ELSE WANT TO TAKE OUT THAT PARKING SECTION RELY ON 66? NOPE. 
          AND WE'LL KEEP THAT IN THE NEXT, GO AHEAD. 
          OKAY. 
          THE NEXT THING ON, HANG ON, HANG ON, COUNCIL APOLOGIES. 
          UM, WE DO HAVE A TYPO ON PART FOUR. 
          I JUST WOULD LIKE PERMISSION TO CLARIFY THAT WE'RE CHANGING THE THREE SECTIONS INSTEAD OF JUST THE ONE. 
          WHERE DID YOU SAY? I'M SORRY. 
          SO IN PART FOUR, WE ARE AMENDING SECTION FOUR E AND WITHIN E SO FAR IN THE DRAFT. 
          APOLOGIES. 
          WE ONLY HAVE TWO OF THOSE NUMBERS, TWO OF THE ITEMS LISTED, AND THERE SHOULD BE A THIRD, WHICH IS THE 4.3 0.3 0.8 0.3. 
          I THINK I SAID THAT, RIGHT? SO IT SHOULD SAY, WHICH LINE ARE YOU ON? ON LINE 47 AND 48, JUST AS YOU'RE ADDING A THIRD REFERENCE. 
          CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          WHICH WOULD ATTRACT THE PARKING PIECE? THAT SOUNDS FINE. 
          WE'RE GOING TO LEAVE THE PARKING PIECE THEN, CAUSE NO ONE WANTS TO TAKE IT OUT. 
          THAT GETS US TO THE PERCENTAGES ONLINE, 1 38 
          [09:00:01]
AND 1 45. 
          OKAY. 
          MAYOR, I WANT TO SPEAK TO THOSE. 
          HANG ON A SECOND. 
          THE WAY, THE WAY THEN IT'S UNDER, UNDER ROBERT'S RULES OF WHAT YOU'VE MADE A MOTION AND SOMEONE CAN BREAK AN AMENDMENT TO IT. 
          AND WHEN SOMEONE MAKES AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION THEY SPEAK FIRST, FIRST, THERE'S AN ATTEMPT TO FIND A SECOND. 
          AND IF THERE'S A SECOND, THEN THE PERSON WHO MAKES THE MOTION SPEAKS TO IT. 
          THAT'S HOW WE'VE, THAT'S THE RULES. 
          THAT'S HOW WE'VE ALWAYS DONE IT. 
          YES, I WOULD. 
          I WOULD NOTE THAT THE COUNCIL MEMBER HASN'T BEEN ABLE TO LAY OUT HER ITEM WITH THE CHANGE. 
          I OFFERED HER THE CHANCE TO LAY OUT THE ITEM AND WE WERE TALKING ABOUT IT AND THEN THE CHICKENS CAME OUT AND THEN, UM, THEN, THEN INTERRUPTED THE PROCESS, BUT I'D HAVE TOLD HER SHE COULD LAY IT OUT. 
          THAT'S WHAT SHE'D LIKE TO DO. 
          OKAY. 
          SO I'M GOING TO LAY OUT THE CHANGE THAT IS ON PAGE FIVE, BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT. 
          AND THIS, THIS IS A CHANGE THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE AFFORDABILITY, UM, ON, UM, FOR VMU TOO. 
          SO WHAT I HAVE PROPOSED IS YOU'LL SEE B LITTLE I, WHAT I HAVE PROPOSED IS A MINIMUM OF 15%. 
          UM, AND THIS APPLIES TO RENTAL A MINIMUM OF 15%. 
          IF SOMEONE IS AT 60% MFI OR A MINIMUM OF 12%, WHEN SOMEONE IS AT 50% MFI, I'VE HAD A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS WITH THE STAFF ABOUT THIS. 
          UH, THEY DID COME BACK WITH LOWER LEVELS THAT THEY'LL, THEY'LL HAVE TO TELL ME. 
          I CAN'T REMEMBER EXACTLY WHAT IT WAS, BUT AT THAT TIME WHEN THEY CAME BACK, WE HADN'T MADE ANY CHANGES TO COMPATIBILITY. 
          SO, SO THE THINKING IS THAT SOME LEVEL HIGHER THAN IS APPROPRIATE, UH, BECAUSE WE'RE NOW BOTH PROVIDING ADDITIONAL HEIGHT, BUT WE'RE ALSO MAKING SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO COMPATIBILITY, PARTICULARLY ALONG THE ORANGE AND BLUE LINE. 
          SO IT SEEMS TO MAKE SENSE TO TRY TO DO THE 15% AND THE 12%. 
          SO THAT'S WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST. 
          UM, MY UNDERSTANDING FROM THE STAFF IS THAT THEY'RE OKAY WITH THAT. 
          THEY'RE OKAY WITH IT BECAUSE WE HAVE ADDITIONAL COMPATIBILITY AND, AND, UM, UH, SO THAT, THAT ALLOWS FOR, UH, YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT TO PUT WORDS IN THEIR MOUTH, BUT MY LAST CONVERSATION WITH THEM WAS IS THAT, THAT THIS, THIS, UH, APPEARS TO BE WORKABLE. 
          UM, AND SO I WOULD LIKE TO PROCEED WITH IT AT 15% AND AT 12% THERE, YES. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER L S I WOULD LIKE TO ASK STAFF TO SPEAK TO WHAT WAS IN THEIR ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION. 
          I'VE HAD, UM, STAKEHOLDERS, LET ME KNOW THAT IF 15% IS AT WORKABLE. 
          AND SO I WANT TO KNOW HOW STAFF ARRIVED AT THEIR ORIGINAL NUMBERS, ERICA LEAK, HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT. 
          UM, WE DID NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO SPECIFIC ANALYSIS, UH, FOR THE PROPOSED ORIGINAL PERCENTAGES, UM, BUT BASED, UH, ADDED A SLIGHTLY HIGHER PERCENTAGE, UM, UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT WOULD LIKELY BE FEASIBLE WITH INCREASED HEIGHTS. 
          UM, AND THEN ALSO HAD AN OPTION FOR, UH, LOWER MFIS AT, UH, AT A DIFFERENT, DIFFERENT PERCENTAGE THAT WE THINK WILL BE APPROXIMATELY THE SAME COST TO DEVELOPERS. 
          SO WHAT, WHAT NUMBERS WERE IN YOUR ORIGINAL PROPOSAL? IT WAS A 12. 
          SO IN A BMU TWO BUILDING THE, WITH THE HEIGHT BONUS, THAT WOULD BE 12% AT 60% MFI OR 10% AT 50% MFI. 
          I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE AN EMOTION AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME TO GO WITH THOSE NUMBERS INSTEAD, THAT'S REMEMBER ELLIS MOVES TO A MAN. 
          UM, FINE. 
          SORRY. 
          I HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTION. 
          HANG ON A SECOND. 
          AND TELL ME AGAIN, A LINE 1 38 TO TAKE 15 TO WHAT 12, AND TO TAKE 12 ONLINE, 1 45 TO 10. 
          IS THERE A SECOND 
          [09:05:01]
TO THAT AMENDMENT? IF I GET A SECOND, I'M HAPPY TO SPEAK TO IT. 
          HOW SECOND YOU CAN SPEAK TO YOUR MAN. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THE FEEDBACK THAT I GOT WAS SIMPLY THAT WHEN WE MISS CALIBRATE THESE NUMBERS, WE ENDED UP NOT GETTING THE PROJECTS BUILT AT ALL. 
          AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, AFTER ALL THE HOURS THAT WE PUT INTO THESE DISCUSSIONS TODAY, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THESE PROJECTS PENCIL OUT AND WE'RE NOT GOING THROUGH ALL OF THIS WORK AND ALL OF THIS DISCUSSION TO HAVE PROJECTS THAT JUST SIMPLY WILL NOT BE BUILT AND WILL NOT RESULT IN ADDITIONAL HOUSING. 
          UH, MAYOR, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MS. LEAK. 
          I HAD MS. LEE. 
          I WAS UNDERSTANDING OUR PREVIOUS CONVERSATIONS THAT A STAFF WAS MORE COMFORTABLE NOW WITH THE 15% AND 12% BECAUSE OF THE ADDITIONAL ENTITLEMENTS THAT WE WERE PUTTING IN PLACE. 
          UH, PARTICULARLY NOW THAT THE REST OF THE COUNCIL OR THE COUNCIL VOTED TO DO THAT BY, RIGHT. 
          SO WE'VE GOT SOMEONE, SO A DEVELOPER BY RIGHT, WILL NOW BE, HAVE ACCESS TO 90 FEET AT REDUCED COMPATIBILITY, UH, PARTICULARLY REDUCED COMPATIBILITY AROUND THE ORANGE AND BLUE LINES. 
          SO THAT'S QUITE A BIT OF ADDITIONAL ENTITLEMENT. 
          AND SO IT JUST WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT, YOU KNOW, THE, THE ORIGINAL, UH, RECOMMENDATION THAT YOU ALL MADE WAS, WAS BASED ON JUST THE 90 FEET, NOT THESE OTHER ADDITIONAL ENTITLEMENTS. 
          AND SO I HAD THOUGHT FROM OUR PREVIOUS CONVERSATION THAT YOU ALL WERE MORE COMFORTABLE NOW, UM, GIVEN ALL THESE OTHER PIECES, WE ALSO HAVE PARKING REDUCTION NOW ALSO, UM, I THOUGHT THAT YOU WERE MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THE 15% AND 12%. 
          SO, SO ARE YOU COMFORTABLE WITH A 15 AND 12%? I BELIEVE OUR DISCUSSION WAS, IT REALLY DEPENDED ON WHAT THE CHANGES WERE TO COMPATIBILITY. 
          AND SO, UM, AS, UH, HOPEFULLY YOU ALL SAW IN OUR ANALYSIS THAT WAS COMPLETED LAST WEEK, UH, ON VMU SITES, DEPENDING ON THE EXTENT OF, UH, OR THE, THE DISTANCE THAT COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS APPLY, IT MEANS THAT, UM, DIFFERENT SIZES OF SITES WOULD BE MORE LIKELY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROGRAM AND, UM, AT THE 300 FOOT DISTANCE THAT I THINK YOU ALL ADOPTED TODAY FOR, UH, WELL, ANYWAY, UM, SO THE ONLY PLACES WHERE THE HUNDRED FOOT COMPATIBILITY APPLIES IS ALONG THE ORANGE AND BLUE LINES. 
          AND SO THEY, THOSE MAY BE LOCATIONS WHERE DEVELOPMENT IS MORE FEASIBLE AT HIGHER, UH, AFFORDABILITY LEVELS, BUT IN PLACES WHERE COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS STILL HAVE A LARGE IMPACT ON SMALL SITES, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO SEE MUCH LESS, UH, PARTICIPATION IN THE PROGRAM, ESPECIALLY AT HIGHER AFFORDABILITY LEVELS. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND I REALLY APPRECIATED THE, THE ANALYSIS THAT YOU ALL DID AND I'M LOOKING FOR IT RIGHT NOW, THE COMPATIBILITY, UH, REQUIREMENTS THAT, UM, THAT WE JUST PASSED WOULD ALLOW GETTING TO, WOULD ALLOW GETTING, UH, TO 90 FEET, UM, EITHER RIGHT AT A HUNDRED FEET AROUND THE ORANGE AND BLUE LINE AT 200 FEET ON THE LARGE CORRIDORS. 
          AND AT TWO 50 ON THE SMALLER QUARTERS, IN ADDITION, THE ORIGINAL V WOULD BE EXPANDED ALSO WITH THE COMPATIBILITY REQUIREMENTS THAT WE JUST CHANGED, WHICH WOULD ALLOW THAT 65 FEET, UM, AT I'M GOING TO HAVE TO LOOK IT UP. 
          I'M NOT REMEMBERING THAT PART, BUT, UM, I'M LOOKING FOR YOUR ANALYSIS, UH, WHICH SHOWED US, UM, I THINK IT SHOWED US, UH, DOUBLING OR SO MAYBE I I'M, I'M LOOKING AT, UM, MAYBE YOU CAN EXPLAIN THAT, BUT ANYWAY, IF W WELL, WE MAY NOT NEED THAT. 
          I'M NOT ANYWAY, IT'S UP TO YOU ALL TO, I'M NOT, I'M NOT TRYING TO CHANGE YOUR RECOMMENDATION. 
          THAT'S THAT'S WITHIN YOUR OWN PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT. 
          I JUST THOUGHT THAT FROM THE CONVERSATIONS THAT WE HAD BEFORE, I THOUGHT WE WERE MOVING FORWARD, I THOUGHT YOU HAD LET US KNOW THAT YOU WERE OKAY WITH THE 15 AND 12%, BUT I'M HEARING YOU SAY, NOW THAT YOU'RE NOT, IS THAT RIGHT? I SAID, IT DEPENDED ON WHAT THE COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS CHANGES WE'RE GOING TO END UP BEING, BECAUSE THAT PART WASN'T. 
          YEAH. 
          YEAH. 
          AND I THOUGHT, I THOUGHT THAT MEANT MAYBE I MISUNDERSTOOD, 
          [09:10:01]
BUT I THOUGHT THAT THAT WHAT YOU MEANT WAS IS IF WE ADOPTED WHAT WAS PROPOSED IN 66, WHICH WE HAVE NOW DONE, AND WE'VE ACTUALLY GONE BEYOND THAT WITH COUNCIL MEMBER, VELOZ CHANGE TO THE ORANGE AND BLUE LINES. 
          BUT AGAIN, I IT'S, IT'S, I, I RESPECT YOUR PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT. 
          SO YOU TELL IT, TELL US WHAT YOU'RE THINKING. 
          IF, IF YOU'RE NOT COMFORTABLE WITH 15 AND 12%, I HEAR THAT. 
          UM, I PERSONALLY THINK THAT WE'RE NOT PUSHING THE ENVELOPE ENOUGH. 
          I MEAN, AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS OUR NUMBER ONE PRIORITY, PARTICULARLY ALONG THESE TRANSIT CORRIDORS. 
          SO I'M NOT CERTAIN WHY WE WOULDN'T DO THAT WITHOUT MODELING, WHICH WE HAVE NOT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO. 
          IT'S HARD TO SAY WHETHER, WHETHER IT WILL BE TOO MUCH OF A REQUIREMENT SO THAT PEOPLE DON'T PARTICIPATE IN THE PROGRAM, UM, IN PLACES THAT ARE NOT ALONG THE ORANGE AND BLUE LINES. 
          UM, THERE ARE MANY OF OUR CORRIDORS WHERE THE SITES ARE, ARE NOT NECESSARILY VERY DEEP. 
          AND SO THE CHANGES TO COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS THAT ARE NOT ALONG THE BLUE AND ORANGE LINES MAY NOT HAVE, UH, MUCH OF AN IMPACT ON WHAT CAN BE BUILT. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THOUGH THAT WHAT I WAS HEARING THOUGH, WAS THAT ALONG THE BLUE AND THE ORANGE LINE THAT WAS, MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE, W W WE HAVEN'T MODELED IT, BUT IT SEEMS LIKELY THAT SINCE THE COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS ARE LESS IMPACTFUL ALONG THOSE LINES, BECAUSE OF THE LIMITED DISTANCE THAT THERE WOULD BE GREATER FEASIBILITY FOR HIGHER PERCENTAGES OF AFFORDABLE UNITS. 
          OKAY. 
          HOW DIFFICULT IS THE MODELING PROCESS? WE, WE WOULD NEED TO COLLECT, UH, DIFFERENT DATA THAT WE HAVEN'T HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO COLLECT YET. 
          UM, SO, UH, AN, AN OPTION THAT WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT INTERNALLY IS WANTING TO HAVE A MORE STREAMLINED AND REGULAR WAY TO UPDATE, UM, PERCENTAGE SET, ASIDES AND FEE IN LIEU CALIBRATIONS. 
          SO, YOU KNOW, ONE OPTION WOULD BE TO SET SOMETHING NOW, AND THEN IN ANOTHER YEAR WE COULD COME BACK AND LOOK AT IT AGAIN. 
          OKAY. 
          SO LET ME JUST THROW OUT, YOU KNOW, WE ARE DIFFERENTIATING COMPATIBILITY BASED ON THE ORANGE AND BLUE LINE. 
          UM, WE COULD, UM, DIFFERENTIATE THE LEVELS, AFFORDABILITY ACCORDING TO THE BLUE AND ORANGE LINE, OR WE COULD USE THE CORRIDORS THAT WE SET UP IN THE OTHER. 
          UM, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER WE CAN DO THAT ON THE FLY TONIGHT AT 1115 OR NOT. 
          UM, I, I DO BELIEVE IT'S GETTING LATE IN THIS AS, UH, AN IMPORTANT CONVERSATION. 
          UM, AND THERE ARE A LOT OF, THERE ARE A LOT OF PIECES HERE. 
          I THINK WE ALSO HAVE, UM, YOU KNOW, WE HAVEN'T LANDED ON THE PROCESS FOR GETTING VMU TO, OR THE SECOND TIER OF EMU. 
          HOWEVER WE WANT TO DO THAT. 
          WE MAY, UM, WANT TO CONSIDER, UM, HAVING A JOINT MEETING WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE COUNCIL THAT HAS BETTER NOTICE FOR PEOPLE SINCE SOME THINGS HAVE CHANGED SINCE WE JUST NOTICED, UM, I JUST THROW THAT OUT THERE IN CASE ANYBODY ELSE'S THINKING ALONG THE SAME LINES, I FAVOR GREATER AFFORDABILITY, BUT I DO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE, UM, YOU KNOW, FOR DIFFERENT, DIFFERENT ROADS, UM, GIVEN, UM, THE COMPATIBILITY CHANGES AND GIVEN THE POSSIBILITIES FOR, YOU KNOW, HAVING THE TRENDS THAT ALSO MAKES IT MORE LIKELY THAT THOSE, THOSE, UM, PROJECTS MAYBE MORE FEASIBLE IN TERMS OF, OF CAPACITY. 
          UM, SO I JUST THROW THAT OUT THERE FOR OTHER PEOPLE TO THINK ABOUT. 
          UM, I DON'T THINK WE DO OUR BEST WORK WHEN WE'RE WORKING THIS LATE. 
          I THINK THAT'S TRUE TOO. 
          I, YOU KNOW, IT'S HARD. 
          I, IF WE'RE GOING TO MISS THIS, I'D RATHER MISS THIS IN A WAY THAT HAS A LOT OF HOUSING THAT'S DEVELOPED AND BUILT THAN TO MISS IT IN A WAY THAT DOESN'T HAVE A LOT OF HOUSING BUILT. 
          AND IF WE PUT IT OUT THERE AND EVERYBODY STARTS USING IT AND IT'S APPARENT WE UNDERSHOT, THEN WE CAN FIX IT. 
          AND WHAT A WONDERFUL PROBLEM THAT WOULD BE TO COME BACK IN AND FIX THAT. 
          SO, FOR ME, I'M GOING TO SUPPORT, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER ALICE'S DEAL. 
          WE WANT TO GET A FINER COMB ON IT AND SAID DIFFERENT PERCENTAGES FOR DIFFERENT ROADS, WITH DIFFERENT STUFF. 
          I BE FINE CONSIDERING THAT, UH, TO SOMEONE WHO WANTED TO COME BACK WITH THAT. 
          UM, BUT 
          [09:15:01]
WHEN WE SAID PERCENTAGES WITHOUT CALIBRATION, TO ME, IT'S JUST HARD, WHICH IS WHY, AGAIN, I HEARD STAFF TO HAVE SOMEBODY ON STAFF WHO CAN DO CALIBRATION, CAUSE IT WOULD BE GREAT IF WE, IF WE JUST SAID 20%, 15%, I MEAN, THAT'S BETTER THAN 15 AND 12, BUT WE JUST, WE DON'T KNOW WHETHER THAT WOULD WORK EITHER. 
          AND, AND ERICA WAS ASKED, YOU KNOW, SIX WAYS TO WEDNESDAY TO, TO TRY TO, TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF IT. 
          I THINK SHE WAS JUST UNCOMFORTABLE DOING THAT, BUT ANYHOW, THAT'S WHERE I COME DOWN. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER RENTERIA, AND THEN COUNCIL MEMBER. 
          TOVA. 
          I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT, UH, IT'S NOT GOING TO AFFECT THE BLUE LINE AS MUCH, EITHER WAY THAT Y'ALL HAVE IT HERE. 
          UH, THE BLUE LINE AREA BASICALLY IN MY DISTRICT IS PRETTY MUCH BUILT OUT. 
          UH, THERE'S A FEW EMPTY LOTS OUT THERE THAT CAN BE BUILT, YOU KNOW, BY USING THIS. 
          BUT, UH, IF YOU EVER DRIVE UP AND DOWN AND WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE PAST, UH, IT'S VERY GETTING BUILT OUT PRETTY QUICK. 
          AND, UH, SO, UH, I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH IT'S REALLY GONNA DO TO MY BLUE LINE IN MY DISTRICT BECAUSE OF WHAT HAS BEEN ALREADY BEEN BUILT OUT IN THAT AREA. 
          YEAH. 
          I SUPPORT THE HIGHER LEVEL OF, UM, AFFORDABILITY, THE PERCENTAGES THAT YOU BROUGHT FORWARD, COUNCIL MEMBER, KITCHEN. 
          AND, AND I BELIEVE THAT, UM, MARK ROGERS WROTE TO ALL OF US, HE SENT MARK ROGERS DIRECTOR OF, OF GUADALUPE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          UM, NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION SENT AN EMAIL TO ALL OF US BACK ON, BACK ON MAY 19TH. 
          AND I JUST WANT TO QUOTE A FEW THINGS THAT HE SAID, HE TALKED ABOUT, UM, SIMPLY GETTING AN L I'M GOING TO EXCERPT HERE, SOME, UH, MISSING SOME OF HIS OTHER POINTS, BUT I'M TO JUST GOING TO HIT ON THE ONES THAT RELATE TO THIS, SIMPLY GETTING MORE HOUSING WILL NOT GET AS AFFORDABILITY. 
          THE FACT THAT IN AUSTIN, THAT FACT IN AUSTIN, TEXAS, AND 2022 IS PAINFULLY OBVIOUS. 
          WE'VE PRODUCED MORE UNITS OF HOUSING PER CAPITA THAN ANY MAJOR CITY IN THE U S AND WE'VE GOTTEN LESS AND LESS AFFORDABILITY OUT LESS AND LESS AFFORDABLE. 
          HE GOES ON TO TALK ABOUT COMPATIBILITY AND THAT HE'S WELCOME CHANGING, WELCOMES, CHANGING THOSE, BUT HE ASKS US TO ASK THEM SOME QUESTIONS. 
          WHY DO WE TYPICALLY REQUIRE 10% AFFORDABILITY, SQUARE FOOTAGE OR UNITS? WHEN WE INCREASE ENTITLEMENTS THROUGH ZONING CHANGES OR DEVELOPMENT BONUS PROGRAMS, WHERE DOES THAT COME FROM NOW? I'M KIND OF SUMMARIZING, BUT OUR GOALS OR NEEDS OR PRIORITIES, WHY ARE MANY OTHER DESIRABLE? AND FAST-GROWING CITIES ABLE TO GET 25% AFFORDABILITY WITH THEIR PROGRAMS OR WHEN DEVELOPMENT ENTITLEMENTS ARE INCREASED. 
          AND CAN AUSTIN DO THE SAME? SOME OF YOU PROBABLY ANSWERED THAT LAST QUESTION QUICKLY WITH BECAUSE THEY HAVE INCLUSIONARY ZONING AND THAT'S ILLEGAL IN TEXAS, BUT I THINK THAT ANSWER IS OFF TARGET AND THE REAL ANSWER IS MORE COMPLEX. 
          AND THEN HE GOES ON TO TALK ABOUT HOW, YOU KNOW, AND I'LL, I'LL SKIP TO THE END. 
          PEOPLE WANT TO COME TO AUSTIN AND DEVELOPERS WANT TO DEVELOP, OR THE DEVELOPERS, DESPITE WHAT THEY MAY SAY, DEFINITELY CAN FIGURE OUT HOW TO INCORPORATE HIGHER LEVELS OF AFFORDABILITY IN THEIR DEVELOPMENTS. 
          IF THEY KNOW THEY HAVE TO, AFTER ALL WHEREVER THERE'S INCLUSIONARY ZONING DEVELOPERS DO, WHAT'S REQUIRED, THEY ACTUALLY DON'T EVEN COMPLAIN ABOUT IT. 
          THEY KNOW THAT'S WHAT THEY HAVE TO DO. 
          AND SO I THINK WE START WITH, I WOULD, I THINK WE HAVE TO SET HIGH GOALS. 
          UM, THIS IS THE STRATEGY THAT WE HAVE. 
          WE NEED TO USE THE STRATEGIES THAT WE HAVE, THE TOOLS THAT WE HAVE IN OUR TOOLBOX AND WITHIN A DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM, WE CAN ASK FOR THOSE HIGHER LEVELS OF AFFORDABILITY. 
          AND, UM, I THINK WE SHOULD, OKAY. 
          ANYBODY ELSE TO SPEAK OF THIS BEFORE WE VOTE? COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN, UM, A COUPLE OF OTHER FACTS THAT I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT TO FOLKS IS THAT, UH, UH, AND THANK YOU AGAIN TO STAFF FOR PUTTING THIS TOGETHER, BUT WE ARE DOUBLING THE ESTIMATE OF THE NUMBER OF, UH, WITH, WITH THE CHANGES IN COMPATIBILITY THAT WE JUST VOTED FOR. 
          IN NUMBER 66, WE ARE DOUBLING OUR ABILITY TO REACH ACHIEVABLE VMU HEIGHTS AT THE BASE UNDER BMU ONE AND AT THE 90 FOOT. 
          SO WE'RE DOING THAT. 
          WE'RE ALSO, I WANT TO POINT OUT TO THE 10% AT 50% MFI, WHICH HAS BEEN PROPOSED BEFORE WE CONSIDER THESE COMPATIBILITY CHANGES. 
          THE CURRENT VMU PROGRAM IS 10% AT 60% MFI. 
          SO ALL WE'RE DOING IS GOING FROM WE'RE GIVING 30 MORE FEET, WE'RE CHANGING COMPATIBILITY. 
          AND WE'RE SAYING THAT WE'RE STILL GOING TO KEEP IT AT 10% AND YOU JUST HAVE TO DROP FROM 60% 
          [09:20:01]
MFI TO 50% MFI. 
          SO I WANT TO POINT THAT OUT. 
          THE OTHER THING I WANNA TO POINT OUT IS BY THE TIME WE RECALIBRATE THIS AT THE RATE THAT OUR CITY IS GROWING, I CAN TELL YOU THIS ABOUT SOUTH LAMAR AT THE RATE THAT OUR CITY IS DRAWING. 
          WE'RE LOSING OPPORTUNITIES THAT WE WILL NOT HAVE AGAIN, BECAUSE ONCE THOSE ARE BUILT UP, THEY'RE BUILT AND WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO GO BACK AND GET MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          SO I'M NOT AFRAID OF, OF BUILDERS NOT BEING ABLE TO DO THIS. 
          I'M AFRAID THAT WE'RE LOSING A SIGNIFICANT AFFORDABLE HOUSING ALONG OUR MAJOR TRANSIT CORRIDORS. 
          OKAY, LET'S TAKE A VOTE. 
           GREG, UH, COMMENT, UNCOMFORTABLE RAISING THE AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS ALONG THE ORANGE AND BLUE LINES. 
          UH, I AM, AND THIS IS JUST BASED FROM DISCUSSIONS THAT I'VE HAD WITH REGARD, YOU KNOW, WITH DIFFERENT, UH, FOLKS IN THE, IN THE, UH, REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY AND, AND WITH HABITAT FOR HUMANITY AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS, BUT I'M UNCOMFORTABLE WITH A BROADER, UM, I'M JUST, I JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT EFFECT IT WOULD HAVE. 
          AND I WOULD ECHO BOTH THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER ELSE'S COMMENTS WHERE, YOU KNOW, IF WE OVERSHOOT ON THAT, UH, WE, WE GET, YOU KNOW, POTENTIALLY ZERO WHERE, WHEREAS IF WE UNDERSHOOT ON IT, WE STILL GET THE HOUSING AND WE STILL GET THE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, THE LOWER LEVELS OF AFFORDABILITY TO 10% INSTEAD OF THE 12%. 
          UM, SO I JUST WANTED TO SAY, I'M, I'M, I'M VERY, I'M VERY TORN ON, UH, ON THE, UH, ON THE AFFORDABILITY REPORT. 
          DO YOU WANT TO MAKE THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT TO MAKE THE HIGHER NUMBERS ON THE BLUE AND ORANGE LINES? I WILL MAKE THAT AMENDMENT TO SAY THAT THE 15% AND THE 12%, UH, AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE JUST FOR THE, UH, ORANGE AND BLUE LINES. 
          IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT AMENDMENT COUNCIL MEMBER, KITCHEN, SECOND SET. 
          AND THE DISCUSSION GUIDES. 
          REMEMBER ALICE, IS THAT OKAY WITH YOU? YES, I CAN ACCEPT THAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANY OBJECTION TO THAT AMENDMENT, THAT AMENDMENT THE AMENDMENT IS MADE? DOES ANYBODY OBJECT TO THAT AMENDMENT BEING INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION, HEARING NONE THAT AMENDMENTS INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION? UM, MAYOR, YES. 
          UM, I'M GOING TO NEED TO VOTE AGAINST THE MOTION. 
          SO I'D LIKE TO HAVE THEM SEPARATE CAUSE I, I SUPPORT WHAT, UM, COUNSELING AVAILABLE SAID, AND I WANT TO VOTE FOR THAT, BUT I'M GOING TO VOTE AGAINST LOWERING FOR EVERYTHING ELSE. 
          SO IF YOU COULD JUST SEPARATE THOSE TWO, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. 
          OKAY. 
          THOSE IN FAVOR OF HAVING 15 AND 12 PERCENTAGES FOR TRACKS THAT ARE ON THE ORANGE AND BLUE LINE, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND AND MISS ON THE DYESS. 
          THOSE IN FAVOR OF REDUCING THE NUMBER FROM 15 AND 12 TO 12 AND 10, OTHERWISE NOT ON THE BLUE AND ORANGE LINE, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. 
          AND MY, MY HAND IS ACTUALLY RAISED AND THE, I HAVE A QUESTION THAT I'D LIKE TO HAVE ANSWERED IF POSSIBLE BEFORE ABOVE. 
          UM, THE QUESTION THAT I HAD IS PROBABLY FOR STEP, BUT BECAUSE I'M VIRTUAL, I CAN'T SEE WHO ELSE IN THE ROOM. 
          UM, BUT I, YOU KNOW, I KEEP HEARING WORDS LIKE OVERSHOOT AND, UM, I'M MAKING SOME ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT WHAT THE IMPLICATIONS ARE, BUT I'D LIKE FOR, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY WITH A PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND IN BUILDING VERTICAL MIXED USE TO GIVE ME THEIR THOUGHTS ON WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS OF OVER AND OR UNDERSHOOTING. 
          IT SEEMS TO ME THAT, YOU KNOW, OVERSHOOTING MEANS THAT, YOU KNOW, IT WE'LL FIND OURSELVES IN ONE OF THOSE SITUATIONS WHERE THE NUMBERS JUST DON'T PENCIL OUT AND THEN WE'LL GET NOTHING. 
          BUT, UH, I'D LIKE TO HEAR, I CAN SEE A HAND, BUT NOT A FACE THERE'S SOMEBODY AT THE PODIUM MOVIE. 
          RIGHT. 
          UH, ERIC LEE, HOUSING AND PLANNING, UM, BY OVERSHOOT, DO YOU MEAN HAVING THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PERCENTAGES BE TOO HIGH SO THAT PEOPLE ARE UNLIKELY TO PARTICIPATE? OKAY. 
          SO CAN YOU RESTATE YOUR QUESTION THEN? I GUESS ULTIMATELY THE QUESTION WAS, UM, IS IT DIFFICULT FOR STAFF TO SUPPORT THE ITEM? BECAUSE IT, IF WE OVERSHOOT, WE DON'T GET THE PROJECT IS IMPOSSIBLE. 
          I GUESS I'M JUST TRYING TO, I'M TRYING TO FIND A MORE ELOQUENT WAY TO EXPRESS, UM, WHAT I WOULD OTHERWISE USE. 
          SWEAR WORDS TO DESCRIBE IT. 
          SO WHAT I'M ASKING IS, SO IF YOU, IF THE PROJECT DOESN'T SHAKE OUT AND YOU GET ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, LIKE WHAT, WHAT IS THE, I GUESS, WHAT ARE THE, THE 
          [09:25:01]
CHANCES, WHAT ARE, WHAT'S THE, UM, STATISTICALLY SPEAKING? WHAT ARE THE CHANCES THAT, YOU KNOW, WE SET THE LEVEL TOO HIGH AND THEN DON'T GET THE HOUSING THAT WE ULTIMATELY ARE ATTEMPTING TO YOU. 
          I MEAN, I DON'T THINK I HAVE ANY STATISTICS THAT, THAT I WOULD FEEL COMFORTABLE SHARING. 
          UM, JUST BECAUSE I DON'T THINK, I, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE STATISTICS IN, IN THE WAY I THINK YOU'RE ASKING FOR THEM. 
          UM, IN GENERAL, WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO LOOK AT HOW MUCH, HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE PARTICIPATED IN OUR PROGRAMS. UM, AND WHAT, WHAT BASICALLY WHAT SEEMS TO BE WORKING WELL ALONG WITH CALIBRATION, WHEN WE'RE ABLE TO DO THAT, UM, OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE CHANGES BEING MADE TO THE ORDINANCE AND COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS. 
          THAT MEAN THERE ARE A LOT OF DIFFERENT FACTORS AT PLAY. 
          AND, UM, AND SO WE'RE, WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, YOU KNOW, IS THERE A WAY THAT WE CAN LOOK AT THESE CHANGES IN, IN SMALL WAYS, OVER A PERIOD OF TIME TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT MOVING, WE'RE NOT CHANGING SO QUICKLY THAT, UM, THAT THE, THAT THE PROGRAM ISN'T USED, BUT SAM, DO YOU WANT TO SAY IT IN A DIFFERENT WAY? I THINK HIGH COUNCIL, UM, THE ONLY STATISTIC THAT'S COMING TO MIND IS WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT. 
          AND I BELIEVE THE HOUSING AND PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING ABOUT OUR CURRENT PARTICIPATION RATE FOR THIS PROGRAM, WHERE BY NATURE OF IT BEING AN INCENTIVE-BASED VOLUNTARY OPT-IN KIND OF PROGRAM, DEVELOPERS CAN ALWAYS CHOOSE TO REDEVELOP THEIR PROPERTY UNDER THEIR BASE ENTITLEMENTS, UM, OR THROUGH ANOTHER PROGRAM, POTENTIALLY LIKE AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED. 
          AND SO BY NATURE OF IT BEING AN INCENTIVE BASED APPROACH, OUR PARTICIPATION RATE TODAY, I THINK I WAS, UM, INACCURATE BEFORE, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY 36% OF ALL SITES THAT HAVE THE AMU ZONING IN THE PAST 12 YEARS, UM, THAT HAVE REDEVELOPED HAVE ACTUALLY PARTICIPATED IN THE PROGRAM. 
          AND SO, UM, I THINK WHAT IS AT RISK WHEN WE CHANGE THE, UM, THE REQUIREMENTS TO PARTICIPATE IS POTENTIALLY DRIVING THAT PARTICIPANT PER PARTICIPATION RATE LOWER. 
          SO YOU JUST SEE FEWER PROJECTS THAT REDEVELOP OPTING INTO THE VERTICAL MIXED USE PROGRAM AND MIGHT PARTICIPATE OR MIGHT REDEVELOP THEIR PROPERTY UNDER, UH, THEIR BASE ENTITLEMENT OR MANY OF OUR VMU ZONE SITES ALSO HAVE DASH IMMU, WHICH GRANTS SOME ENTITLEMENTS, BUT NOT ALL THE SAME DEVELOPER INCENTIVES. 
          AND SO WE JUST MIGHT SEE MORE PROPERTIES DEVELOP UNDER A DIFFERENT, UM, ENTITLEMENT THAN THERE THAN THE DASH V WOULD GIVE THEM, WHICH GIVES US THE AFFORDABILITY. 
          I HOPE THAT MADE IT CLEAR AND NOT LESS CLEAR. 
          NO, NO, NO. 
          THAT WAS REALLY HELPFUL, BUT IT DOES INSPIRE ANOTHER QUESTION. 
          IT MAKES ME WONDER WHETHER OR NOT WE'VE CONDUCTED THE NECESSARY AMOUNT OF FINANCIAL ANALYSIS. 
          UM, SO SOME OF THE ANALYSIS THAT WE DID TO GET TO THE RATES THAT WERE INCLUDED IN THIS STAFF RECOMMENDATION, WE'RE LOOKING BACK AT PREVIOUSLY CALIBRATED WORK. 
          UM, AND SO THAT WAS LOOKING AT COMPARABLE, UH, ZONES FROM OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE CALIBRATED, UM, AFFORDABILITY SET ASIDE RATES THAT WERE RECOMMENDED AT THAT TIME THAT HAD GONE THROUGH EXTENSIVE FINANCIAL MODELING. 
          SO THERE ARE SOME, THERE ARE PLENTY OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO, BUT THAT IS WHAT DROVE STAFF TO WE, WE TOOK THE HIGHEST SUICIDE RATE THAT WAS POTENTIALLY FEASIBLE IN ALL OF THOSE SCENARIOS. 
          AND THAT WAS 12% AT 60% OF MFI. 
          AND THEY KNOWLEDGING THE COMMUNITY'S DESIRE TO SEE LOWER, UM, MFIS OR DEEPER AFFORDABILITY. 
          WE TRIED TO FIND, UH, UH, THE, THE, THE COMPARABLE, UM, COST TO A DEVELOPER TO PROVIDE, UM, MORE HOUSING AT 50% MFI. 
          AND SO THAT LOOKED LIKE 10% SET ASIDE AT 50% OF THE MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME WAS ROUGHLY EQUIVALENT TO 12% SET ASIDE AT 60% OF THE MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME. 
          AND SO THERE WAS SOME ANALYSIS, UM, IT IS NOT APPLES TO APPLES AND IT WAS NOT PARTICULARLY RECENT. 
          UM, BUT THAT IS WHAT STAFF USED TO, UM, CREATE OUR RECOMMENDATION. 
          THAT'S VERY HELPFUL. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I JUST WANTED TO QUICKLY MAKE SURE THE MOTION WAS, UM, FOR 12% AND 10% AS ORIGINALLY SPECIFIED IN STAFF'S ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION. 
          THAT IS THE MOTION. 
          IT WAS SECONDED. 
          WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A, VOTE THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE ELLIS AMENDMENT. 
          PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. 
          [09:30:01]
UM, I'M SORRY, YOUR HONOR. 
          I STEPPED AWAY FOR A SECOND. 
          UH, COULD YOU JUST SUMMARIZE, UH, UH, THE ELLIS AMENDMENT RIGHT QUICK? THE ELLIS AMENDMENT IS ON NON BLUE, NON ORANGE, TOO. 
          GOOD TO KEEP THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF 12%. 
          UNDERSTAND THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. 
          UH, UH, RENT THE RHEA, UH, VALLA, UH, HARPER, MADISON, ALICE, AND ME, THOSE OPPOSED. 
          RAISE YOUR HAND. 
          IT'S THE OTHER SIX, THE AMENDMENT DOES NOT PASS, SO IT STAYS AT 15 AND 12. 
          I THINK WE SKIPPED OVER A CHANGE. 
          IT WAS THE DELETION OF THE FEE AND THE BLUE LINE IS STAFF HERE TO SPEAK TO THAT. 
          SO THE QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S A PAYMENT IN FEE IN LIEU FOR, UM, OWNER OCCUPIED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT. 
          WHY DID YOU INCLUDE THAT? AND WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT TAKING IT OUT? SO THE REASON THAT WE ARE RECOMMENDING A FEE IN LIEU ONLY FOR OWNERSHIP UNITS IS THAT, UM, THE CITY IS NOT ABLE TO CONTROL FEES SUCH AS HOME OWNERSHIP, HOA FEES, CONDO FEES, AND SPECIFICALLY SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AS PART OF CONDO, UH, DEVELOPMENTS. 
          AND THEREFORE WE HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO REALLY, UH, KEEP PEOPLE BEING ABLE TO AFFORD TO LIVE IN MIXED INCOME CONDO UNITS. 
          SO WE, WE VERY MUCH WANT TO CREATE AFFORDABLE HOME OWNERSHIP OPTIONS, AND REALLY THINK THAT WE HAVE MORE SUCCESS, UH, CREATING THOSE THROUGH, THROUGH LAND TRUSTS AND OTHER TOTALLY AFFORDABLE OWNERSHIP UNITS, WHERE WE HAVE MUCH MORE CONTROL OVER SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS, CONDO ASSOCIATION FEES, ET CETERA. 
          UM, SO THAT IS, THAT IS THE REASON THAT WE PROPOSED HAVING THE FEE IN LIEU ONLY FOR OWNERSHIP AND THUS FAR, UM, THE PERCENTAGE OF DEVELOPMENTS USING BMU THAT OUR OWNERSHIP HAS BEEN VERY LOW. 
          UM, I BELIEVE IT'S UNDER 5%. 
          SO, UM, SO IT, IT, IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT'S A PROGRAM THAT'S BEING USED VERY OFTEN FOR OWNERSHIP. 
          UM, BUT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IF PEOPLE DO PARTICIPATE, WE CAN USE THOSE FUNDS, WHICH WOULD BE SET AT, AT A RATE THAT COULD ACTUALLY, UH, HELP US WELL, REALLY MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO BE ABLE TO BUILD AFFORDABLE SHIP, AFFORDABLE OWNERSHIP UNITS ELSEWHERE, UM, THAT WOULD STAY AFFORDABLE OVER THE LONGTERM. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THE LANGUAGE WAS ONLINE, 73 TO 79 OF THE ORIGINAL STAFF, UH, PROPOSAL. 
          IT'S NOT IN, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHENS BECAUSE IT WAS LANGUAGE THAT WAS DELETED. 
          UM, YES. 
          AND I'LL LET MY, CO-SPONSOR SPEAK TO THIS ALSO, BUT THE THINKING IS THAT WE ARE, UM, YOU KNOW, FROM A POLICY PERSPECTIVE, WHAT WE'RE WANTING TO SEE IS AFFORDABLE UNITS ALONG TRANSIT CORRIDORS. 
          AND THAT'S THE GOAL HERE. 
          SO IF WE'RE, IF WE'RE GOING TO A FEE IN LIEU ARE NOT ACCOMPLISHING THAT GOAL. 
          SO THAT'S THE REASON FOR, UM, FOR DELETING THAT. 
          AND I INVITE MY CO-SPONSORS IF THEY WANT TO, OR ANYBODY ELSE FOR THAT MATTER, IF ANYBODY ELSE WANTS TO SPEAK TO THAT. 
          WELL, LET'S SEE IF IT'S AN ISSUE FIRST. 
          IF ANYBODY WANTS TO CHANGE IT, SAY ANYBODY ELSE, SECOND, IF SOMEONE WANTS TO REINSTATE THAT SECTION, DOES ANYONE WANT TO MOVE TO REINSTATE IT? HEARING NONE? WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM. 
          I THINK THE, I THINK THE LAST ONE IS ON PAGE SEVEN. 
          YEAH. 
          ON PAGE SEVEN. 
          SO THIS ONE, UM, YOU MAY NEED TO HEAR FROM STAFF ALSO, BUT, UM, THIS HAS TO DO WITH THE BEDROOM COUNT. 
          SO, UM, WE CHANGED THE LANGUAGE SOMEWHAT FROM WHAT STAFF HAD AND, AND I'LL LET THEM EXPLAIN WHAT THEIR THINKING WAS. 
          BUT THE WORDING THAT WE HAVE IS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE DIRECTOR, THE MIX OF BEDROOM COUNT MAY BE ADJUSTED, BUT THE OVERALL NUMBER OF REQUIRED AFFORDABLE UNITS MAY NOT BE REDUCED. 
          SO THE CONCEPT HERE IS IN THE FIRST SENTENCE IS THAT, YOU KNOW, GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE BEDROOM COUNT IS GOING TO BE, UM, WELL, FIRST OFF IT SAYS THE BEDROOM COUNT FOR AFFORDABLE UNITS SHALL BE COMPARABLE TO THE BEDROOM COUNT FOR MARKET RATE UNITS. 
          SO THEN THE 
          [09:35:01]
NEXT QUESTION IS HOW WHAT'S THE MIX OF BEDROOM COUNT? SO, UM, SO THIS IS JUST SUGGESTING THAT, THAT AT THE DISCRETION OF THE DIRECTOR, THAT MIX OF BEDROOM COUNT COULD BE ADJUSTED, BUT YOU WOULD STILL, YOU WOULD NOT WANT TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF YOUR AFFORDABLE UNITS. 
          SO THAT'S WHAT I WAS THINKING. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, STAFF WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO WHAT THEIR SUGGESTION WAS. 
          SO WHAT WE'RE FINDING IN MOST OF THE VMU DEVELOPMENTS IS THAT, UM, THE AFFORDABLE UNITS ARE, ARE, THAT ARE BEING PROVIDED, ARE JUST, UM, EFFICIENCIES AND ONE BEDROOMS. AND WE HAVE CERTAINLY HEARD COUNCIL'S DESIRE TO HAVE MORE MULTI BEDROOM AFFORDABLE UNITS. 
          AND SO WE WERE TRYING TO PROVIDE THE FLEXIBILITY SO THAT A DEVELOPER COULD POTENTIALLY PROVIDE A, AN AFFORDABLE UNIT WITH FOUR BEDROOMS, BUT, UM, IT, IT WOULD BE IN EXCHANGE FOR FEWER OVERALL UNITS. 
          AND SO IF, IF THIS NEW LANGUAGES ADDED, UM, THEN WE THINK THAT WE WOULDN'T GET THOSE LARGER, WE WOULDN'T GET THE LARGER UNITS WOULD, THAT'S WHAT WE THINK THAT THE RESULT WOULD BE. 
          LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION. 
          UM, I WAS THINKING THAT THAT THERE'S, THAT I WAS THINKING THAT THEY'RE REQUIRED ALREADY TO DO A COMPARABLE MIX. 
          SO IN OTHER WORDS, IF THEY HAVE, IF THEY'RE BUILDING MARKET RATE AND THEY HAVE A, LIKE TWO TO ONE MIX BETWEEN, IF THEY HAVE SOME, TWO BEDROOMS ALREADY, THEN SOME OF THEIR AFFORDABLE UNITS HAVE TO BE, HOW DOES THAT WORK? IT HAS TO BE COMPARABLE. 
          RIGHT. 
          IS THAT RIGHT? YES. 
          AND I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE IT IS IN HERE. 
          UM, YES, THE IDEA IS THAT IT WOULD HAVE THE SAME MIX OF TYPES OF UNITS, BUT IF YOU WANTED A LARGER THAN LAR UNITS WITH MORE BEDROOMS THAN IS NORMAL IN THE COMPLEX, THEN THAT'S WHERE YOU WOULD SORT OF HAVE AN EXCHANGE. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, UM, SO WE'VE ALREADY GOT A BASELINE THAT IF A, IF A, IF A COMPLEX IS GOING TO IS IF A COMPLEX HAS A MIX OF, YOU KNOW, TWO OR THREE BEDROOMS AND ONE BEDROOMS THAT THAT SAME MIX HAS TO BE AVAILABLE FOR THE AFFORDABLE UNITS. 
          SO WE HAVE THAT ALREADY. 
          SO WHAT YOU'RE THINKING IS IF YOU WANTED MORE THAN THE, THEN THE MIX AND MARKET RATE FOR, FOR, FOR LARGER UNITS, IS THAT THE THINKING? YES, THAT IS THE CONCEPT. 
          OKAY. 
          I UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT I, BUT I FEEL LIKE WE JUST FELT LIKE IT WAS, WAS BETTER TO MAKE SURE WE WEREN'T GIVING IT, GIVING IN ON THE, UM, OR REDUCING THE NUMBER OF UNITS. 
          SO, SO I LEAVE THAT TO MY COLLEAGUES TO DECIDE WHAT THEY WANT TO DO WITH THAT. 
          KELLY, UM, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE THIS ITEM TO JUNE 16TH. 
          I, I CANNOT, WE'RE ALMOST THROUGH THIS. 
          HANG ON A SECOND. 
          LET'S SAY IF THERE'S A SECOND TO THE MOTION TO POSTPONE, IS THERE A SECOND TO THE MOTION MAYOR PRO TEM SECONDS DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION POSTPONE, YOU CAN SPEAK, I REALLY DO APPRECIATE THIS DISCUSSION, BUT IT'S 1147 AND, AND I, I COULD SEE IT GOING A LOT LONGER JUST BASED ON WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. 
          AND, UM, THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THAT. 
          CAN I SPEAK TO IT? WE HAVE, WE'VE DONE A LOT OF WORK HERE. 
          I APPRECIATE THE TIME. 
          THIS IS THE LAST ITEM OUT OF THIS. 
          I THINK WE'RE VERY CLOSE TO BEING DONE. 
          WE'VE ALREADY HANDLED WHAT I UNDERSTAND TO BE THE MOST TOUGHEST ISSUES. 
          SO I REALLY, REALLY WOULD LIKE TO GET THIS DONE. 
          SO IF HE WOULD BEAR WITH US MAYBE ANOTHER 20 MINUTES OR SO 15 MINUTES, I THINK WE'RE ALMOST THERE READY TO TAKE A VOTE. 
          THOSE ARE FAVORITE POSTPONEMENT. 
          PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. 
          A MAYOR PRO TEM AND COUNCIL MEMBER COUNTY, AS OPPOSED, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. 
          IT'S A BALANCE OF THE DYES. 
          WE COUNCIL MEMBER HOPPER MADISON OFF, AND I COULDN'T MAKE A DECISION. 
          SO I DID NOT VOTE. 
          I AM ALSO QUITE EXHAUSTED AND THERE WERE A FEW ISSUES THAT I'M STRUGGLING WITH, BUT I'LL JUST, I'LL JUST NOT VOTE ON THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          LET'S KEEP GOING. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SO THE, UH, UH, QUESTION IN FRONT OF US, THE, I WOULD, ONCE AGAIN, RELY ON THE EXPERTISE OF OUR STAFF WITH RESPECT TO THE, TO THE, TO THE BEDROOM MIX. 
          I MEAN, THEIR EXPLANATION MADE SENSE TO ME. 
          IF SOMEONE ELSE WANTS TO MAKE 
          [09:40:01]
A MOTION TO STAY WITH HIS DAD, I WOULD SECOND, JUST TO BE CLEAR ON THE STAFF'S EXPLANATION. 
          SO IN OTHER WORDS, THE REQUIREMENT WOULD NOT BE OF THE UNITS PER SE, BUT IT WOULD BE OF THE BEDROOM COUNT WITHIN THE BUILDING. 
          IS THAT MORE OR LESS THAN, YOU KNOW, IN OTHER WORDS, LET'S SAY IT HAS A HUNDRED UNITS, BUT IT HAS 300 BEDROOMS. SO LIKE 10% OF THE REQUIREMENT WOULD BE 30 BEDROOMS, WHETHER THAT'S, YOU KNOW, 10, THREE BEDROOMS OR 31 BEDROOMS WOULD BE UP TO THE DEVELOPER. 
          IS THAT HOW NO, NO, HANG ON A SEC. 
          LET STAFF RESPOND TO THIS. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH. 
          SO THE, THE BASE, THE SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHENS, IS THAT THE MIX OF THE BEDROOM UNITS IN THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT, WHAT YOU'RE SPEAKING TO NEEDS TO MATCH THE MIX BY BASICALLY ALL YOUR AFFORDABLE UNITS. 
          SO IF YOU HAVE 20% OF YOUR UNITS ARE ONE BEDROOM, 20% YEAR AFFORDABLE UNITS, YOU DO THAT'S THE SAME IN BOTH. 
          THE DIFFERENCE IS THERE'S A LINE IN THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT SAYS THAT AT THE DISCRETION OF THE DIRECTOR TO THREE BIT, OR TO SORRY, A TWO BEDROOM UNIT OR A THREE BEDROOM UNIT MAY BE COUNTED AS TWO OR THREE, ONE BEDROOM UNITS. 
          SO WE WOULD ACTUALLY LIKE TO EXCHANGE TWO STUDIO UNITS FOR ONE, TWO BEDROOM APARTMENT IN OUR AFFORDABLE UNITS, SO THAT WE CAN GET MORE MULTI BEDROOM UNITS IN THESE DEVELOPMENTS. 
          AND SO THAT WOULD BE A NET LOSS OF ONE TOTAL UNIT, BUT THE SAME NUMBER OF BEDROOMS, IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT THAT WAY. 
          UM, BUT THAT WOULD JUST BE TRYING TO GET US MORE MULTI BEDROOM UNITS, EVEN IF THE, IT WOULD BE BEYOND THE MIX OF THE OVERALL MARKET RATE DEVELOPMENT. 
          AND THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE FROM THE COUNCIL AND THE GOAL WOULD BE ENCOURAGING BASICALLY KIND OF LITTLE FAMILY ROOMMATE SITUATIONS THAT FOR AFFORDABILITY PURPOSES, UM, I WOULD, UH, I WOULD MAKE THE MOTION TO ADOPT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. 
          OKAY. 
          SO IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT? I'LL SECOND. 
          OKAY. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER, ELLIS SECONDS. 
          DO YOUR ORDERS ADDRESS AT FIRST? I THINK STAFF SPOKE TO IT, UH, PARTICULARLY, WELL, I, UH, HONESTLY I WOULD, I, I KNOW IT IS LATE AND I'M LOSING TRACK A LITTLE BIT, BUT WHY WOULD WE NOT KIND OF, YOU KNOW, WANT TO ENCOURAGE THE, THE LARGER BEDROOM? YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? THE LARGER MULTI-FAMILY, UH, TYPE, UH, CAN I SPEAK TO THAT MAYOR? HANG ON A SECOND. 
          HE'S DONE. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH. 
          I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE IT DOESN'T GO THE OTHER WAY THAT IN THIS DISCRETIONARY LANGUAGE, UM, STAFF WOULD END UP SAYING NOT AS MANY, TWO AND THREE BEDROOM UNITS, WE'RE GOING TO MAKE THEM ALL THE SINGLE OR STUDIO, BECAUSE I I'M LOOKING FOR WAYS TO AMPLIFY AND SUPPORT THE LARGER NUMBER OF BEDROOMS IN THE UNITS. 
          I UNDERSTAND. 
          AND THE WAY THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION WAS WRITTEN WOULD ONLY APPLY THE ONE WAY WHERE WE GET MORE MULTI BEDROOM UNITS AND IT WAS ENTIRELY CREATED SO THAT WE WOULD TRY AND GET MORE MULTI BEDROOM AND LESS OF THE STUDIO, ONE BEDROOM UNITS, UM, IN OUR AFFORDABLE UNITS. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND SO IT WOULD ONLY GO ONE WAY. 
          I ACTUALLY THINK THAT SOUNDS PRETTY GOOD. 
          FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE, UH, UH, BELLA, AMANDA COUNCIL MEMBER, TOTO, UM, COUNCIL MEMBER VILLE. 
          I NEED YOU TO REPEAT YOUR AMENDMENT, PLEASE. 
          THE, UH, ADOPT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION WITH REGARD TO THE BEDROOM FLEXIBILITY UNIT MIX AND FLEXIBILITY WHEREBY YOU KNOW, FOR EXAMPLE, INSTEAD OF FOUR SINGLE, UH, OCCUPANT OR SINGLE, THEY COULD DO TWO. 
          I GET THE INTENT. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          I'M JUST ASKING FOR THE LANGUAGE. 
          LIKE, WHAT'S EXACTLY THE LANGUAGE, THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE FROM THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, WHICH YEAH, I HAVE IT SOMEWHERE IN FRONT OF ME, BUT IF YOU COULD JUST REMIND ME WHAT THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE LOOK LIKE AND THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION ORDINANCE, IT IS ON PAGE SIX, LINE 2 0 2 THROUGH 2 0 4, I THINK. 
          AND IT'S AT THE DISCRETION OF THE DIRECTOR, TWO BEDROOM OR THREE BEDROOM AFFORDABLE UNITS MAY COUNT AS TWO OR THREE, ONE BEDROOM EFFICIENCY, AFFORDABLE UNITS. 
          THERE ARE THREE SENTENCES IN THAT SECTION. 
          THE FIRST AND THIRD SENTENCES REMAINED THE SAME. 
          THE ONLY THING THAT'S BEING CHANGED IS THE SECOND SENTENCE, WHICH HAS BEEN HIGHLIGHTED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN. 
          AND YOU CAN SEE THE HIGHLIGHTED LANGUAGE READING AGAIN, THE LANGUAGE THAT THE STAFF HAD AT THE DISCRETION OF THE DIRECTOR, TWO BEDROOM OR THREE BEDROOM AFFORDABLE UNITS MAY COUNT AS TWO OR THREE, ONE BEDROOM, PARENTHESES EFFICIENCY, CLOSE PARENTHESES, AFFORDABLE UNITS. 
          SO, SO MAYOR, UH, IT SEEMS TO ME, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE WILL OF THE DYES IS TO STAY WITH THE STAFF'S VERSION. 
          SO I'M HAPPY TO DO THAT. 
          WE DON'T, I I'M HAPPY TO WITH THAT. 
          AND NOBODY OBJECT TO THE BELLA AMENDMENT AIRING 
          [09:45:01]
NONE, THE VELA AMENDMENTS. 
          WE GO BACK TO THE STAFF LANGUAGE IN THAT AREA. 
          OKAY. 
          MAYOR. 
          SO THAT'S ALL THE CHANGES IN WHAT I HAVE HERE. 
          WE'VE GONE THROUGH THE, AND ONE OF OUR COLLEAGUES HAS, UH, ASKED TO RECONSIDER A VOTE HAS HARBOR KELLY. 
          YES. 
          I WOULD LIKE TO RECONSIDER THE VOTE ON THE ELLIS AMENDMENT, PLEASE. 
          IT IS LATE AND I WAS NOT FOLLOWING AS I SHOULD HAVE BEEN CLOSELY TO HOW WE WERE VOTING ON THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          ALICE HAD TWO AMENDMENTS, ONE WAS CHANGING 12. 
          TELL ME, TELL ME WHICH RESULTS YOU WANT TO CHANGE. 
          RIGHT NOW, WE ARE 1215 WITH A 12% AND 15% FOR BOTH BLUE AND ORANGE LINES AND ALSO FOR THE OTHER LINES. 
          CORRECT. 
          SO IT WOULD BE THE ONE ON THAT NON BLUE ORANGE, THE NON BLUE ORANGE LINES. 
          OKAY. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER KELLY MAKES A MOTION TO RECONSIDER. 
          IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT? THAT'S MY RIVER. 
          UM, VELA SECOND SIDE. 
          IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER? I COULDN'T QUITE HEAR WHICH VOTE. 
          WE WERE RECONSIDERING. 
          THE ONE THAT HAD US GOING FROM 10 TO 12% TO 12 TO 15% ON THE NON ORANGE AND BLUE LINE. 
          SO THE ORANGE AND BLUE LINES, WE'VE GONE TO 12 TO 15%. 
          THE QUESTION IS, DO WE STICK WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF 10 TO 12 ON THE OTHER LINES? OR DO WE ALSO GO TO 12 TO 15 ON THE NON ORANGE AND BLUE LINES? THAT'S RIGHT. 
          WE HAVE A ONE PROCEDURAL THING. 
          I THINK, UM, COUNCIL MEMBER VELA WAS ON, WAS NOT ON THE PREVAILING SIDE. 
          SO I DON'T THINK HE CAN, HE CAN SECOND AT, HE CAN'T MAKE THE MOTION SO HE CAN SAY HE CAN, SECOND TO MOTION HAS TO BE MADE BY SOMEONE ON THE PREVAILING SIDE COUNCIL MEMBER. 
          KELLY WAS ON THE PREVAILING SIDE. 
          NO PROBLEM. 
          ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER THOSE IN FAVOR OF ALLOWING THE RECONSIDERING, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. 
          UH, BELLA, UH, KELLY, THIS IS THE NON ORANGE AND BLUE LINES. 
          UH, RAN THREE, UH, MAY, UM, UM, HARPER, MADISON, AND ALICE, THOSE OPPOSED THE BALANCE OF THE DYESS, THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER PASSES. 
          SO MAYOR DISAPPOINT ABOUT ARE, ARE NOT APPOINTED BY HER. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          ON A MOTION TO RECONSIDER. 
          YES. 
          CAN THE ENTIRE DIES RUN ON IT OR DOES IT HAVE TO BE PEOPLE THAT VOTED FOR IT IN THE FIRST PLACE CAN VOTE? ALL RIGHT. 
          WE HAVEN'T DECIDED THIS QUESTION. 
          I'VE JUST GETS US BACK TO GROUND ZERO. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THERE'S AN AMENDMENT IN FRONT OF US TO, UH, CHANGE THE, UH, THE, THE BASE MOTION FROM COUNCIL MEMBER. 
          KITCHEN HAS US GOING TO 12 FROM AS US HAVING 12 AND 15% FOR THE OTHER THAN BLUE AND ORANGE LINES. 
          THE MOTION THE AMENDMENT IS TO GO BACK TO THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF 10 AND 12 FOR THE NON BLUE AND ORANGE LINES. 
          IT'S BEEN, IS THERE WE WERE, WERE YOU CONSIDERING THAT VOTE? SO IT'S IN FRONT OF US IS READY TO DISCUSSION BEFORE WE VOTE. 
          NATASHA. 
          NATASHA, DID YOU RAISE YOUR HAND? NO. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          LET'S TAKE A, VOTE THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE AMENDMENT. 
          PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. 
          IT'S KEEPING IT A 10 TO 12 FOR THE NON BLUE AND ORANGE LINES. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          IT'S UH, BELLA KELLY, UH, RENT MARIA, UH, ALICE HARPER, MADISON AND ME, THOSE OPPOSED, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. 
          UH, IT IS THE BALANCE OF THE DIAS 65, THAT AMENDMENT PASSES. 
          OKAY. 
          ARE THERE ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS TO, UH, THIS ITEM 80 COUNTS, REMEMBER KITCHEN COUNSEL, HANG ON ONE SECOND. 
          DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING PRESS? I JUST NEEDED A HOUSEKEEPING AMENDMENT IN THE EVENT. 
          THIS PASSES, UH, WE HAVE A REFERENCES TO ORANGE AND BLUE LINES IN THE DRAFT ORDINANCE. 
          HOWEVER, WE WILL NEED TO PUT THE STREET NAMES IN THERE. 
          SO WE WOULD LIKE THE AUTHORITY TO ADD THAT TO THE ORDINANCE WHEN WE HAVE THOSE NAMES. 
          CAN I JUST ANYBODY OBJECTION TO GIVING THAT AUTHORITY TO STAFF, TO THE SCRIBBLER TO MAKE THAT CHANGE HEARING NONE. 
          YES. 
          YOU HAVE THAT AUTHORITY CANCER KITCHEN. 
          UM, THIS ISN'T BACKUP. 
          WELL, IT'S ACTUALLY IT'S IT'S DIRECTION MAYOR. 
          SO DO YOU WANT ME TO DO THAT NOW? OR DO YOU WANT TO FINISH THE, UH, DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS TO 
          [09:50:01]
NUMBER 18? I THINK COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO DOVE. 
          OKAY. 
          YES. 
          I DISTRIBUTED THIS EARLIER. 
          IT'S SIMILAR TO THE ONE THAT I PROPOSED AND THAT YOU ALL PASSED ON 66. 
          IT IS ACCEPTED AS MORE NARROW. 
          UM, THIS REQUIRES THAT AN AFFORDABLE UNIT OR PROHIBITS AN AFFORDABLE UNIT FROM BEING USED AS A TYPE TWO OR TYPE THREE SHORT-TERM RENTAL. 
          OKAY. 
          DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO THIS AMENDMENT? ANY OBJECTIONS TO THIS AMENDMENT SAYING NOW THIS AMENDMENT IS INCORPORATED INTO THE BASE MOTION. 
          ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS, COUNCILMEMBER KITCHEN. 
          DID YOU HAVE DIRECTION YOU WANTED TO PROPOSE? YOU WANT ME TO DO THAT NOW, PLEASE? OKAY. 
          THE DIRECTION. 
          UM, I, UM, I PASSED OUT AND THIS IS, UH, TO, TO BE RESPONSIVE TO QUESTIONS THAT WERE RAISED BY, UH, SOME, SOME IN OUR COMMUNITY THAT ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE IMPACT OF, UH, AND THE POTENTIAL FOR, UM, DISPLACEMENT. 
          AND SO IT'S THE CITY MANAGER'S DIRECTED TO ANALYZE AND REPORT TO COUNCIL THE FEASIBILITY OF THE FOLLOWING APPROACH. 
          AND THE APPROACH JUST SPEAKS TO, UM, IT JUST SPEAKS TO ANALYZING WHAT WAS REQUESTED OF US BY THE PUBLIC, WHICH WAS A RECOGNITION THAT, THAT, UM, IN SOME PARTS, IN SOME AREAS OF TOWN, UH, 60% OF, OF MFI MAY BE HIGHER THAN THE FOLKS THAT ARE LIVING IN THAT AREA. 
          SO THE DIRECTION IS, IS FOR, IS, IS FOR, UM, STAFF TO ANALYZE THE FEASIBILITY OF, UH, SOME OPTIONS. 
          AND ONE OF THOSE OPTIONS MIGHT BE THAT YOU COULD SAY 60% OF THE MFI OR 80% OF THE MFI IN THE CENSUS BLOCK GROUP. 
          THIS DIRECTION IS NOT INTENDED TO STATE A SPECIFIC APPROACH. 
          IT'S JUST ASKING IN RESPONSE TO WHAT THE PUBLIC HAS BEEN ASKING US TO FOR STAFF TO GIVE SOME CONSIDERATION AND LET US KNOW IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD RECOMMEND TO TAKE ACCOUNT FOR THAT. 
          DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO THIS AMENDMENT? I THINK IT'S GOOD TO BRING THIS METRIC BECAUSE WE DO HEAR THIS A LOT FROM THE PUBLIC. 
          UH, I THINK THIS IS PROBABLY THIS KIND OF THING, UNFORTUNATELY, WOULD BE A FAIR HOUSING VIOLATION, BUT WE SHOULD FIND OUT, UH, AND YOU'RE ASKING FOR THAT TO BE CONSIDERED. 
          AND FROM FEASIBILITY, WE LOOK AT IT AND I SUPPORT THAT. 
          SO WITHOUT OBJECTION, THIS IS DESCRIBED, THIS DIRECTION IS ALSO INCORPORATED. 
          ARE WE READY TO TAKE A VOTE ON NUMBER 80, TAKE A, VOTE THOSE IN FAVOR OF NUMBER 80 AS AMENDED WITH THE DIRECTION, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. 
          THOSE OPPOSED, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO VOTES. 
          NO, THOSE VOTING AYE PASSES. 
          THERE'S ONE THING LEFT. 
          IT'S THE ZONING CASE. 
          I DON'T KNOW HOW INVOLVED THAT IS. 
          UM, JERRY, IS THAT MIRA? I THINK WE PROBABLY DO IT IN ABOUT BETWEEN FIVE AND 10 MINUTES AND 10 MINUTES TOPS. 
          OKAY. 
          LET'S DO IT. 
          UM, I'D ALSO ASKED A REAL QUICK, IF YOU DON'T MIND MIRROR, AND WE DO HAVE A COUPLE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS THAT I KNOW WE'RE ON CHANGES AND CORRECTIONS, BUT BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS WOULD BE OKAY. 
          IF I GOT TO VOTE ON THE POSTPONEMENT OF THOSE ITEMS, I CAN READ THEM IN REAL QUICK. 
          AND I'M 82 WOULD BE A STAFF POSTPONEMENT THAT JUNE 16TH I'D MADE THREE WOULD BE A STAFF POSTPONE TO A JULY 28TH AND MAY SIX, BE A STAFF POSTPONE WITH JULY 28TH 91 22 WOULD BE STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO JUNE 16TH. 
          OKAY. 
          IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THOSE POSTPONEMENTS OF OUR MAKES THE MOTION GOT SOMEWHERE POOLS SECOND? ANY DISCUSSION THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HANDS. 
          THOSE OPPOSED SHAVANA MISS ON THE DICE ARE ALL DONE. 
          TAKE US TO THE 
          [120. C14-2022-0003 - Clayton Lane Residences - Conduct a public hearing and approve an ordinance amending City Code Title 25 by rezoning property locally known as 1120 and 1124 Clayton Lane (Fort Branch Watershed). Applicant’s Request: To rezone from community commercial-mixed use-conditional overlay-neighborhood plan (GR-MU-CO-NP) combining district zoning to community commercial-mixed use-vertical mixed use building-neighborhood plan (GR-MU-V-NP) combining district zoning. Staff Recommendation and Planning Commission Recommendation: To grant community commercial-mixed use-vertical mixed use building-conditional overlay-neighborhood plan (GR-MU-V-CO-NP) combining district zoning. Owner/Applicant: Hallock Holdings LLC (Gary Hallock). Agent: Alice Glasco Consulting (Alice Glasco). City Staff: Heather Chaffin, 512-974-2122.]
LAST ZONING CASE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          MA'AM UH, THE LAST ONE IS, UM, ITEM NUMBER ONE 20 IT'S KC 14, 2020 2 0 0 0 3. 
          AS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 11 20 11 24 CLAYTON LANE. 
          THE REQUESTED ZONING FROM GR M U C AND P TO G R M U V N P. 
          THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE GRM UV NP WITH THE FOLLOWING COVID USES AUTO REPAIR AUTO RENTALS AUTO SALE AUTO WASHING SERVICE STATION, FUNERAL SERVICES, COMMERCIAL OFF-STREET PARKING BAIL, BOND SERVICES, PAWNSHOP SERVICES. 
          DROP-OFF RECYCLING PEDICAB STORES AND DISPATCH AS WELL AS OFFSITE ACCESSORY BEING A CONDITIONAL USE. 
          UM, THE APPLICANT IS IN AGREEMENT WITH ALL THE CONDITIONS IN THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. 
          THE PLANNING COMMISSION VOTED IN FAVOR OF THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. 
          UM, THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS A MULTI-FAMILY PROJECT TODAY. 
          THERE ARE SEE, THERE ARE 16 EXISTING APARTMENTS. 
          UM, ON THE SITE, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A PROJECT THAT WOULD RESULT IN 52 BEDROOM UNITS AND 265 1 BEDROOM UNITS. 
          UM, I BELIEVE THE AFRICAN HAS SOME COMMENTS THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO MAKE REGARDING, UM, TENANT RELOCATION ON THIS SITE. 
          [09:55:01]
THE APPLICANT HAS NOT AT THIS TIME, FILED A DEMOLITION PERMIT WITH THE CITY AND THEREFORE THE TENANT RELOCATION PROCESS HAS NOT COMMENCED IS SOLELY AT THE ZONING STAGE AT THIS POINT WITH THAT I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. 
          OKAY. 
          I LIFTED UP THE APPLICANT SPEAK APPREHENDS FIVE MINUTES. 
          GOOD EVENING. 
          MAYOR MAYOR PRO TEM. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE. 
          COUNCIL MEMBERS, CITY MANAGER, CITY ATTORNEY I'M ALICE GLASGOW REPRESENTING JCR RESIDENTIAL. 
          THAT'S THE ENTITY THAT HAS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY UNDER CONTRACT. 
          IF I COULD HAVE MY PRESENTATION, PLEASE, TH THIS MAP SHOWS THE SUBJECT SITE HIGHLIGHTED IN LU. 
          IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED GR M U C O N P AND S. 
          IT'S SURROUNDED BY THE ZONING AND IN PROXIMITY TO CAMERON ROAD, WHICH IS AN ACT COKER, A COURT TRANSIT CORRIDOR, AND AN IMAGINE AUSTRIAN CORRIDOR. 
          NEXT SLIDE. 
          THIS IS AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SITE. 
          IT HAS 16 UNITS, HOWEVER, ONLY 14 ARE CURRENTLY OCCUPIED. 
          NEXT SLIDE. 
          IT'S JUST A PICTURE OF, UH, ONE OF THE BUILDINGS AND, UH, THE, UH, THE AGE OF THE BUILDINGS ARE BETWEEN 35 YEARS OLD TO 81 YEARS OLD NEXT. 
          SO THIS JUST GIVES, IT GIVES YOU A COMPARISON OF, UH, THE ZONING. 
          YOU'VE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION TONIGHT ABOUT M USE ZONING AND VISA OWNING, AND THE DIFFERENCES. 
          AND THIS SITE IS CURRENTLY ZONED GRM, U C O N P. 
          AND UNDER THE MUA ZONING, THE ALLOWED NUMBER OF UNITS WOULD BE 106, AND THOSE WOULD BE NOT F NONE OF THEM ARE REQUIRED TO BE AFFORDABLE, THAT ALL BE MARKET RATE UNITS. 
          HOWEVER, BY ADDING THE V OVERLAY, THE VMU COMBINING DISTRICT, WE ARE CONTEMPLATING 249 UNITS, AND OUT OF THOSE 10% WOULD BE AFFORDABLE. 
          AND THAT'S 25 UNITS AT THE MFI LEVEL THAT WE JUST ADOPTED. 
          SO, UM, THAT'S WHAT THE VMU DOES NEXT SLIDE. 
          SO WE'VE HAD THREE MEETINGS WITH THE TENANTS, UM, AND, UM, MY CLIENT JUST HAS THE PROPERTY UNDER CONTRACT. 
          THEY DO NOT OWN THE PROPERTY. 
          SO, UH, THE, UM, TENANT TO LOCATION ASSISTANT THAT WE HAVE OFFERED WOULD APPLY AFTER THEY BECOME THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY. 
          I'LL SET UP FOR NUMBER ONE, ONE MONTH FREE RENT AT ANY JCR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WITH A SIGNING OF AT LEAST A 12 MONTH LEASE. 
          UM, AS WELL AS, AS THE JCI AT THOSE THREE PROPERTIES THAT WE'VE SHARED WITH OUR TENANTS, UH, THEY WOULD WAIVE APPLICATION AND ADMINISTRATION FEES. 
          OBVIOUSLY THEY HA THEY'RE SUBJECT TO TENANT QUALIFICATIONS BECAUSE THOSE PROPERTIES ARE REGULATED BY THE, UH, THE TAX CREDIT PROJECTS. 
          AND THEY HAVE TO ADHERE TO PRE QUALIFICATION OF, UM, TO BE A TENANT. 
          SECOND, ALL RESIDENTS WILL RECEIVE THEIR FINAL TWO MONTH MONTHS FREE ON CURRENT LEASES AT THE OLD HOMESTEAD AS A REBATE FOR RELOCATION ASSISTANCE, UM, ONLY APPLICABLE AFTER JCR RESIDENTIAL PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY. 
          AND THEN NUMBER THREE, ALL RESIDENTS HAVE THE FIRST RIGHT OF RETURN TO THE NEW FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AT 1124 CLAYTON LANE. 
          UM, NUMBER FOUR, ALL RESIDENTS HAVE THE FIRST RIGHT TO RESERVE A UNIT AT THE NEW JCR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, WINDSOR PARK, TWO TOWERS TOWERS APARTMENTS PROJECT, UH, WILL OPEN A 2023. 
          AND IT'S LOCATED AT 6,007, NORTH AGED 35, WHICH IS ABOUT NOT TOO FAR FROM THE SUBJECT SITE AT, UM, UH, THAT IS ON YOUR AGENDA TONIGHT. 
          UH, NUMBER FOUR, ALL CURRENT LEASES AT THE OLD HOMESTEAD WILL, WILL NOT EXPIRE. 
          THEY WILL REMAIN IN EFFECT UNTIL, UH, THEY CAN STAY THERE UNTIL JANUARY 31 OR 2023, UM, AND INCLUDES MONTH TO MONTH LEASES. 
          ALSO IN ALL CURRENT LEASES, WE'LL HAVE THE OPTION TO EXTEND THERE CURRENTLY. 
          SO PLEASE TERMS, IF THEY'RE ABOUT TO EXPIRE TWO TO 1 31, 20 23, ALL LEASES WILL NOT BE SUBJECT TO AN EARLY TERMINATION FEE. 
          IF A RESIDENT WISHES TO END THEIR LEASES PRIOR TO THE CURRENT LEASE TERM, THEN THEY CAN CERTAINLY DO SO. 
          UH, NO LEASES WILL BE CUT SHORT OF THEIR CURRENT LEASE TERM UNLESS REQUESTED BY THE RESIDENT. 
          PART OF THE ABOVE ALL THESE SOLDIERS THAT ARE CURRENT ON RENT THROUGH THE END OF THEIR LEASE TERM, DEFINITE DEPOSITS WILL BE RETURNED IN FULL. 
          SO THE CURRENT, UM, UM, UH, UH, RENTS ARE BETWEEN, UH, THE LOWEST RENT IS $900 PER MONTH. 
          AND THE HIGHEST RENT IS, UM, $1,750. 
          SO THE, UH, THE TOTAL PACKAGE OF YOU SHOULD GET ONE MONTH FREE RENT. 
          IF YOU MOVE TO ONE OF THE GCI RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, AND THEN YOU GET TWO MONTHS OF YOUR FREE RENT AND YOUR, AND YOUR, FOR FULL DEPOSIT RETURNED, THAT'S EQUIVALENT TO FOUR MONTHS OF RENT. 
          SO YOU'RE GETTING A TOTAL OF A RANGE OF $3,600 TO 7,000, DEPENDING ON HOW MUCH YOUR, OBVIOUSLY 
          [10:00:01]
YOUR RENT IS, AND YOUR DEPOSIT WAS YOUR FULL AMOUNT OF RENT. 
          SO THIS IS WHAT WE, UH, WE OFFERED UP AS AN UPDATE TO WHAT WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING. 
          AND THIS WAS LAST ISSUE TO THE TENANTS THIS MONDAY, THE 6TH OF JUNE. 
          I WILL PAUSE HERE AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. 
          UM, IF YOU WANT TO KNOW ANYTHING ELSE THOUGH. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THAT'S OVER KITCHEN. 
          YES. 
          UM, JUST QUICKLY, I, I I'LL JUST ASK ONE QUICK QUESTION, CAUSE I THINK WE'RE GOING TO POSTPONE THIS CAUSE, UM, WELL, I, I WON'T EVEN ASK IT. 
          I CAN ASK IT LATER. 
          OKAY. 
          I WOULD JUST, UH, DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY OF THE CURRENT ATTENDANTS WOULD QUALIFY FOR, UM, THE, UH, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, LIKE THE 80% MFI OF 60% OF A FI AT THE OTHER JCI PROPERTIES? I DON'T KNOW. 
          ALL I CAN TELL IT, TELL YOU IS THAT THE, UM, THE, UH, THE TENANTS, THE RENTS ARE PRETTY COMPARABLE TO, YOU KNOW, THE ONE AND TWO BEDROOMS, UH, AT LEAST THE TWO THAT ARE TWO OF THE PROJECTS, UH, THAT ARE REFERENCING, UH, IN ONE OF THEM THEY'RE IN PARTNERSHIP WITH HAKA. 
          AND ONE OF THEM IS IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE AUSTIN, WITH TRAVIS COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY, A HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION, SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU HAVE WITH AUSTIN HOUSING, WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN, A HOUSING CORPORATION. 
          SO THAT'S THE COMPARABLE, BUT WE WE'VE, WE'VE GIVEN THEM THE INFORMATION. 
          AND ASK THEM TO APPLY. 
          I THINK ONLY TWO TENANTS HAVE EXPRESSED AN INTEREST THAT HAVE REACHED OUT TO THOSE, UH, UNITS TO HAVE, UH, TO GET ASSISTANCE IN, UM, IN SIGNING UP FOR THOSE UNITS. 
          BUT WE MENTIONED THOSE BECAUSE THEY'RE THE RENTS. 
          WHEN YOU COMPARE THAT THEY'RE PAYING 900 NOW FOR THE SAME UNIT, THEY WILL BE PAYING 909 $19. 
          THAT'S AT THE OTHER APARTMENTS. 
          AND, UM, UH, THAT THOSE ARE THE RENTS THAT ARE, THAT ARE THERE FOR YOUR TWO BEDROOM UNITS. 
          FOR EXAMPLE, AT BRIDGETTE GRANADA, WHICH IS IN DISTRICT FOUR COUNCIL MEMBER VELA, THE A TWO BEDROOM UNITS, UH, STARTED 1421 PER MONTH. 
          AND AT THE WHOLE HOMESTEAD, THEY RANGE FROM 1,050 TO 1500 AND FOR THE BRIDGE AT TURTLE CREEK. 
          AND THAT IS IN DISTRICT TWO, THAT WAS JUST ALSO BUILT USING THE VMU AND AFFORDABILITY AND LOCKED. 
          AND OUR PARTNER, THE PARTNER, THERE IS A HAKA AND, UH, FOR THE ONE BEDROOM UNITS, IT'S NOT $919 AND TWO BEDROOMS, 1421. 
          THE, UM, THE, THE RENT AT THE OLD HOMESTEAD FOR ONE BEDROOM IS 900 IN COMPARISON. 
          THE, UM, THE TWO BEDROOM WOULD BE 10 50 TO 1500. 
          SO WE ONLY HAVE ONE, THREE BEDROOM, ONE, THREE BEDROOM UNIT AT OUR OLD HOMESTEAD. 
          THE CURRENT SITE HAD BEEN REZONED AND THAT SET, UM, 1750 A MONTH. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, I'M SORRY, JUST ONE QUICK QUESTION. 
          DO WE KNOW THAT THOSE, THAT THERE'S AVAILABILITY OF THESE OTHER UNITS, IN OTHER WORDS, WOULD THEY ALL BE AT LEAST AVAILABILITY? HAVE WE GUARANTEED THEM? WE'VE WE'VE, WE'VE, WE'VE WE'VE, UM, OFFERED THAT IF THEY, THEY, THEY REACH OUT TO THE, UM, TO THE, UM, TO, TO THE, TO THE, TO THEIR MANAGEMENT COMPANY AND APPLY BECAUSE THERE IS A SCREENING REQUIREMENT JUST LIKE ANY OTHER PLACE. 
          AND ESPECIALLY IF THEY ARE TAX CREDIT, UM, UH, UNITS, THEY HAVE TO ADHERE TO THE QUALIFY QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS TO APPLY. 
          SO THEY PROVIDE THE INFORMATION ONLY TWO HAVE REACHED OUT TO APPLY, AND WE WOULD ASSIST IN MAKING SURE THAT THEY RESERVE A UNIT FOR THEM, IF THEY REACH OUT TO THEIR, WELL, THIS IS A MUCH LONGER CONVERSATION. 
          WE DON'T NEED TO HAVE IT TONIGHT, BUT, UM, WHAT I'M HEARING FROM THE RESIDENTS IS THAT THERE, THERE ISN'T, UH, THERE AREN'T PLACES AFFORDABLE TO THEM AT THEIR CURRENT LEVEL, BUT THAT'S A LONGER CONVERSATION. 
          SO, WELL, THOSE ARE THE RENTS THAT I JUST QUOTED YOU IN. 
          THOSE PROJECTS ARE IN ASSOCIATION AGAIN WITH A HAKA AND WITH, UH, AUSTIN, TRAVIS COUNTY. 
          OKAY. 
          IS THERE A MOTION ON THIS COUNSELOR KELLY AND THAT GETS MY TOE OFF. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, I MEAN, I GUESS I DON'T NEED AN ANSWER TO THIS NOW, IF WE DO PLAN ON POSTPONING IT, BUT I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT INDIVIDUALS WHO MIGHT BE GOING THROUGH THE APPLICATION PROCESS THAT MAYBE DON'T QUALIFY. 
          UM, AND IF THERE ARE PLANS FOR THAT, BUT AGAIN, YOU DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER THAT NOW. 
          UM, PERHAPS WHEN IT COMES BACK, WE CAN ADDRESS THAT, UM, A COUPLE OF THINGS, MS. GLASGOW, COULD YOU PLEASE PROVIDE US WITH THAT POWERPOINT? I KNOW WE CAN GO BACK TO THE TRANSCRIPT AND GO OVER A BIT. 
          IF YOU COULD PROVIDE US WITH, WITH THAT, UM, POWERPOINT, THAT WOULD BE USEFUL. 
          IF YOU COULD PROVIDE US WITH THE RENTS THAT YOU JUST QUOTED. 
          I COULDN'T QUITE CAPTURE ALL OF THEM. 
          IT SOUNDED CORRECT. 
          IT SOUNDED 
          [10:05:01]
TO ME LIKE THE RATES, UH, FOR A ONE BEDROOM, ONE BATH AT OLD HOMESTEAD ARE A LITTLE UNDER, MAYBE BY A HUNDRED DOLLARS A MONTH, THE EFFICIENCY AT THE OTHER UNITS. 
          SO I THINK TO GET A COMPARABLE, I'M JUST TRYING TO THINK THIS THROUGH, BUT TO GET A COMPARABLE UNIT, IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY WOULD BE LOOKING AT AN INCREASE. 
          THERE'LL BE SLIGHTLY, YES, THEY WILL BE HIGH, ESPECIALLY SINCE THE, UH, THE, UH, THE TAC, THE TDAC ISSUE. 
          THEY'RE NEW, THEY'RE NEW MFI RATES. 
          THEY DID GO UP SLIGHTLY. 
          SO YES, BUT THEY ARE NOT EXACTLY CONVERSELY, THEY'RE GOING TO BE AT LEAST SOME DOLLARS HIGHER, A FEW T 19, LIKE THE, THE, THE ONE BEDROOM WHERE THEY'RE PAYING 900 HOMESTEAD, THERE'LL BE NINE 19 AT, UH, AT, UM, BUT THAT'S, YEAH, IT WAS JUST, YOU WOULD BE GOING TO ONE UNIT, CORRECT. 
          IF YOU'RE IN EFFICIENCY AND SEE, SO I THINK IF YOU COULD PROVIDE US WITH THAT INFORMATION, I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL JUST TO TRY TO MAKE, TO TRY TO GET A HANDLE ON THAT. 
          UM, I ALSO WANT TO JUST APPRECIATE A COUPLE OF THINGS ABOUT, ABOUT THIS PROCESS. 
          ONE IS THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONTINUED WORK WITH THE TENANTS AND YOUR CONTINUED LISTENING AND, AND ADDRESSING THEY'RE VERY VALID AND VERY REAL CONCERNS ABOUT RELOCATING AND RELOCATING TO PLACES THAT ARE, ARE NEARBY AND ARE ALSO AT THE SAME AT THE SAME LEVEL. 
          UM, AND I HOPE THAT THAT DIALOGUE CONTINUES. 
          I WANT TO ALSO JUST APPRECIATE, UH, THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE LIVING IN THE, WHO ARE LIVING THERE, UH, THE RESIDENTS, UM, FOR YOUR ADVOCACY AND FOR THE ADVOCACY, NOT JUST FOR YOUR OWN, UM, HOUSING, BUT ALSO FOR THAT OF YOUR NEIGHBORS. 
          AND I HOPE THAT I HOPE THAT THOSE DIALOGUE, THAT, THAT DIALOGUE WILL CONTINUE. 
          I'D LIKE TO SEE I'D LIKE, I, I HOPE THERE MIGHT BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR, UM, SOME ADDITIONAL RELOCATION ASSISTANCE. 
          AND SO I HOPE THAT THAT WILL CONTINUE AS THIS GETS POSTPONED AND THE CONVERSATION CONTINUES. 
          YEAH. 
          AND I'LL, I WILL CORRECT MYSELF. 
          I'M READING IT, REALLY MY CHART HERE THAT ARE CORRECT THAT THE OTHER UNITS, THE, UH, THE LOW AMOUNT IS AN EFFICIENCY UNIT AND THE ONE BEDROOM IS LIKE TO LIAR. 
          SO THEY ARE SO LET'S SPEAK OF THAT. 
          CORRECT. 
          SO, OKAY. 
          KITCHEN. 
          UM, SO, SO, SO, OKAY. 
          SO THERE, THERE'S NOT A COMPARABLE, THE SMALLER UNITS, THE SMALLER, THE SMALLER ACTUALLY HAVE TO PAY MORE TO GET THE SAME SIZE THAT THEY'RE IN RIGHT NOW, SLIGHTLY MORE CORRECT. 
          THEREFORE, THE, UH, LIKE THE BRIDGE AT GRANADA IS THE CLOSEST ONE THAT THAT'S CLOSE TO THIS SIDE, IT'S ALL IN DISTRICT FOUR. 
          SO THE, UM, THE ONE BEDROOM UNITS THERE WOULD BE, UM, UH, THE S THE SMALLEST SIZE WOULD BE 1188, SO IT'S AS OPPOSED TO IN ANTARCTICA. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, SO THERE IS A DIFFERENCE. 
          SO THEN THE LAST QUESTION WOULD BE THE APPLICATION. 
          I THINK, UM, COUNCIL MEMBER KELLY ASKED A SIMILAR QUESTION, BUT, UH, HAVE YOU EXPLORED THE POSSIBILITY OF, OF, UM, OF STREAMLINING ANY KIND OF APPLICATION PROCESS, THE, UH, THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS, BECAUSE THAT TAX CREDIT AND THE SAME ACTUAL, THE SAME PROCEDURES, THE SAME REQUIREMENTS OF THE, THE, UM, THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE SO MUCH, TWO MONTHS OF RENT IN YOUR INCOME. 
          IT'S A LIST OF, UM, UH, SEVERAL REQUIREMENTS, UM, THAT, UM, THAT ARE, THAT, THAT ARE REQUIRED BY T D H C A, THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR TAX CREDIT FUNDED PROJECTS. 
          THE SAME, MY UNDERSTANDING IN TALKING TO THEM, YOUR DEPARTMENT, THE CITY'S HOUSING DEPARTMENT FOR THE AUSTIN FINANCE CORPORATION, UM, PROJECTS THAT HAVE SIMILAR FUNDING, YOU HAVE THE SAME CRITERIA FOR SCREENING TENANTS. 
          SO IT'S THE SAME SCREENING CRITERIA THAT, THAT, THAT THE CITY HFC HOUSING PROJECTS ARE SUBJECT TO THE SAME SCREENING REQUIREMENTS ARE HERE. 
          SO THEY'RE REQUIRED BY TDAC, OR WE CAN'T WAIVE THE SCREENING REQUIREMENTS. 
          WE WAIVE IT TO YOU. 
          YOU COULD THAT ON UP, I THINK THAT'S THE KENTUCKY. 
          CAN YOU CONSIDER ALLOWING, UM, UH, ADDITIONAL TIME BEFORE THEY HAVE TO MOVE OUT? WE HAVE THE RE THE, UH, THE, UH, CURRENT LEASES AND THE, UH, THE CURRENT OWNER HAD, WAS FOR THEM TO END DECEMBER 31 OF THIS YEAR, 2022. 
          AND WE'VE AGREED TO, UM, TO, UH, WE HAD AGREE TO EXTEND THEM TO THE END OF, UH, JANUARY 30, ONE OF 30 OR 2023, AS OPPOSED TO DECEMBER, WHICH DURING THE HOLIDAYS. 
          SO TH SO IT WOULD BE AFTER CHRISTMAS, OVER THE END OF JANUARY OF 2023. 
          WELL, I WOULD JUST ASK THAT YOU CONTINUE TO WORK FOR DIRECTLY WITH THEM. 
          I MAY HAVE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS FOR YOU AFTER THIS. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, IT'S, IT'S A VERY DIFFICULT MARKET FOR PEOPLE, PARTICULARLY WHO HAVE 
          [10:10:01]
LIVED AT THIS PLACE FOR A LONG TIME. 
          IT'S VERY DIFFICULT FOR THEM TO FIND ANOTHER LOCATION. 
          SO, UM, AND FROM WHAT YOU'VE TOLD US, EVEN AT OTHER PROPERTIES, IT'S DIFFICULT TO FIND ANYTHING THAT'S COMPARABLE. 
          SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO KEEP WORKING WITH THEM. 
          AND I THINK I MIGHT HAVE SOME SPECIFIC, SOME ADDITIONAL SPECIFIC QUESTIONS FOR YOU BEFORE THIS COMES BACK TO US. 
          OKAY. 
          SOUNDS GREAT. 
          OKAY. 
          IS THERE A MOTION ON THIS? UH, I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE AND JUST BRIEFLY TO SPEAK TO THE MOTION. 
          I DO WANT TO GIVE THEM, UH, ADDITIONAL TIME TO, UH, UH, HOPEFULLY COME TO AN AGREEMENT, BUT I WANT TO ECHO COUNCIL MEMBER. 
          TOBO HIS COMMENTS THAT I HAVE DEALT WITH IN THE FEW MONTHS THAT I'VE BEEN ON THE DICE, I'VE ALREADY DEALT WITH MULTIPLE, UH, DISPLACEMENT CASES. 
          AND, UH, I RESPECT THE FACT THAT IN OTHER CASES THAT I DEALT WITH THERE WAS LYING TO THE TENANTS ABOUT THE INTENTIONS OF THE LANDLORDS. 
          UH, THERE WAS REALLY KIND OF DECEPTION AND REALLY BAD FAITH. 
          UH, AND THIS HAS NOT BEEN THE CASE. 
          I APPRECIATE THAT, YOU KNOW, GIVING THEM SEVEN, EIGHT MONTHS OF, OF HEADS UP, THAT THERE IS GOING TO BE SOMETHING ON THE TABLE. 
          UH, I JUST, WHENEVER I THINK LANDLORDS AND DEVELOPERS DO THE RIGHT THING, I MEAN, WE CALL THEM OUT AND WE'LL BEAT THEM UP IF, IF THEY DO THE WRONG THING. 
          AND WHEN I THINK SOMEONE IS TRYING TO ACT HONORABLY AND IN GOOD FAITH, I ALSO WANT TO WANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT. 
          AND SO I DO, UH, APPRECIATE, UH, THE, UH, JCI AND, AND, AND, UH, YOUR EFFORTS TO TRY TO COME TO A FAIR ACCOMMODATION, UH, WITH THE TENANTS THEY'RE STRUGGLING TOO. 
          IT'S A, IT'S A CHARMING LITTLE SPOT. 
          IT'S A REALLY GREAT LITTLE, UH, SPOT. 
          AND I KNOW THE TENANTS ARE IN STICKER SHOCK BECAUSE A LOT OF THEM HAVEN'T MOVED IN A WHILE AND THEY'RE JUST LIKE LOOKING AROUND AND BEING LIKE, OH MY LORD, I'M NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO, YOU KNOW, POTENTIALLY STAY IN THE, IN THE SAME NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          BUT, UH, BUT I WILL MOVE TO POSTPONE THIS, UH, TO, TO ANY SUGGESTIONS WE COULD TRY FOR THE NEXT WEEK, THE 16TH, OH, MOVE TO POSTPONE IT TO, UH, TO NEXT WEEK. 
          IS THERE A SECOND TO THE MOTION TO POSTPONE THAT'S OVER KELLY SECONDS, THE MOTION AND DISCUSSION THOSE IN FAVOR. 
          PLEASE RAISE YOUR HANDS AS OPPOSED, UNANIMOUS ON THE DIET, THAT ITEMS POSTPONE. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          THANK YOU FOR STAYING SO LATE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THOSE ARE ALL THE ITEMS ON OUR AGENDA, BUT 
          [Additional item]
WE HAVE YET TO GIVE EVERYONE THE CHANCE TO TAKE TO THE CONSENTED. 
          DO WE WANT TO DO THAT? ARE WE READY TO GO HOME AND GO TO BED? LET'S JUST TWEET OUR COMMENTS, PLEASE. 
          THERE YOU HAVE IT THEN. 
          SO AT, UH, BUT I OFFERED 1221 IN THE MORNING. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          WHAT THANK YOU. 
          UM, I WANT TO THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR SUPPORT ON MY ATU ITEM. 
          I HAD A LOT TO SAY ABOUT THAT, BUT I'M GOING TO SKIP IT BECAUSE I WANT TO EXPLAIN WHY I ABSTAINED FROM ITEM NUMBER 38. 
          AND, UM, IF WE HAVE JUST A FEW MOMENTS ALL DAY, LIKE WHY THE ITEM WAS TO RATIFY MULTIPLE EMERGENCY CONTRACTS WITH VARIOUS CONTRACTORS TO PROVIDE GOODS AND SERVICES RELATED TO THE CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC IN THE AMOUNT OF $41.9 MILLION. 
          UM, MY STAFF AND I WENT THROUGH THOSE DIFFERENT INVOICES AND PURCHASE ORDERS, AND SOME OF THE BILLING DID SEEM TO BE CONSISTENT WITH COVID-19 RELATED EXPENSES. 
          THERE WERE A COUPLE ITEMS THAT WEREN'T, UM, ONE EXAMPLE WAS A APARTMENT WITH DAMAGES AND RENOVATIONS. 
          UM, FOR $53,000. 
          THERE WERE ALSO SOME THINGS THAT SEEMED INCONSISTENT WITH THE BILLING PRACTICES AGAINST THE CONTRAST CONTRACTS AND PURCHASE ORDERS. 
          AND I COULD NOT SUPPORT, UM, VOTING IN FAVOR OF THAT ITEM UNTIL SOME OF THOSE THINGS WERE SORTED OUT. 
          SO THANK YOU. 
          ALL RIGHT, WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO ADJOURN THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING HERE AT 1222. 
          GOOD WORK TODAY. 
          SWEET DREAMS.  . 
          I WAS 18. 
          MOMMA HAD SETTLED DOWN. 
          SHE EVEN BOUGHT A HAT.
* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.