>>MAYOR WATSON: EVERYONE PLEASE RISE. JOIN WITH US IN THE INVOCATION THIS MORNING. THIS MORNING THE INVOCATION WILL BE LED BY THE REVEREND CHARLES DAVIS OF SOUTH AUSTIN FELLOWSHIP CHURCH. WE SURE APPRECIATE YOU BEING WITH US.
>> HEAVENLY FATHER WE THANK YOU TO TEACH US THAT TO GOVERN IS TO DO SO JUSTLY. WE THANK YOU FOR THE PRIVILEGE THAT THESE MEN AND WOMEN HAVE REPRESENTING OUR COMMUNITY, CONSIDERING THE ISSUES THAT AFFECT OUR COMMUNITY, [INAUDIBLE], THOSE WHO -- WHO SEEM TO BE ON THE EDGES OF THE SOCIETY AND THOSE IN THE MAIN STREAM, LORD WE JUST ASK THAT ALL OF THE DECISIONS THAT ARE MADE WOULD TAKE INTO CONSIDERATIONS ALL OF THESE PEOPLE IN THIS GREAT CITY INTO CONSIDERATION. AND WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR WISDOM, WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR STRENGTH, WE THANK YOU FOR THE JOY OF SERVING YOU WITH INTEGRITY AND DEALING WITH TRUTH AND BEING PEOPLE OF CONVICTION. FOR ITS IN CHRIST'S NAME WE PRAY, AMEN.
>>MAYOR WATSON: REVEREND, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AT THIS TIME I WILL CALL TO ORDER THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCILL. IT'S A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCILL AND IT IS THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 30TH, 2000. WE ARE MEETING IN THE ASSEMBLY ROOM AT THE TOWN LAKE CENTER BUILDING, WHICH IS LOCATED AT 721 BARTON SPRINGS ROAD. FIRST ITEM ON THE AGODAL BE THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 9TH, 2000 AND THE SPECIAL CALLED MEETING OF NOVEMBER 9TH 2000, NOVEMBER 13TH 2000. IS THERE A MOTION?
>>ALVAREZ: MAYOR I MOVE APPROVAL.
>>MAYOR WATSON: SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. IS THERE A DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED SAY NO., MOTION CARRIES WITH THE MAYOR PRO TEM TEMPORARILY ABSENT. LET ME READ CHANGES AND CORRECTIONS TO THE AGENDA. COUNCIL, THE CHANGES AND CORRECTS TO THE AGENDA, ITEM NO. 3 IS POSTPONED UNTIL DECEMBER 7TH, 2000. ITEM 3 IS POSTPONED TO DECEMBER 7TH, 2000. ITEM 7 INSTEAD OF IT SAYING PROPOSITION 2 OF THE NOVEMBER 1998 -- OR 1988, NOVEMBER 1998, IT SHOULD SAY SNOF -- INSTEAD OF 1988 IT SHOULD SAY 1998. 19TH IS POSTPONED TO DECEMBER 7TH 2000. ITEM NO. 51, GO DOWN TO WHERE IT TAKES ABOUT M.B.E./W.B.E. PARTICIPATION, WHERE IT SAYS .8 WBE, IT SHOULD SAY .11 W.B.E.. ITEM NO. 67. POSTPONED TO DECEMBER 14TH, 2000. ITEM 68, POSTPONED TO DECEMBER 14TH, 2000. ITEM 76, IS POSTPONED INDEFINITELY. ITEM NO. 108, WHICH IS A PUBLIC HEARING -- LET ME GET THE EXACT STYLE OF THE LAWSUIT. TO DISCUSS THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN CIRCLE C LAND CORP VERSUS CITY OF AUSTIN, CAUSE NUMBER 97-13994, THAT IS GENERALLY REFERRED TO AS THE PROPOSED STRATUS SETTLEMENT. THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL NOT BE CONDUCTED BASED UPON MY COMMUNICATIONS WITH A MAJORITY OF THE COUNCIL, BUT I'M GOING TO ASK FOR SOMETHING IN JUST A SECOND, BUT AS IT IS THE PREROGATIVE OF COUNCILMEMBERS, IF A COUNCILMEMBER -- IF COUNCILMEMBERS WANT TO DISCUSS THIS ITEM AND SAY A FEW WORDS ABOUT IT, I WILL RECOGNIZE THEM AT THAT TIME. BUT THERE WILL NOT BE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO MIGHT HAVE BEEN ANTICIPATING COMING DOWN FOR A PUBLIC HEARING. BUT LET ME CONFIRM, I BELIEVE THAT I HAVE TALKED TO EVERYONE, RECEIVED INPUT FROM EVERYONE ON THE COUNCIL, IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO IT BEING HANDLED IN THAT WAY?
>>SLUSHER: MAYOR, I DON'T OBJECT, BUT I JUST WANT TO SAY I WILL MENTION THIS TONIGHT THAT -- THAT I -- I WOULD PREFER THAT WE HAVE A DISCUSSION ON THIS ISSUE AND THINK THAT IS THE APPROPRIATE THING TO DO, BUT AFTER THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS ASKS FOR MORE TIME, THAT WAS PERSUASIVE ENOUGH TO ME TO SORT OF RELUCTANTLY NOT TO HAVE THE PUBLIC DISCUSSION, BUT I WILL HAVE A FEW WORDS TO SAY ON THAT TONIGHT.
>>MAYOR WATSON: VERY GOOD.
>>GRIFFITH: MAYOR? I WOULD AGREE THAT WE WOULD PROBABLY HAVE A MORE EFFECTIVE DISCUSSION AFTER WE HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC AND AFTER WE HEAR FROM OUR BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS THAN WE WOULD BEFORE THAT. I'M -- I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT BECAUSE OF THE TIME FRAME FOR THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, THAT -- THAT WE ALSO DEFER THE SECOND PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL WE HEAR FROM THOSE FOLKS.
>>MAYOR WATSON: YEAH. I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY WHERE WE ARE HEADED. UNTIL WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO -- I WANT TO GET MORE INPUT FROM THEM AND I THINK -- I THINK YOU ARE RIGHT. I THINK THAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. BUT SINCE IT'S ALREADY SAID, LET'S JUST GO AHEAD AND LEAVE IT THERE UNTIL PROBABLY NEXT WEEK WHEN WE MAKE THE DETERMINATION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE ENOUGH SPEED. FOR EXAMPLE ONE OF THE THINGS I MAY MENTION WHICH I THINK ALMOST CERTAINLY INDICATES THAT -- THAT IF WE FOLLOW THE [INAUDIBLE] WE ARE CURRENTLY FOLLOWING WITH THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, I UNDERSTAND THAT HAS GONE THROUGH THE PARKS BOARD, BUT PART OF WHAT I LOOK AT IN THAT TERM SHEET IS WHETHER IF WE DO CERTAIN THINGS WE CAN END UP WITH SOME PROPERTY OUT THERE BEING -- I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THEY HAVE HAD SUFFICIENT INPUT. THERE MAY ACTUALLY BE ANOTHER BOARD [INAUDIBLE] I THINK WHAT YOU ARE SUGGESTING IS GOING TO HAPPEN, I THINK WE OUGHT TO WAIT UNTIL WE GET MORE FEEDBACK FROM THEM.
>>GRIFFITH: THANK YOU.
>>MAYOR WATSON: GOOD. WITH THAT, THAT'S WHAT WE WILL DO ON 108. ITEM NO. 111, WHICH IS ON YOUR AGENDA, IS REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA. COUNCIL, WHAT I AM GOING TO DO, FOR PURPOSES OF -- OF STAFF TIME, IS NOT GO DIRECTLY TO THE BRIEFINGS, BUT INSTEAD GO TO ITEM NO. 11, WHICH I THINK WE CAN DEAL WITH EXPEDITIOUSLY AND BECAUSE IT MAY PLAY A ROLE IN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF PUBLIC HEARINGS AND THAT SORT OF A THING AND CONSENT AGENDA, I'M GOING TO TAKE IT UP, EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT CONSENT AGENDA AND RECOGNIZE COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ.
>>ALVAREZ: YES, MAYOR, I HAD A COUPLE OF SUGGESTIONS TO MAKE ABOUT THE PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR NEXT YEAR. AND MY PROPOSAL WAS GOING TO BE THAT WE -- THAT WE DO NOT HAVE A MEETING JANUARY 4TH, A COUPLE OF DAYS AFTER THE NEW YEAR AND CHANGE THAT MEETING DATE TO JANUARY THE 18TH. I BELIEVE THERE IS NOT A MEETING SCHEDULED FOR [INAUDIBLE] THE OTHER IS THERE IS CURRENTLY A MEETING SCHEDULED FOR JULY 26TH, THAT'S TYPICALLY THE WEEK WHERE WE SEND A DELEGATION OF CITY FOLKS TO SALTILLO OUR SISTER CITY. SO I WAS JUST GOING TO RECOMMEND THAT WE CANCEL THAT MEETING AS WELL.
>>MAYOR WATSON: COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ MOVES APPROVAL OF ITEM NO. 11 WITH TWO AMENDMENTS. ONE IS THE CANCELLATION OF THE JANUARY 4TH MEETING, MOVING THAT TO JANUARY 18TH. AND CANCELLATION OF THE JULY 22ND -- 26TH 2001 MEETING, IS THERE A SECOND?
>>SLUSHER: I WOULD SECOND THAT. I WOULD ASK THE CITY MANAGER IF THERE'S A PARTICULAR REASON WHY THE 18TH WAS CANCELED, IF THIS WILL MESS WITH --.
>>GARZA: THE ONLY THING I BELIEVE MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. DAY FALLS ON THAT MONDAY, WE WILL ALWAYS OBSERVED ON THE DAY OF THE HOLIDAY THAT WEEK THAT THURSDAY IS CANCELED. I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE REASON.
>>ALVAREZ: I GUESS IT'S REALLY RIGHT NOW ON THE 4TH YOU HAVE NEW YEAR'S OBSERVED THAT MONDAY, I BELIEVE. THEN ON THE -- ON THIS OTHER WEEK THEN YOU HAVE MLK DAY AND SO -- BUT SO I THINK WE ARE IN THE SAME SITUATION EITHER WAY. I JUST THOUGHT, YOU KNOW, CHANCES ARE MORE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN AROUND -- ARE GOING TO BE AROUND THAT WEEKEND THAN MAYBE NEW YEAR'S, SO I THOUGHT THAT WOULD BE THE BETTER THING TO DO.
>>SLUSHER: PERHAPS THE CITY MANAGER, WITH THAT MANY NOT HAVING THE MEETING ON THE FOURTH AND 11TH, THAT WOULD GIVE THE STAFF, MIGHT COULD GET THE AGENDA OUT BY THE -- BY THE NEXT WEEK AND THAT WAY WE WOULD STILL OBSERVE MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. HOLIDAY AND HAVE THAT MEETING ON THURSDAY BECAUSE I THINK WE DID THAT ON MEMORIAL DAY THIS YEAR ANYWAY.
>>GARZA: YOU CAN DO IT. THAT'S BEEN OUR STANDARD. THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM WITH IT. THE DAY IS OBSERVED THE DAY IT IS OBSERVED. WE CAN HAVE THE COUNCIL MEETING ON THURSDAY. TO HAVE THE AGENDA MATERIAL TO YOU CERTAINLY IN PLENTY OF TIME FOR YOU TO REVIEW IT OVER THE WEEKEND. NOT A PROBLEM FROM OUR LOGISTICS STANDPOINT.
>>MAYOR WATSON: ALL RIGHT. ANYONE WISHING TO BE HEARD ON ITEM NO. 11.
>>THOMAS: MAYOR. I JUST WANTED -- I WOULD GO ALONG WITH THE SCHEDULING, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO -- I DON'T KNOW FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, JUST A SUGGESTION, MAYBE TO -- TO THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER THAT MAYBE WITHIN THE SCHEDULED MEETINGS THAT WE MIGHT CAN HOPEFULLY HAVE A SCHEDULED MEETINGS THAT WE CAN ADD A MEETING WITHIN THE COMMUNITY IF WE CAN.
>>MAYOR WATSON: SURE. WE WILL LOOK FOR OPPORTUNITIES TO DO THAT. SOMETIMES, JUST SO -- SO YOU KNOW IN THE PAST, SOMETIMES THE DIFFICULTY HAVE BEEN SCHEDULING WITH OTHER PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT THINGS SCHEDULE UNDERSTAND DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE COMMUNITY. THIS IS EARLY ENOUGH WE OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO LOOK AT THAT. WITH THAT ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED NO. MOTION CARRIES ON ITEM NO. 11 WITH THE MAYOR PRO TEM TEMPORARILY ABSENT. COUNCIL, WE WILL NOW GO TO -- TO THE CONSENT AGENDA. LET ME READ TO YOU THE ITEMS THAT I BELIEVE HAVE BEEN PULLED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA FIRST. ITEM 17, ITEM 19, WHICH HAS BEEN POSTPONED TO 12-7-2000, ITEM NO. 67 HAS BEEN POSTPONED TO 12-14 AND 68 HAS BEEN POSTPONED TO 12-14. ITEM 73 HAS BEEN PULLED, ITEM 74 HAS BEEN PULLED, 76 IS POSTPONED INDEFINITELY. 77 HAS BEEN PULLED. 78 HAS BEEN PULLED. THAT WAS THE WHOLE REASON FOR THAT EXERCISE AND I FORGOT TO DO IT. ITEM NO. 32 WILL NEED TO BE PULLED BECAUSE THAT CURRENTLY SETS A DATE AND TIME OF JANUARY 4TH, 2001, WHICH WAS THE WHOLE REASON I DID IT -- DID ITEM 11 FIRST THEN FORGOT TO PULL IT. SO -- YEAH, WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST, COUNCIL, IS THAT WE MOVE THAT TO JANUARY 18TH IN CONJUNCTION WITH COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ'S MOTION, SO WHEN I TAKE UP THE CONSENT AGENDA, I WILL -- THAT WILL BE THE SUGGESTED DATE AND TIME, WHICH IS JANUARY 18TH, 2001. ALL RIGHT. THAT WILL LEAD US -- LET ME ASK THIS. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT NEEDS TO BE PULLED OR THAT CAN BE PUT BACK ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? ALL RIGHT. THE CONSENT AGENDA WILL BE: 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, -- BY THE WAY, FOR PURPOSES OF THE RECORD, 18 IS ON SECOND AND THIRD READING, 20 SECOND AND THIRD READING, 21 SECOND READING, 22 SECOND AND THIRD, 23 SECOND AND THIRD, 24TH SECOND. 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 WITH THE AMENDMENT TO JANUARY 18TH 2001, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 72, 75. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS READ? WIN SO MOVED.
>>MAYOR WATSON: MOTION MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, THERE IS A SECOND? SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS.
>>WYNN: IF I COULD SPEAK TO THE CONSENT AGENDA, I WOULD LIKE TO BE SHOWN AS ABSTAINING AND NOT VOTING ON ITEMS 52 AND 53, IF THAT'S POSSIBLE.
>>MAYOR WATSON: THAT IS POSSIBLE. THE RECORD WILL REFLECT THAT COUNCILMEMBER WYNN IS ABSTAINING AND NOT VOTING ON ITEMS 52 AND 53. COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?
>>SLUSHER: THANK YOU, MAYOR. ON NUMBER 21, THIS IS THE ONE WHERE THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT -- ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT TO APPROVE A ZONING TO ALLOW A LIQUOR STORE HERE. I HAD TOLD THE NEIGHBORS THAT I WOULD DRIVE OUT AND LOOK AT THAT. AND I HAVE. AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WOULD BE A -- A BE A DANGER OR A -- OR AN IMPEDIMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THAT. AND I WOULD -- I WOULD LIKE TO ASK MR. GUERNSEY TO -- I UNDERSTAND THE -- IS MR. GUERNSEY HERE? HERE HE COMES. I UNDERSTAND THE APPLICANT HAS -- HAS SCALED BACK THEIR ZONING REQUEST, BUT IT STILL INCLUDES THE CS FOR THE LIQUOR STORE. I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR WHAT WE ARE APPROVING.
>> COUNCILMEMBERS, THE APPLICANT HAS AMENDED THE REQUEST DOWN FROM GR PORTIONS TO LR. THERE'S STILL A REQUEST FOR CS 1 ZONING THAT WOULD ALLOW THE LIQUOR SALES. SO BY YOUR ACTION TODAY IT WOULD ACKNOWLEDGE THE CS 1 BUT IT WOULD -- IT WOULD ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE LR THAT THEY AMENDED DOWN TO WOULD BE FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE PROPERTY.
>>SLUSHER: OKAY. THERE'S SOME CONCERN ABOUT THIS COULD BE TURN INTO A NIGHTCLUB. THE APPLICANT SAID THEY HAD NO INTENT OF DOING THAT, BUT IT WAS A FEAR THE NEIGHBORHOOD EXPRESSED THAT WE TOOK CARE OF -- OF THAT, DIDN'T WE?
>> THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY COULD PROHIBIT THE COCKTAIL -- COCKTAIL LOUNGE USE OR BAR FROM EVER BEING ON THE PROPERTY.
>>SLUSHER: IT DOES THAT ALREADY OR COULD?
>> IT DOES.
>>SLUSHER: THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE ABOUT THAT. THANK YOU, MR. GUERNSEY. YOU MIGHT END UP ANSWERING A QUESTION ON THIS. MAYOR, WOULD YOU SHOW ME VOTING NO ON NO. 18. I JUST BELIEVE -- THIS IS ON OLD BEE CAVE ROAD, RURAL RESIDENTIAL. I BELIEVE RURAL, IT'S STILL IN LARGE PART A RURAL AREA AND THAT RURAL RESIDENTIAL IS APPROPRIATE AND THAT BY PUTTING APARTMENTS THERE WE ARE GOING TO GENERATE MORE TRAFFIC AND MORE EXPENSE IN AN AREA WHERE WE ARE TRYING NOT TO GET MORE DENSITY.
>>MAYOR WATSON: ALL RIGHT. COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER WILL BE SHOWN VOTING NO ON ITEM NO. 18. WE HAVE A COUPLE OF PEOPLE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK AND BEFORE I CALL THEM UP, LET ME POINT OUT ON ONE OTHER ITEM, ITEM NO. 34, COUNCIL, THIS IS A RESOLUTION REGARDING A REQUEST FOR CONSENT FROM MUNICIPAL INCORPORATION. IN THE RESOLUTION TODAY IF WE PASS THIS BY -- BY VOTING YES, ON CONSENT AGENDA, YOU WILL BE VOTING FOR A RESOLUTION THAT DENIES THE REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION. BECAUSE THAT'S -- THAT SOUNDS A LITTLE BACKWARD I WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT TO EVERYBODY. WE HAVE PEOPLE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. JEFF HOWARD.
>> [INAUDIBLE]. COUNCIL, MR. HOWARD WILL BE SPEAKING ON ITEM NO. 36.
>> THANK YOU, MAYOR, GOOD MORNING, COUNCILMEMBERS. MY NAME IT'S JEFF HOWARD, I REPRESENT RIVER BEND CHURCH. ITEM NO. 36 IS AN ITEM FOR APPROVAL OF THE DAVENPORT WEST ANNEXATION ON FIRST READING, WHICH INCLUDES RIVER BEND CHURCH. AS YOU KNOW, THE CITY OF AUSTIN HAS INITIATED A P.U.D. ZONING CASE TO ACCOMMODATE THE INTENDED DEVELOPMENT FOR RIVER BEND CHURCH AND WE ARE SCHEDULED TO GO TO PLANNING COMMISSION ON DECEMBER 5TH AND COME BEFORE COUNCIL ON DECEMBER 14TH. I WANTED TO PROVIDE COUNCIL SORT OF WHERE THAT IS. THINGS ARE BY AND LARGE PROGRESSING VERY WELL WITH STAFF. HOWEVER, WE DID LEARN YESTERDAY THAT THERE ARE STILL SOME OUTSTANDING ISSUES. I'M -- I'M VERY CONFIDENT THAT WE CAN GET THOSE RESOLVED BEFORE THE P.U.D. [INAUDIBLE] -- EXCUSE ME. HOWEVER I AM A LITTLE CONCERNED THAT WE HAVE JUST TWO WEEKS AND SO WELCOME BE REQUESTING SOME ASSISTANCE FROM THE MANAGER'S OFFICE TO HELP US GET THAT DONE. THAT'S ALL THAT I HAD TO SAY. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I WILL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM.
>>MAYOR WATSON: ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF MR. HOWARD. THANK YOU, MR. HOWARD.
>>.
>>MAYOR WATSON: JUDY MECHEN IS HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NO. 71. MS. KRAMER ARE YOU GOING TO ALSO SPEAK?
>> YES, SIR.
>>MAYOR WATSON: IF YOU WOULD, WHY DON'T YOU MAKE YOUR WAY UP FRONT.
>> THANK YOU. MY NAME IS JUDY MACHEN, I OWN A TOWING SERVICE HERE IN AUSTIN. I AM ALSO PRESIDENT OF THE AUSTIN TOWING ASSOCIATION. AND I WANTED TO SPEAK TO YOU BRIEFLY ON THE PACKAGE HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO YOU HERE TODAY. WE HAVE WORKED ON THIS PACKAGE SINCE 1997. AND WE FEEL THAT IT WOULD BE A BIG BONUS AND A PLUS TO THE TRAFFIC CONTROL HERE IN AUSTIN, BUT IT'S HOLDING OUR INCREASE AS SORT OF A HOSTAGE AND THE RATE INCREASE IS AN ORDINANCE ALL ON ITS VERY OWN. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO HAVE ANOTHER PACKAGE WITH IT. BECAUSE IT IS WRITTEN SEPARATE SO THAT IT CAN BE ADJUSTED ON A CURRENT BASIS AND WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT PULLED. AND GO AHEAD AND GO WITH THE RATE INCREASE, SO THAT SOME OF THE SMALLER COMPANIES HERE IN AUSTIN CAN DO BUSINESS TO HELP YOU WITH YOUR TRAFFIC CONTROL. THEY DO NEED THE RATE INCREASE TO BY NEW EQUIPMENT, TO HIRE MORE PERSONNEL, TO CUT RATE THEIR BUSINESS, IF WE COULD DO THAT, WE, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO PULL IT OUT, LOOK AT IT ON A SEPARATE ISSUE SO THAT WE CAN GO GROW WITH OUR INDUSTRY. I'M A WOMAN-OWNED ENTERPRISE HERE IN AUSTIN, THERE'S ONLY TWO OR THREE OF US, WE ARE HAVING TO STRUGGLE AS IT IS. BUT THIS RATE INCREASE WOULD BE A BIG HELP BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T GIVEN US ONE SINCE 1992. AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE LOOKED LATELY. I GAVE EVERY ONE OF YOU A BOOK, BUT THINGS HAVE DOUBLED IN PRICE SINCE 1992, FROM THE PRICE OF GASOLINE TO INSURANCE TO EVEN THE COST OF OUR EQUIPMENT. SO IF IT IS AT ALL POSSIBLE, PLEASE PULL THE RATE INCREASE ORDINANCE OUT, LOOK AT IT ON A SEPARATE ISSUE AND WE WILL DO ANYTHING YOU WANT US TO DO TO HELP CONTROL THE TRAFFIC HERE IN AUSTIN BECAUSE WE, TOO, DRIVE ON THESE STREETS TO GET TO YOU WHEN YOU ARE BROKEN DOWN. THANK YOU.
>>MAYOR WATSON: THANK YOU, MAME. MS. KRAMER. COUNCIL, THIS IS KATHERINE KRAMER ON ITEM NO. 71 ALSO.
>> GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I WILL TRY TO BE BRIEF. WE NEED THIS RAISE. WE NEED IT SOON. EARLY THIS SUMMER MEMBERS OF THE AUSTIN TOWING ASSOCIATION BEGAN VISITING WITH COUNCILMEMBERS IN THE HOPES OF GAINING SUPPORT FOR THIS RATE INCREASE. LIKE MRS. MACHEN SAID, IT'S BEEN ALMOST NINE YEARS SINCE WE'VE HAD ANY TYPE OF INCREASE IN THE NON-CONSENT TOW. WE NEED THIS RAISE. IN OCTOBER WE WENT TO VISIT MR. THOMAS AND WITH MS. GRIFFITH WE FOUND A RECEPTIVE EAR WITH THOSE TWO COUNCILMEMBERS, WE APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. EXCUSE ME. THE MEMBERS OF THE TOWING INDUSTRY OF AUSTIN ARE BEHIND THE IDEA OF USING LOCAL RESOURCES THAT ARE ALREADY IN PLACE TO HELP WITH THE TRAFFIC TIEUPS THAT ARE GIVING US ALL OF THESE TROUBLES IN AUSTIN. THE FACT THAT WE WANT TO HELP THE CITY WITH THIS WAS PROVED BY THE SETTING SIGNATURES THAT WE GAVE TO MS. FUTRELL IN OUR LAST MEETING WITH HER. NUMEROUS COMPANIES AND FAMILIES SIGNED THEIR SUPPORT TO ANY TYPE OF TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAM THAT WE COULD ASSIST IN. THAT FACT ALONE SHOULD SHOW THE COUNCIL THAT WE HAVE EVERY INTENTION OF FOLLOWING THROUGH WITH THE COMMITMENT TO THE PLAN. WE THE OWNERS, OPERATORS AND FAMILY MEMBERS OF TOWING BUSINESSES HUM ASSEMBLY PLEAD WITH YOU TODAY TO GIVE US THIS RAISE SEPARATE FROM THE REST OF THIS PACKAGE THAT MS. FUTRELL HAS GIVEN TO YOU. HUMBLY. MAKING US WAIT ANOTHER 60 DAYS WHALE WHILE THE LEGALESE IS PERFECTED IS ADDING TO THE FINANCIAL BURDEN ALREADY FORCED UPON OUR INDUSTRY FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS. MY HUSBAND HAS BEEN IN THIS INDUSTRY SINCE 1978 IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN. THIS IS HIS PASSION. IT GRIEVES ME TO WATCH HIM WORK 16, 18, 20 HOURS A DAY, ON HIS LOVE, AND NOT HAVE HIM BE ABLE TO ENJOY THE FRUITS OF HIS LABORS. WITH THE RISING INCREASE OF THE -- INCREASES OF INSURANCE, FUELS, UTILITIES, RENTS, HOUSING, IT TAKES EVERYTHING THAT WE MAKE JUST TO STAY IN BUSINESS. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I'M APPEALING TO YOUR COMPASSION AND SENSE OF FAIRNESS TO PLEASE SEPARATE THIS ISSUE INTO TWO OBJECTIVES. FIRST, THE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN, WHICH IS ALREADY IN THE WORKS, AND SECONDLY A AND MOST IMPORTANTLY THE RATE INCREASE WHICH NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED AND COULD BE APPROVED BY YOU TODAY. WE NEED THIS RAISE. THANK YOU.
>>MAYOR WATSON: THANK YOU, MS. KRAMER. ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO BE HEARD ON THE CONSENT AGENDA AS READ? ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO BE HEARD? ANYONE WISHING TO BE HEARD? ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?
>> I DO.
>> GOOD MORNING, MY NAME IS KRISTINE HARPER. PART OWNER WITH MY HUSBAND WITH HARPER'S TOWING SERVICE WHICH HAS BEEN IN AUSTIN SINCE 1949. I AM JUST HERE TO REINFORCE EVERYTHING THAT THEY HAVE SAID. WE DO NEED THIS RAISE FOR -- WITH OUR PRICES THAT HAVE GONE UP, OUR EQUIPMENT HAS GONE UP, FUEL. JUST -- JUST INSURANCE HAS GONE UP DRASTICALLY. I JUST -- I AM BEGGING YOU FOR OUR RAISE. WE NEED IT. WE NEED TO HELP OUR EMPLOYEES GET MORE BENEFITS THAT WE CAN OFFER THEM. AND I'M JUST HERE FOR THE SUPPORT ON THE RAISE.
>>MAYOR WATSON: THANK YOU, MS. HARPER. FOR PEOPLE THAT MAY BE LISTENING TO THIS, THIS VOTE IS NOT DENYING A RAISE. THIS VOTE IS TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO CONDUCT A STUDY AND AND EVALUATION OF THE TOWING RATES AND A TRAFFIC INCIDENT MANAGEMENT PLAN. FOR MANY THAT MAY NOT BE COMPLETELY FAMILIAR WITH THE HISTORY, IT HAS BEEN A COUPLE OF YEARS NOW THAT WE STARTED A PROCESS, WHERE WHAT -- AT ONE POINT THE COUNCIL WAS GOING TO VOTE TO PURCHASE ITS OWN TOW TRUCKS FOR PURPOSES OF PLACING THEM NEAR I-35 AND MOPAC SO THAT FOR INCIDENT MANAGEMENT PURPOSES AND WHAT THAT BASICALLY MEANS IS HOW YOU DEAL WITH THE WRECK, IF THERE WAS A COLLISION THAT WAS SLOWING DOWN TRAFFIC, WE WILL BE IN A POSITION TO RESPOND RAPIDLY. THE ORGANIZATION REPRESENTING THE TOWING INTERESTS IN THIS COMMUNITY WERE OPPOSED TO THAT. AND AT SOME POINT, I'M -- THERE WAS A -- THERE WAS A LAWSUIT THAT WASN'T RELATED TO THAT ISSUE, BUT THERE WAS A LAWSUIT THAT ENDED UP BEING FILED THAT CREATED THE DIFFICULTY TO EVEN BE ACCIDENT TALK TO THE FOLKS REPRESENTING THE TOWING INTERESTS BECAUSE OF THE LAWSUIT AND THE INABILITY TO DEAL WITH IT THAT WAY. THIS RESOLUTION ALLOWS FOR THE CITY MANAGER TO CONSIDER NOT ONLY THE INCIDENT MANAGEMENT ASPECT SO THAT WE MIGHT BE MOVING PEOPLE MORE RAPIDLY ON THEIR COMMUTES, BUT ALSO WOULD LOOK AT THE RATES THAT CAN BE CHARGED BY THOSE INTERESTS. IT IS NOT A VOTE TO PRECLUDE SUCH A THING.
>>SLUSHER: MAYOR, I WANTED TO MAKE SURE IT'S ALSO NOT -- THE DISCUSSION, IF PEOPLE ARE LISTENING -- THIS IS ALSO NOT A VOTE TO DO A RATE HIKE, EITHER. IT'S TO EVALUATE WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S A NEED FOR ONE.
>>MAYOR WATSON: THAT IS CORRECT. TOM.
>>THOMAS: MAYOR? I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO VISIT WITH THE AUSTIN TOWING FOR LIKE THE YOUNG LADY SAID FOR EVER SINCE OCTOBER. I LOOK AT THIS ON -- -- BOTH TWO WAYS. BECAUSE MY 21 YEARS AS A POLICE OFFICER I DID HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK DID I HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WITH TOWING COMPANIES, DIFFERENT TOWING COMPANIES. I KNOW ABOUT THE INCIDENT MANAGEMENT. WE NEED TO IMPROVE ON THAT. I GUESS THE QUESTION IS TO THE CITY MANAGER HOW LONG WOULD IT TAKE TO DO YOUR PARTICULAR SURVEY, WHATEVER YOU NEED TO DO?
>>GARZA: RATHER THAN GIVING YOU A NUMBER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK TOBY TO COME BACK AND GIVE US A WORK PROGRAM FOR HOW LONG IT WOULD TAKE US. I DON'T ANTICIPATE, BUT I WOULD RATHER ASK THEM SO WE CAN GET YOU AN ANSWER AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN.
>> THERE BEING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, THE MOTION CARRIES ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. COUNCIL, THAT WILL TAKE US TO OUR BRIEFINGS. THE FIRST BRIEFING WILL BE ON OZONE REDUCTION STRATEGIES.
>>GARZA: MAYOR AND COUNCIL, LET ME BRIEFLY WALK THROUGH SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE BEEN DOING, ASK MR. LE BROCK TO GIVE US A LOT OF DETAIL. THIS SUMMER WE CREATED AN INTERNAL AIR QUALITY BLUE LEVEL MEETING --.
>>MAYOR WATSON: HANG ON. IF I COULD GET EVERYONE -- THIS ROOM IS A VERY DIFFICULT ROOM THISATION VERY DIFFICULT ROOM TO HEAR IN. SOMETIMES EVEN DIFFICULT FOR US SITTING ON THE DIAS TO HEAR SOMEBODY DOWN AT THE OTHER END OF THE DIAS, IF YOU COULD PLEASE NOT HOLD CONVERSATIONS IN THIS ROOM, AND TAKE THOSE OUTSIDE, I WOULD GREATLY APPRECIATE IT.
>> WE DEVELOPED AUSTIN ENERGY TO DEVELOP A PILOT PROGRAM TO ENCOURAGE EMPLOYEES OF THIS DEPARTMENT TO REDUCE THEIR DAILY WORK COMMUTES. MILES TRAVELED USING ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF TRANSPORTATION. TELEWORKING [INAUDIBLE]. WE PUBLISHED AIR QUALITY INITIATIVES IN THE HR NEWSLETTER TO PROMOTE INVOLVEMENT AND AWARENESS OF -- OF ALL OF OUR -- USING THE NUMBER OF MILES THAT CITY OF AUSTIN EMPLOYEES DRIVE TO WORK. THUS THE COMPRESSED WORK WEEK SCHEDULE WAS OFFERED TO ELIGIBLE EMPLOYEES. OVER 2000 EMPLOYEES ARE PARTICIPATING IN THIS PROGRAM TODAY. WE CHARGED THE STAFF WITH IMPLEMENTING OZONE REDUCTION STRATEGIES BY REDUCING THE MILES TRAVELED TO WORK AND TO AND FROM WORK. REDUCING OZONE BY HOW WE BUILD AND TRAVEL AND INITIATE E GOVERNMENT SERVICES. TO DATE, THE NECK MILES TRAVELED ARE DOWN 6%. -- VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED ARE DOWN 6%, DOWN BY 1400 TRIPS PER DAY, 19,000 MILES PER DAY. WE HAVE A LOT OF OTHER INITIATIVES ONGOING RIGHT NOW. WE UNDERSTAND THAT WE NEED AS A MAJOR EMPLOYER IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA AS WELL AS THROUGHOUT THE CITY TO MAKE A CONTRIBUTION TOWARD THIS. PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT TODAY IS TO LAY OUT SOME OF THE STRATEGIES THAT WE HAVE BEEN USING, SOME OF THE OTHER STRUCTURES THAT ARE IN PLACE THAT ALLOW FOR US TO SET THE EXAMPLE FOR THE COMMUNITY IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN TO REDUCE AIR POLLUTION.
>>MAYOR WATSON: LET ME ADD TO THAT FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, WE HAVE DONE A COUPLE OF OTHER THINGS IN ORDER TO APPROACH THIS ON A REGIONAL BASIS, ACTUALLY GET INTO A TECHNICAL, FROM A TECHNICAL STANDPOINT WHERE WE MIGHT WANT TO ULTIMATELY BE. IN JULY OF THIS YEAR, WE ESTABLISHED WHAT WE ARE GENERALLY REFERRING TO AS THE CLEAN AIR COALITION EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE. WHAT THAT IS IS A CONSORTIUM OF ELECTED OFFICIALS FROM A FIVE COUNTY AREA. IT IS -- IT'S REPRESENTED -- REPRESENTS THE COUNTY JUDGES FROM WILLIAMSON, TRAVIS, HAYS, BASTROP, CALDWELL COUNTIES. THE MAYOR WATSON OF THE LARGEST CITIES IN THOSE COUNTIES WITH THE EXCEPTION OF BASTROP AND CALDWELL COUNTIES. THAT GROUP ESTABLISHED A -- A TECHNICAL ADVISORY -- A CLEAN AIR COALITION TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND GAVE IT THE TASK OF EVALUATING REGIONAL -- A REGIONAL PHOTO CHEMICAL MODELING STUDY AND GIVING ADVICE IN DIFFERENT WAYS ON HOW WE MIGHT APPROACH THINGS BECAUSER ULTIMATELY GOING TO HAVE TO APPROACH THIS FROM A REGIONAL STANDPOINT. I'M CONFIDENT BY THE WAY THAT MR. LIBRACH IS GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE STATUS OF THE LAWSUIT, ALL OF THOSE KINDS OF THINGS, I WON'T GO INTO THAT, HOW THAT IMPACTS OUR TIMING. IN SEPTEMBER WE ALSO BEGAN DISCUSSIONS WITH THE STATE OF TEXAS TO BECOME A CLEAN AIR PARTNER BY -- BY PROMOTING THE CITY OF AUSTIN'S OZONE REDUCTION STRATEGIES AND WE HAVE HAD POSITIVE FEEDBACK FROM THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE AND THE TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION IN THAT REGARD, ALSO. SO IN FACT TOMORROW WE ARE SCHEDULED TO HAVE A MEETING OF THIS CLEAN AIR COALITION EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AND A -- A JOINT COMMITTEE -- A JOINT MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE AND THE THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND WE WILL ALSO BE INVITING A COUPLE OF GUESTS FROM NON-ATTAINMENT AREAS IN THE STATE OF TEXAS, PREDOMINANTLY FROM WHAT MIGHT BE CALLED THE -- THE MORE SUBURBAN COMMUNITIES TO TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE STRATEGIES AND THINGS THAT ARE INVOLVED WITH. I THOUGHT WE WOULD LAY THAT OUT, TOO. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE.
>> I'M AUSTIN LIBRACH, DIRECTOR OF THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY. I'M A MEMBER OF A -- OF A COMMITTEE THAT THE MANAGER HAS PUT TOGETHER ABOUT -- ABOUT A DOZEN DEPARTMENT HEADS WHO HAVE BEEN WORKING MEETING ON A WEEKLY BASIS SINCE LAST MAY. TO DEVELOP OZONE REDUCTION STRATEGIES. WE ARE DOING THIS -- WE ARE DOING THIS TO DEVELOP STRATEGIES DESIGNED TO ENSURE THAT THE CITY OF AUSTIN EXERCISES LEADERSHIP AND SETS A POSITIVE EXAMPLE FOR THE COMMUNITY BY MINIMIZING THE AMOUNT OF OZONE CAUSING EMISSIONS THAT RESULT FROM THE CITY'S DAILY OPERATIONS. THE MANAGER HAS ASKED THESE STRATEGIES AS THE MAYOR INDICATED ALSO BE SHARED WITH OTHER PUBLIC AND PRIVATE OKAYS TO REDUCE OZONE IN THE CENTRAL TEXAS REGION. WE ARE ALSO DOING THIS BASED ON A SERIES OF RESOLUTIONS FROM THE COUNCIL OVER THE LAST NUMBER OF YEARS. BRING GO ANY FURTHER, I WANTED TO MENTION THEY DO HAVE COPIES OF THE SLIDES THAT HOPEFULLY WILL BE ON A UPON TORE AND THAT ARE ON THE SCREEN IN FRONT OF YOU ON YOUR -- MONITOR AND ON THE SCREEN IN FRONT OF YOU ON YOUR DESK. I WILL BE REFERRING TO THESE SLIDES AS WE GO THROUGH. THE -- THE RESOLUTIONS GO BACK CERTAINLY TO -- TO THE BEGINNING OF THE '90'S, EVEN EARLIER I CAN RECALL. BUT STARTING IN 1998, IN MAY OF '98, THERE WAS A RESOLUTION PASSED BY COUNCIL THAT -- THAT DIRECTED THE STAFF TO DEVELOP AN EARLY ACTION PLAN. IT DEALT WITH CITY PURCHASING PROCESSES AND ENCOURAGED VOLUNTARY IMPLEMENTATION BY OTHER PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ENTITIES IN THE REGION. SO WE BEGAN DEVELOPING A PROGRAM BASED ON THAT RESOLUTION. ALSO IN OCTOBER OF '98, THERE WAS A TELEWORK PROGRAM RESOLUTION BY COUNCIL THAT DIRECTED STAFF TO PURSUE ALL AVAILABLE MEANS TO IMPLEMENT TELEWORK AS AN OPTION FOR THE CITY. THEN WITH THIS CURRENT COUNCIL IN AUGUST OF 2000, YOU PASSED A RESOLUTION ON OZONE REDUCTION STRATEGIES. TALKING ABOUT REDUCING THE VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED BY CITY EMPLOYEES AND CITY CARS. THEN IN OCTOBER YOU HAD A FEW IN FLEET REDUCTION RESOLUTION WHERE YOU STABBED -- ESTABLISHED A GOAL WHERE WE WOULD REDUCE OR PURCHASE 33% OF THE ELIGIBLE VEHICLES WOULD -- THAT WE WOULD PURCHASE WOULD BE ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES. SO WE HAVE BEEN WORKING IN THAT DIRECTION AND UNDER THOSE RESOLUTIONS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH AN OZONE REDUCTION STRATEGY WITH THAT COMMITTEE. LET ME JUST EXPLAIN TO YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT -- WHAT OZONE IS. IT IS AN ODORLESS, COLORLESS GAS THAT FORMS IN THE PRESENCE OF SUNLIGHT, LOTS OF SUNLIGHT, SO WE GET IT DURING THE SUMMER MONTHS IN AUSTIN. IT -- IT ACCUMULATES WHEN THERE IS VERY LIGHT WIND, WHEN WE BASICALLY HAVE STAGNANT CONDITIONS. IT ALSO ACCUMULATES AND IS WORSE WHEN THERE ARE HIGH TEMPERATURES. IT ACCELERATES THE CHEMICAL REACTION BETWEEN TWO BASIC CHEMICALS. ONE IS CALLED NOX, NITROGEN OXIDES, ANOTHER ONE IS VOLUME TILE OR GRAINIC COMPOUNDS OR VOCS. THEY FORM OZONE AND THOSE CHEMICALS ARE EMITTED AS I WILL SHOW YOU BY A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT SOURCES, BUT WHAT AUSTIN LOOKS LIKE DURING AN OZONE DAY YOU SEE ON THE LEFT A NORMAL DAY IN AUSTIN, A PICTURE TAKEN MAYBE FIVE, SIX YEARS AGO, THEN ON THE RIGHT YOU GET AN OZONE DAY. A DAY WHEN WE HAVE HIGH OZONE BECAUSE YOU TEND TO GET EVEN THOUGH IT'S IN THE COLORLESS, ODORLESS GAS, YOU TEND TO GET SMOG ON THOSE DAYS WHEN YOU HAVE HIGH OZONE, AS YOU CAN SEE, IT -- IT IS A -- A CLOUDY, DIRTY MESS. THE REAL PROBLEM, OF COURSE, IS NOT WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE, BUT THAT IT CAUSES RESPIRATORY PROBLEMS FOR MOST OF US, CERTAINLY THE ELDERLY AND YOUNG. IF WE TAKE A LOOK AT THE DATA BY OZONE, WE SEE WE HAVE A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT DAYS EACH YEAR, WE ARE LOOKING SINCE 1993, THE NUMBER OF DAYS OF EXCEEDING THE OZONE STANDARD HAS GONE UP AND IT'S GONE DOWN AND UP AGAIN. AND PART OF THE REASON FOR THAT IS THAT WE -- THAT WE ARE, OF COURSE, HAVE DIFFERENT -- DIFFERENT SEASONAL CONDITIONS FROM YEAR TO YEAR. WE ARE -- WE ARE IMPACTED BY EL NINO OR LA NINA, AND EACH OF THOSE CAN AFFECT THE WEATHER PATTERNS AND WHETHER OR NOT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF WIND DURING THE SUMMER OR A LOT OF OZONE MOVING FROM -- FROM TRANSPORTED FROM EAST TEXAS OR FROM OTHER PLACES AND SO YOU ARE NOT GOING TO SEE A STEADY PATTERN AS YOU WOULD THINK BASED ON POPULATION GROWTH OR BASED ON THE GROWTH OF AUTOMOBILES. IT GOES UP AND DOWN, BUT BUT BASICALLY WE ARE GETTING CLOSER AND CLOSER TO VIOLATING THE STANDARDS ON A MORE REGULAR BASIS LIKE OTHER LARGER CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES. AND WE HAVE THIS LAST YEAR EXCEEDED THE STANDARD AND ARE ONE OF THOSE CITIES THAT ARE CONSIDERED TO BE NEAR NON-ATTAINMENT AND NOW POTENTIALLY IN A NON-ATTAINMENT SITUATION WHERE THAT DESIGNATION MAY OCCUR WITH THE NEW ADMINISTRATION PERHAPS IN THE COMING MONTHS. I WILL GET BACK TO THAT IN A SECOND AS THE MAYOR INDICATED. BUT LET ME JUST SHOW YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHERE THE EMISSIONS COME FROM. THOSE FIRST SOURCE, THE NOX EMISSIONS, COME BASICALLY FROM AUTOMOBILES. BOTH ON ROAD AND OFF ROAD. ABOUT 75% OF THE TOTAL WE THINK IN AUSTIN LOOKING AT AN INVENTORY WE DID BACK IN 1996, COME FROM -- COME FROM THE -- ON ROAD, OFF ROAD KIND OF SOURCES, WE THINK THAT OF THE TWO MAJOR CHEMICALS THAT NOX IS THE ONE THAT IS LIKELY TO BE, AS WE GET INTO THE MODELING FURTHER, THE LIMIT KNOWLEDGE POLLUTANT. IF YOU CONTROL IT -- LIMITING POLLUTANT, IF YOU CONTROL FIRST WILL DO THE MOST GOOD FOR YOU. OUR CONTROL MECHANISMS ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE FOCUSED ON THOSE AUTOMOBILE EMISSIONS AND OFF ROAD EMISSIONS, ALTHOUGH THERE ARE SOME POINT AND AREA SOURCE AND BIOGENICS, BIOGENICS ARE BASICALLY BIOLOGICAL EMISSIONS FROM TREES. AREA SOURCES ARE SMALL EMISSIONS, SMALL POINT SOURCES SO SMALL WE DON'T COUNT THEM INDIVIDUALLY.
>>MAYOR WATSON: COULD I INTERRUPT YOU RIGHT THERE. ON THE POINT SOURCES, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT DIDN'T GET MENTIONED, DIDN'T GET MENTIONED IN THE MEDIA AT ALL, ONE OF THE IMPORTANT POINTS OF SOMETHING WE DID YESTERDAY IS WE HAD A GROUND BREAKING YESTERDAY FOR THE ELECTRIC -- AUSTIN ELECTRIC'S NEW UTILITY PLANT THAT WE HAD PREVIOUSLY VOTED TO DO IN A PARTNERSHIP WITH ENRON. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE ANNOUNCED YESTERDAY AS PARTS OF THAT, OBVIOUSLY YOU BUILD A UTILITY PLANT LIKE THAT, YOU WILL HAVE -- I SAY OBVIOUSLY -- I WILL TELL YOU, YOU WILL HAVE NITROGEN OXIDE EMISSIONS. THE LEVEL THAT YOU ARE REQUIRED TO MEET IN TERMS OF TOTAL EMISSIONS THAT YOU ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE IS 25 PARTS PER MILLION, I THINK IT'S PER MILLION, I SOMETIMES SCREW UP MY BILLIONS AND MILLIONS ON THAT. WHAT WE ARE DOING THIS THIS PLANT WILL BE FRONT END TECHNOLOGY WHERE IT WILL BE FIVE, NOT 25, WHICH IS WHAT YOU ARE ALLOWED OR REQUIRED TO HAVE IT AT. IT WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY LESS AND BE FIVE PARTS. SO WE ARE -- AS WE ADDRESS DIFFERENT SORTS OF THINGS THAT ARE GOING TO HAPPEN AS WE GROW AS A REGION, AS A CITY, WE FACE COMPETITION IN THE ELECTRIC UTILITY, WE ARE ALSO TAKING THOSE KINDS OF THINGS INTO ACCOUNT. SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU.
>> THE -- AS I WAS INDICATING, THE -- THE KINDS OF EMISSION THAT'S WE ARE LIKELY TO HAVE IN -- THAT WE ARE LIKELY TO HAVE IN AUSTIN ARE DOMINATED BY THE ON AND OFF ROAD. SOME OFF ROAD MIGHT INCLUDE LOCOMOTIVES, RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT, FARM EQUIPMENT, YARD MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT, AIRPORT SHUTTLES, GROUND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT, THINGS OF THAT SORT, ALL SOURCES OF OFF ROAD EMISSIONS OF NITROGEN OKAY SIDES. THE NEXT ONE IS A SIMILAR GRAPHIC, PIE CHART, BUT THIS TIME LOOKING AT THE POC'S. HERE THE BIOGENICS ARE THE DOMINANT EMISSION SOURCE IN AUSTIN. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE I GUESS IN THE INDUSTRY OR IN AIR QUALITY (VOC'S) HAVE COME TO UNDERSTAND BETTER IN THE MORE RECENT YEARS THE TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF BIOGENIC EMISSIONS THAT YOU GET FROM VOLATILE AND VOC'S. IN OUR CASE, IN CENTRAL TEXAS WE HAVE A LOT OF OAK TREES, THE OAK TREES ARE VERY PRODUCTIVE VOC EMITTERS. ANOTHER AGAIN, MOST OF THE CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES WHO HAD BEEN IN THE BUSINESS OF TRYING TO ACHIEVE ATTAINMENT AND BECAUSE THEY WERE NON-ATTAINMENT CITIES ON THE EAST COAST, HOUSTON, LOS ANGELES, HAD WORKED ON VOC EMISSION REDUCTIONS, THEY TRIED REDUCE EMISSIONS FROM GASOLINE VAPORS, VAPORS THAT VOLATILE IZED FROM DRY CLEANING ESTABLISHMENTS, THE PERCHLOR PERCHLORETHYLENE IS VERY VOLATILE, A VOC EMITTER. IF YOU HAVE BEEN TO CALIFORNIA, WASHINGTON, D.C., YOU HAVE SEEN THE BILLOWS ON THE GAS INTAKE DEVICE THAT YOU PUT INTO YOUR CAR. AND THOSE ARE TO CONTROL THE V.C.O. EMISSIONS AS WELL. IF IN AUSTIN WE GET TO THE POINT OF NEEDING TO REDUCE EMISSIONS, WE ARE LIKELY AT THIS POINT TO WANT TO LOOK FIRST AT THE KNOX EMISSIONS. LOOKING A LITTLE BIT AT WHERE WE ARE IN TERMS OF -- OF THE STATUS OF NON-ATTAINMENT IN AUSTIN IN THIS REGION, WE HAVE AS I SHOWED YOU IN THE EARLIER SLIDE VIOLATED THE AIR QUALITY STANDARD LAST YEAR A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT TIMES. WE ARE NOW WITH THIS NEW 8-HOUR STANDARD THAT HAS BEEN PROMULGATED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY IN VIOLATION. THERE USED TO BE AND STILL IS A ONE HOUR STANDARD, THE STANDARD THAT WAS THE KEY FOR OZONE UNTIL A YEAR OR SO AGO. AND UNDER THAT STANDARD WE STILL ARE NOT VIOLATING COMMUNE -- A VIOLATING COMMUNITY, UNDER THE 8 HOUR STANDARD WE ARE. TURNS OUT, THOUGH, THAT 8 HOUR STANDARD IS UNDER CHALLENGE AND THE CASE ABOUT THAT HAS GONE TO THE SUPREME COURT AND WAS HEARD IN NOVEMBER, AS A MATTER OF FACT NOVEMBER 7TH WAS THE DAY THAT THAT WAS HEARD BY THE SUPREME COURT. WE ARE LIKELY TO HAVE SOME RESPONSE FROM THE COURT AND SOME DECISION WITH REGARD TO THAT IN THE JUNE TIME FRAME AT THIS POINT IS THE BEST WE CAN TELL. WITH THE NEW ADMINISTRATION, PERHAPS A NEW EPA ADMINISTRATOR, DECISIONS ABOUT WHETHER THIS CITY AND OTHER CITIES THAT ARE JUST SLIGHTLY ABOVE THE STANDARD ARE GOING TO BE DETERMINED TO BE NON-ATTAINMENT CITIES WILL BE SOME MONTHS OFF. BUT WE THINK PERHAPS NO SOONER THAN JUNE, PERHAPS WITHIN THREE OR FOUR MONTHS OF THAT, DEPENDING ON HOW ALL OF THESE SORTS OF THINGS SHAKE OUT. LOOK --.
>>MAYOR WATSON: YOU MENTIONED [INAUDIBLE] RIDER ON THE APPROPRIATIONS BILL?
>> I DID NOT.
>>MAYOR WATSON: YOU WANT ME TO?
>> PLEASE.
>>MAYOR WATSON: ANOTHER THING THAT HAPPENED IS OF COURSE THE APPROPRIATIONS BILL HAS NOT BEEN PASSED, THE FEDERAL APPROPRIATIONS BILL, BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT DID OCCUR AT SOME POINT WAS A RIDER WAS PLACED ON THAT INDICATING THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO DESIGNATE ANY AREA, A NON-ATTAINMENT AREA, BEFORE JUNE OF 2001. THAT, AS WE UNDERSTOOD IT, WAS BEING SUPPORTED BY THE ADMINISTRATION SO THUS MEANING THAT WILL PROBABLY PASS IF THEY EVER PASS YOUR APPROPRIATIONS, WHICH WOULD MEAN NOTHING CAN BE DESIGNATED ANYWAY PENDING THE OUTCOME OF THIS LAWSUIT.
>> THIS NEXT SLIDE IS JUST A LITTLE -- SHORT LITTLE TIME LINE TO GIVE YOU A SENSE OF -- OF WHAT THE TIMING MIGHT BE FOR -- FOR WORK THAT WE MAY NEED TO DO IN THE CENTRAL TEXAS REGION. ASSUMING AS THIS DOES IN THE SLIDE THAT WE ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE ANY DECISION UNTIL JUNE OR THEREAFTER. THERE WOULD STILL BE -- LET'S ASSUME WE ARE DESIGNATED NON-ATTAINMENT. THERE WOULD BE A PERIOD OF TIME, PERHAPS 18 MONTHS OR TWO YEARS, FOR THIS REGION TO COME TOGETHER AND DEVELOP A PLAN. AND THEN WE WOULD AT LEAST UNDER THE CURRENT LAW WE WOULD HAVE UNTIL THE YEAR 2007 TO IMPLEMENT THAT PLAN AND ACHIEVE ATTAINMENT THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED UNDER THE LAW. SO WE WOULD BE UNDER THE GUN TO IMPLEMENT A SERIES OF CONTROLS OF SOME SORT SHOULD WE BE DESIGNATED NON-ATTAINMENT. THE RISK IF WE DO NOT ACHIEVE NON-7 ATTAINMENT IS THAT THERE WOULD BE RESTRICTIONS THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WOULD PUT ON FEDERAL FUNDS THAT WOULD COME TO THIS AREA FOR ROAD BUILDING AND THE LIKE.
>> THE COMMITTEE THAT I MENTIONED EARLIER, THE MANAGER HAS COME ONE A SERIES OF REDUCTION STRATEGIES. I JUST WANT TO MENTION THE DIFFERENT AREAS THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT TO CONSIDER SORT OF AN EARLY ACTION TO MOVE FORWARD AND TAKE THE STEP TO BE PROACTIVE. FIRST IS TO REDUCE VMT, VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED BY CITY OF AUSTIN EMPLOYEES. WE ARE DOING THIS BY THINGS LIKE COMPRESSED WORK WEEKS, CAR POOLS, TRANSIT, SO FORTH, TELEWORK. THAT'S ONE OF THE -- FIRST ONE AND ONE OF THE BEST ONE THAT'S WE HAVE INITIATED TO THIS POINT. WE ALSO ARE LOOKING AT, -- YOUR RESOLUTIONS AND IN OUR WORK WE HAVE BEGUN TO PURCHASE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT LOW EMITTING VEHICLES AND TO REDUCE THOSE EMISSIONS, I WILL EXPLAIN THAT FURTHER LATER. WE ARE USING EMISSIONS FROM TRAFFIC. AGAIN, WE ARE TRYING TO -- TRYING TO INSTITUTE SOME METHODS IN TERMS OF EMPLOYEE WORK HOURS AND SO ON THAT WE CAN REDUCE THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES THAT ARE COMMUTING DURING RUSH HOUR AND REDUCE THE CONGESTION IN THAT WAY. REDUCING OZONE THROUGH REQUIREMENTS ON CONTRACTORS. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE ARE ATTEMPTING TO DO OR TO LOOK AT IS TO -- TO IN OUR CONTRACTS WHERE IT'S POSSIBLE AND WHERE WE HAVE CONTRACTS THAT INVOLVE THE USE OF -- OF EQUIPMENT THAT COULD BE LOW EMITTING EQUIPMENT, THAT WE BEGIN TO TAKE A LOOK AT HOW IN THE BEST WAY TO REDUCE EMISSIONS THROUGH THOSE CONTRACTS. WE ARE ALSO -- ARE REDUCING EMISSIONS THROUGH HOW WE BUILD? OF COURSE THE SMART GROWTH PROGRAM THAT WE HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN FOR THE LAST THREE OR FOUR YEARS IS INVOLVED IN CREATING SITUATIONS WHERE WE EITHER ELIMINATE OR CHANGE THE TRIPS FROM AUTOMOBILE TRIPS TO WALKING OR BIKING OR TRANSIT TRIPS. WEMENTS HAVE A PROGRAM AND HAVE HAD IN CONJUNCTION WITH -- WE ALSO HAVE A PROGRAM AND HAVE HAD IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CLEAN AIR FORCE TO EDUCATE THE PUBLIC, THAT IS CONTINUING AND IS A PART OF OUR SET OF STRATEGIES. THE LAST ONE THEN IS TO DEVELOP REGIONAL PARTNERSHIPS AS THE MAYOR INDICATED TO LOOK AT NOT ONLY THE KIND OF THINGS THAT THE CITY CAN DO IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE STATE, BUT THAT OTHER JURISDICTIONS CAN DO ON THEIR OWN TO -- TO DEAL WITH OFF ROAD AND AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS. I WOULD LIKE TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT SOME OF THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN EACH OF THESE AREAS. FIRST IN THE AREA OF REDUCING VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED, VMT, AS THE MANAGER INDICATED, WE HAVE THIS YEAR THROUGH A PROGRAM -- PROGRAMS THAT WE HAVE INSTITUTED WITH ALL OF THE DEPARTMENTS IN THE CITY, WE HAVE -- DIFFERENT COMMUNITY -- COMMUTING ALTERNATIVES THAT WE HAVE COME UP WITH. AS A RESULT OF THOSE WE HAVE REDUCED TRIPS AT THIS POINT BY 1400 A DAY, WE HAVE 19,000 VEHICLE MILES PER DAY THAT WE HAVE REDUCED, AND WE HAVE OVER 6% OF THE TOTAL VEHICLE MILES PER DAY REDUCED IN THE CITY. WE TRAVEL AS -- AS EMPLOYEES TO AND FROM WORK, 270,000 MILES A DAY. SO WE HAVE QUITE A LARGE NUMBER OF COMMUTING MILES THAT WE CAN WORK WITH. OUR GOAL IS TO REACH A VMT REDUCTION OF 15% OVER THE NEXT TWO YEARS. IN THE PILOT THAT THE MANAGER INDICATED WITH AUSTIN ENERGY WE HAVE ACHIEVED QUITE A LOT. THEY HAVE INSTITUTED A -- A COMPRESSED WORK WEEK PROGRAM, THEY ALSO HAVE WHAT WE CALL A PARKING CASHOUT PROGRAM. THEY ARE PAYING EMPLOYEES THOUGH THE TO WORK. -- NOT TO PARK. THEY PLAY EMPLOYEES $50 A MONTH NOT TO BRING THEIR CAR TO WORK AND NOT PARK IN THEIR GARAGE. SO THEY ARE ENCOURAGING THROUGH FINANCIAL MEANS THEIR EMPLOYEES TO FIND ALTERNATIVE MECHANISMS, ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF GETTING TO THE OFFICE. AND WE ARE ALSO DOING THAT IN MY DEPARTMENT, BUT IT IS A -- A REAL PILOT IN THE AUSTIN ENERGY DEPARTMENT.
>>MAYOR WATSON: PILOT [INAUDIBLE] THIS IS NOT THE ONLY PLACE ON EARTH THAT IT'S HAPPENING.
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>>MAYOR WATSON: SUGGESTING THIS MIGHT BE SOME SORT OF AN AUSTIN DEAL, BUT I DON'T MEAN YOU, AUSTIN, I MEAN THE CITY OF AUSTIN. [LAUGHTER].
>>SLUSHER: WE'VE HAD THOSE KINDS OF THINGS [LAUGHTER].
>> REALLY?
>>MAYOR WATSON: WHY DON'T YOU, FOR THOSE WHO MIGHT BE WATCHING THIS, LISTENING TO IT, WANTING TO LET THE PUBLIC KNOW ABOUT WHAT'S BEING CONSIDERED, THIS IS DONE SUCCESSFULLY IN OTHER PLACES.
>> IT CERTAINLY IS. THIS IS ON A COMMON PROGRAM IN MANY CITIES THAT ARE FACING NON-ATTAINMENT AND HAVE BEEN FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS. I GUESS PIONEERED IN A NUMBER OF CITIES IN CALIFORNIA WHERE THEY HAVE STARTED THIS PROGRAM THAT'S BEEN VERY SUCCESSFUL. I DON'T KNOW -- I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY OTHER CITIES ON THE EAST COAST MAY BE DOING IT, BUT IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE LOOKED FOR, WE HAVE ATTEMPTED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH ANY OF -- BEFORE WE HAVE ATTEMPTED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH ANY OF THESE, WE HAVE LOOKED AT WHAT HAS BEEN SUCCESSFUL, WHAT IS NOT WORKING AROUND THE COUNTRY. THIS CERTAINLY IS ONE OF THOSE PROGRAMS THAT IS.
>>MAYOR WATSON: THANKS.
>> AS THE GRAPHIC INDICATES, THE AUSTIN ENERGY PROGRAM IS REDUCING THROUGH THIS PROGRAM 20,000 VEHICLE MILES EACH MONTH. THEY HAVE SINCE JUNE THEY HAVE GOT ABOUT -- OR SOMEWHERE OVER 200 EMPLOYEES WHAT HAVE BEEN PARTICIPATING IN THE COMPRESSED WORK WEEK PROGRAM. JUST -- I THINK YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT IS. BUT LET ME JUST DESCRIBE THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT METHODS. THE TWO KEY METHODS OF COMPRESSED WORK WEEK THAT MOST EMPLOYEES ARE USING CALLED A FOUR-10, WORK 10 HOURS A DAY, FOUR DAYS A WEEK, TAKE THE FIFTH DAY OFF. USUALLY A MONDAY OR FRIDAY, DOESN'T HAVE TO BE. OF COURSE THAT SPREADS OUT THEIR WORK DAY SO THEY ARE AT LEAST ON ONE END THEY ARE NOT COMMUTING DURING RUSH HOUR. ON THE FIFTH DAY THEY ARE NOT COMMUTING PRESUMABLY AT ALL DURING RUSH HOUR. THAT'S A SAVINGS. ANOTHER IS WHAT WE CALL --.
>>MAYOR WATSON: BY THE WAY, I THINK A NUMBER OF COUNCIL OFFICES ARE PARTICIPATING IN THAT IN ADDITION.
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>>SLUSHER: MAYOR, CAN I -- I HADN'T EVEN HEARD THAT IT WAS THOUGHT THAT AUSTIN WAS THE ONLY PLACE AROUND THE COUNTRY THAT IS DOING PARKING CASHOUT PROGRAMS, WHAT IT'S CALLED THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY. I WAS PRIVILEGED TO ATTEND A -- A CONVENTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COALITION OF LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL INITIATIVES IN NEW ORLEANS RECENTLY WHERE THE CITY RECEIVED AN AWARD FOR ITS GREEN CHOICE PROGRAM IN AUSTIN ENERGY, WHICH MR. LIBRACH MENTIONED. THAT WAS PRESENTED TO US BY THE WHITE HOUSE ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER AND WAS GOING TO BE PRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY, BUT HE HAD TO CANCEL AT THE LAST MINUTE. BUT THE PARKING CASHOUT PROGRAMS WERE A BIG TOPIC OF CONVERSATION AT THAT CONVENTION AND IT WAS TALKING ABOUT HOW MANY THERE ARE -- THERE ARE A NUMBER OF THEM AROUND THE COUNTRY, MORE HAPPENING ALL THE TIME. [ONE MOMENT PLEASE FOR CHANGE IN CAPTIONERS]
>> I KNOW THE GOAL OF THE COUNCIL IS THAT WE GET TO 33%, WE ALSO LOOKED AT -- AT THE NUMBER OF LOW EMISSION VEHICLES, A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN THE -- THAN THE ALTERNATIVE FUEL. ANOTHER CATEGORY. WE HAVE ALMOST 30%, ABOUT 28% THIS LAST YEAR OF LOW EMISSION VEHICLES THAT WE HAVE PURCHASED. AGAIN, THE -- THE STATE-OF-THE-ART IS IMPROVING. THERE ARE A LOT OF VEHICLES IN THE NEXT YEAR OR TWO, THE NEXT MODEL YEAR, THE NEXT MODEL YEAR OR TWO THERE WILL BE LOW EMISSION, THAT WE WILL BE ABLE TO PURCHASE. WE HAVE ALREADY GOTTEN WITHIN STRIKING DISTANCE OF THE COUNCIL'S GOAL OF 33%. WE HAVE PURCHASED -- WE HAVE PURCHASED LOW SULFUR FUELS, ABOUT 1.9 MILLION GALLONS THIS LAST YEAR. WE ALSO HAVE PURCHASED 1 MILLION GALLONS OF -- OF THE -- THE 1.9 DIESEL FUEL, THE ONE MILLION WAS GASOLINE. SO I THINK WE ARE MAKING TREMENDOUS PROGRESS IN BOTH OF THOSE AREAS AND THE GOALS OF THE COUNCIL IS SET. WE HAVE WHAT WE CALL AN E-SERVICE PROGRAM. WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY DOING WHAT WE CAN USING THE INTERNET TO REDUCE THE N
>> IMPROVE THE PROGRAM, ENCOURAGE MORE EMPLOYEES TO PARTICIPATE. WE WILL BE INCREASING THE RATE FOR ALTERNATIVE FUEL REPLACEMENT, I TALKED ABOUT IT IN PURCHASE. WE WILL HOPEFULLY ESTABLISH SOME INSENSITIVE FOR CONTRACTORS TO PARTICIPATE IN -- IN THE INITIATIVES. POTENTIALLY BRINGING THAT BACK FOR APPROVAL. WE WILL EXPAND OR CERTAINLY PARTICIPATE AGAIN IN THE PUBLIC OUTREACH PROGRAM. AUSTIN ENERGY IS MOVING AHEAD WITH THEIR EMISSION REDUCTION OF NOX AT THEIR POINT SOURCES, WE WILL BE FURTHER CEMENTING THE ESTABLISHED -- ESTABLISHMENT OF OUR PARTNERSHIPS WITH -- AT THE REGIONAL LEVEL. AND WITH -- WITH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ENTITIES. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I THINK THAT -- THAT WE ARE VERY INTERESTED IN DOING, WE HAVE STARTED WORKING WITH THE STATE OF TEXAS, AS THE MAYOR INDICATED. ALSO TO WORK WITH PRIVATE SECTOR COMPANIES TO TRY TO ENCOURAGE THEM TO DO SOME OF THE SAME KINDS OF THINGS THAT WE ARE DOING TO REDUCE VMT, WE WILL BE SPENDING SOME TIME WORKING TO ENCOURAGE THAT TO HAPPEN. WE WILL BE -- WE HOPE ONE OF THE IDEAS THAT WE HAVE IS THAT -- FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION FOR THOSE VEHICLES THAT ARE ALTERNATIVE FUEL OR WHAT ARE CALLED SULEV, SUPER LOW EMISSION VEHICLES, TO PERHAPS HAVE A PROGRAM WHERE THEY ARE ALLOWED TO PARK DOWNTOWN FOR FREE AT CITY PARKING METERS OR SOMETHING OF THAT SORT. WE ARE LOOKING AT THAT, MAY BRING SOME RECOMMENDATION TO YOU REGARDING THAT IDEA. WE WOULD HOPE TO HAVE A CLEAN FLEET POLICY THAT -- THAT WE CAN IMPROVE ON FROM WHAT WE HAVE TALKED WITH YOU ABOUT SO FAR. AND TO -- TO POTENTIALLY IMPLEMENT AND I/M PROGRAM FOR OUR OWN CITY FLEET. IF WE ARE DECLARED NON-ATTAINMENT, ONE OF THE THINGS EPA WILL MOST LIKELY REQUIRE IS THAT WE INSTITUTE AN INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM, AN I/M PROGRAM, WE ARE WILL -- WE WILL BE LOOKING CAREFULLY AT THE POSSIBILITY OF THAT. ALSO WE ARE MOVING FORWARD WITH THE TELEWORK PROGRAM. WE HAVE A CONTRACT WITH A FIRM CALLED T MANAGE, ONE OF THE LEADERS IN THE COUNTRY IF TELEWORKING, OUT OF THE -- OUT OF AUSTIN. WE HAVE A CONTRACT INITIAL CONTRACT WITH THEM, WE WILL BE COMING TO COUNCIL, I THINK, COUNCIL MAY HAVE APPROVED I THINK THE SECOND CONTRACT. WE WOULD HOPE BY THE MARCH/APRIL TIME FRAME, POTENTIALLY INTO MAY TO BE IMPLEMENTING A FULL PHASE ROLLOUT OF THE TELEWORK PROGRAM FOR CITY EMPLOYEES. LET ME STOP THERE AND ENTERTAIN QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE. AS I SAID, I THINK MOST OF THE MEMBERS OF THE MANAGER'S COMMITTEE ARE HERE AND CAN HELP TO ANSWER QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE ABOUT THE DETAILS OF WHERE WE STAND WITH THE OZONE REDUCTION STRATEGIES.
>>MAYOR WATSON: MAYOR PRO TEM?
>>GOODMAN: THANKS, MAYOR, I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS THAT SOME OF YOU MAY NOT KNOW ABOUT. NUMBER ONE, I THINK THAT I HAVE FOUR OR FIVE QUESTIONS. A LOT OF OUR POLLUTION COMES FROM M.O.U.ING, RIGHT?
>> LAWN MOWERS, SOME,.
>> CUTTING DOWN ON THOSE EMISSIONS WOULDN'T BE HELPFUL?
>> IT MAY BE. THERE IS FOR SILVER BULLET. I SHOWED YOU THE PIE CHARTS, THERE ARE A LOT OF EMISSIONS FROM A LOT OF DIFFERENT SOURCES, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO GET A LOT OF REDUCTION FROM ANY ONE SINGLE PLACE.
>>MAYOR WATSON: LAWN MOWERS FALL UNDER -- OFF ROAD?
>> YEAH.
>>MAYOR WATSON: IT WOULD BE OFF ROAD. SO IF YOU HAVE ON ROAD YOUR BIGGEST, OFF ROAD, OFF ROAD INCLUDES THOSE TWO CYCLE ENGINES LIKE LAWN MOWERS IT IS A PART. I COULDN'T TELL YOU HOW MUCH. BUT IT IS A PART OF THE SECOND LARGEST PART OF THE PIE CHART.
>>GOODMAN: OKAY. THE REASON THAT I ASKED THAT IS BECAUSE ON OZONE ACTION DAYS OR SOON TO BE ANNOUNCED SOME KIND OF ACTION DAYS, PEOPLE ENCOURAGE YOU NOT TO MOW YOUR LAWN ON THAT DATE. WE HAVE A LOT OF MOWING IN OUR PARKS DEPARTMENT IN THE SUMMER, OF COURSE. SO WHAT I SAW AT TML THIS PAST CONFERENCE TIME WAS A PROTOTYPE NOW AVAILABLE FOR -- FOR PARKS DEPARTMENT TYPES OF MOWERS THAT'S ALTERNATIVE FUEL, BUTANE, I THINK, WITH A 25 HORSE POWER CAPABILITY, WHICH IS DIFFERENT FROM THE LOW POWER EQUIPMENT THAT'S BEEN AVAILABLE IN THE PAST. SO IF PARD WERE TO INVEST IN AN EXPERIMENTAL TRY ON THAT IF IT WORKED GET MORE, WOULD THAT HAVE ANY IMPACT?
>> CERTAINLY. I THINK IT'S VERY LIKELY THAT IT WOULD. I THINK CERTAINLY PARD HAS PARTICIPATED IN OZONE ACTION DAYS WITH REDUCING OR ELIMINATING LAWN MOWING DURING THOSE DAYS. IF WE COULD SHIFT TO -- TO LOWER EMITTING LAWN MOWERS, I THINK THAT WOULD BE ANOTHER ADDED PIECE TO THAT -- TO THAT PIE OF REDUCTION.
>>GOODMAN: ALL RIGHT. OKAY. THE OTHER THING THAT I WANTED TO ASK THAT'S SORT OF INDIRECT TO THIS IS -- IS DO YOU KNOW WHERE WE ARE IN WRITING THE R.F.P. FOR THE TRANSPORTATION TEAM? THE $200,000 BUDGET ITEM?
>> NO, I DON'T. A TRANSPORTATION TEAM? I THINK THERE -- I THINK THERE WERE SOME NEW POSITIONS IN THE BUDGET FOR TRANSPORTATION PLANNERS.
>>GOODMAN: IT WAS A CONTRACT ISSUE, I THOUGHT. THE $200,000 FOR -- FOR GOING OUT FOR AN R.F.P. FOR CONTRACTING A COUPLE OF TOP TRANSPORTATION PLANNERS AND/OR ENGINEERS -- AT LEAST THAT'S WHAT WAS SAID DURING THE BUDGET.
>>GARZA: LET ME GO FIND OUT WHERE WE ARE WITH THAT. I KNOW THAT WAS SOME OF THE STUFF WE TALKED ABOUT IN BUDGET. LET ME GET WITH BOTH AUSTIN AND MARSHA IN TERMS OF HOW QUICKLY WE GET THAT R.F.P. OUT.
>>GOODMAN: GREAT, THANKS. THE OTHER ONE OR ONE OF THE OTHER QUESTIONS WAS WHEN WE TALK ABOUT AREA AND THE SORT OF THE NATURAL AND SOMETIMES ENHANCED POLLUTION EMITTING AREA THAT WE HAVE, DOES THAT INCLUDE ANY KIND OF -- ANY KIND OF ASSESSMENT NOW ABOUT WHAT'S IMPORTED THROUGH TRADITIONAL WIND PATTERNS FOR OTHER PARTS OF TEXAS? AND IF -- IF SOME OF THOSE OTHER CITIES WERE ABLE TO MAKE SIGNIFICANT REDUCTIONS IN THEIR POLLUTION, WOULD WE BENEFIT IN A NOTABLE WAY?
>> IT DOES. THE -- THE WAY WE REFER TO IT IN MODELING AIR QUALITY IS TRANSPORT. WE TALK ABOUT THE TRANSPORT OF POLLUTANTS, OZONE ITSELF OR THE POLLUTANTS FORMING OZONE FROM WHEREVER INTO THE AUSTIN REGION. ONE OF THE TYPICAL PATTERNS IS -- IS EAST TO WEST MOVEMENT FROM THE HOUSTON AREA IN SOUTH TEXAS INTO THE AUSTIN AREA. BUT THE -- IT'S NOT ALWAYS THE CASE. THAT -- THAT WHEN WE HAVE A HIGH OZONE DAY HERE IN AUSTIN, THAT THE -- THAT THE -- THAT THE -- THAT THE -- THAT WE ARE GETTING POLLUTANTS TRANS -- TRANSMITTED TO THE AUSTIN AREA FROM -- FROM THE EAST -- FROM THE HOUSTON AREA. IN SOME CASES WE HAVE VERY LITTLE TRANSPORT. SO WE ARE MODELING LOOKING AT A DIFFERENT -- DIFFERENT EVENTS. SOME EVENTS THAT INCLUDE TRANSPORT, SOME EVENTS THAT DON'T. [ONE MOMENT PLEASE]
>>MAYOR WATSON: ... THE SMOKE THAT CAME FROM THE FIRES SOUTH OF THE UNITED STATES BORDER, YOU RECALL AT THAT TIME IT WAS LIKE OH, WELL THAT DOES REALLY HAPPEN. SO -- AND PART OF WHAT THIS TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE THAT AUSTIN HAS INDICATED HE SERVES ON, THAT'S PART OF THE OVERALL MODELING. AT LEAST ONE OF THE THINGS BEING CONSIDERED ABOUT HOW YOU APPROACH THAT.
>>GOODMAN: GREAT. THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE IS LESS OF A QUESTION THAN A COMMENT. COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ AND I ARE WORKING ON SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN WORKING ON OVER THE YEARS RELATIVE TO TREE PLANTINGS AND THEIR IMPACT. AND YOU MENTIONED THE HIGH BENEFIT FROM OAK TREES. DO WE KNOW IF THERE ARE OTHER KINDS OF TREES THAT HAVE EQUAL OR HIGH BENEFICIAL IMPACT IN THAT WAY?
>> THE OAK TREES HAVE DETRIMENTAL IMPACT ACTUALLY. IN THAT THEY EMIT --.
>>GOODMAN: IS THAT WHERE REAGAN GOT THAT?
>> ALTHOUGH THERE IS A SEPARATE PROGRAM THAT I THINK THE COUNCILMEMBER WAS INTERESTED IN THAT IS A CO 2 REDUCTION PROGRAM AND CARBON DIOXIDE AND THERE WE'RE DEALING WITH ATMOSPHERIC OZONE, THE OZONE PROBLEM WHERE YOU DON'T WANT TO LOSE THE OZONE, YOU WANT IT IN THE UPPER ATMOSPHERE, AND YOU HAVE -- WHERE TREES HELP TO REDUCE THE PROBLEM OF THE LOSS OF ATMOSPHERIC OZONE. SO YOU'VE GOT A BALANCE THERE.
>>GOODMAN: OKAY. WELL, I DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND THEN -- UNLESS I FALL UNDER SOMEBODY'S MYTHOLOGY, WHAT SHOULD WE BE PLANTING? NOT OAK TREES THEN?
>> WELL, I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT. I'LL HAVE TO TAKE A LOOK AND SEE IF WE COME UP WITH WHAT IS THE LEAST -- THE TREE THAT EMITS THE RIGHT KIND OF STUFF. I DON'T KNOW THAT I KNOW THAT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.
>>GOODMAN: WHEN I LOOKED AT -- AND THIS IS MY LAST QUESTION. I'M SORRY I STRETCHED THEM OUT EVEN THOUGH I ONLY HAVE FOUR. WHEN I LOOKED AT OVER THE YEARS OUR NUMBER OF NON-ATTAINMENT DAYS ARE CLOSE TO -- WHAT ARE WE CALLING THEM? OZONE EXCEEDENCE DAYS?
>> YES.
>>GOODMAN: CAN WE ATTRIBUTE ANY OF THE REDUCTION IN THE YEAR 2000 TO ANYTHING WE'VE DONE OR IS THAT JUST THE LUCK OF THE DRAW?
>> I THINK THAT AT THIS POINT WE PROBABLY HAVE NOT DONE ENOUGH TO TAKE CREDIT FOR THE CHANGE THAT YOU SEE IN THE PATTERN OF REDUCTION. I THINK THAT IT'S DOMINATED AT THIS POINT BY THE WEATHER PATTERNS. WE ARE -- IT'S DIFFICULT TO DISCERN ANY TREND BASED ON WHAT WE HAVE DONE. I THINK THE UNFORTUNATE THING IS IT'S GOING TO TAKE -- ONCE WE ARE IN THE EXCEEDENCE SITUATION, AN AWFUL LOT OF REDUCTION TO SHOW, IN FACT, PROVE TO THE STATE AND E.P.A. THAT WE ARE MOVING THE DIRECTION OF ATTAINMENT.
>>MAYOR WATSON: COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ.
>>ALVAREZ: YES, I HAD MORE OF A GENERIC QUESTION OR ACTUALLY A REQUEST RELATED TO AIR POLLUTION AND -- BECAUSE WHAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT HERE WITH OUR OZONE REDUCTION STRATEGIES, A MORE LOCALIZED POLLUTION PROBLEM WHICH CERTAINLY HELPS AS WE REDUCE EMISSIONS, IT HELPS DEAL WITH THE BROADER PROBLEM OF GLOBAL WARNING. BUT WHAT I WAS GOING TO REQUEST IS I KNOW AND I HAVE A COPY OF A CARBON DIOXIDE REDUCTION STRATEGY FROM FEBRUARY OF '97, THAT'S BACK WHEN THE CITY BECAME AN ENERGY SMART CITY AND DIRECTED, YOU KNOW, THE CITY STAFF TO PREPARE THIS CARBON DIOXIDE REDUCTION STRATEGY WHICH WAS PUBLISHED IN FEBRUARY OF '97. AND I GUESS THE TARGET WAS TO REDUCE CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS BY 20% BELOW 1990 LEVELS BY THE YEAR 2010. AND IT DEALT WITH I GUESS FIVE BASIC AREAS IN TERMS OF REDUCING POLLUTION, ENERGY EFFICIENCY, RENEWABLE RESOURCES AND CO-ENERGY AND RECYCLING AND TREE PLANTING, AND WE'VE TALKED ABOUT SEVERAL OF THESE ITEMS OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST FEW MONTHS AND OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS. I'M SURE THE COUNCIL HAS DEALT WITH THESE. I WAS JUST GOING TO ASK CITY STAFF TO DO A BRIEFING, SINCE WE'RE ABOUT FOUR YEARS AFTER THE ADOPTION OF THE -- OF THIS PLAN AND MAYBE COME BACK IN FEBRUARY OR SO WITH AN UPDATE ON WHAT PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE.
>> IF I MIGHT SAY SOMETHING HERE, THE -- OUR RESEARCH, AND IT MAY BE WRONG; THAT THE COUNCIL NEVER DID ADOPT THAT RESOLUTION. WE'VE BEEN TRACKING SOME OF THESE AND I HAVE SOME STATISTICS I CAN GIVE YOU ON CAR BEEN BY OXIDE, BUT I TALKED WITH MR. DUNG CAN AND OTHER FOLKS AND WE DON'T THINK THE COUNCIL ACTUALLY ADOPTED THAT RESOLUTION BACK THEN. IT DID COME UP AND WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS CONSIDERED.
>>ALVAREZ: BUT WE DO HAVE A PLAN, WHETHER A RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED OR NOT, WE HAVE --
>> AND WE HAVE BEEN WORKING TO ACHIEVE THAT PLAN TO SOME DEGREE, BUT WITHOUT THAT -- I DON'T THINK WITHOUT THAT ADOPTED RESOLUTION. AND I COULD JUST TELL YOU THAT ON SOME OF THE GOALS AT THIS POINT, WE ARE ACHIEVING ABOUT 5% OF OUR TRANSPORTATION-RELATED CO 2 REDUCTION GOALS. WE HAVE -- ARE ACHIEVING ABOUT 25% OF OUR RECYCLING GOALS. AUSTIN ENERGY WILL MEET 52% OF ITS LOAD GROWTH GOAL THAT WAS ONE OF THOSE, AS I UNDERSTAND IT. SO WE HAVE SOME STATISTICS, AND WE DON'T ACTUALLY -- I DON'T HAVE IN FRANT OF ME THE STATISTICS ON TREE PLANTING, WHICH I WILL ATTEMPT TO GET. BUT WE CAN PUT TOGETHER A REPORT AND A BRIEFING IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ELABORATE ON THAT FURTHER.
>>GARZA: MAYOR, WOULD YOU LIKE THAT IN THE FEBRUARY TIME FRAME?
>>ALVAREZ: YEAH, THAT WOULD BE FINE.
>>GARZA: WE'LL MAKE A NOTE OF THAT.
>>MAYOR WATSON: ANYTHING ELSE? YEAH, COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER.
>>SLUSHER: THE -- I HAD PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED THE COUNCIL AND LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL INITIATIVES THAT I ATTENDED AND THE CITY THERE, WE WOULD -- WE WERE NOT THE TOP -- WE WERE IN THE SECOND HIGHEST TIER OF CITIES AS FAR AS OUR PERFORMANCE IN THEIR JUDGMENT BECAUSE WE -- AND THE NEXT THING WE NEED TO DO IS MONITOR THE EFFECT WE WERE HAVING, SO I WOULD LIKE TO GET WITH YOU AND GO OVER THAT IN MORE DETAIL SO WE CAN GET OVER THAT HUMP BY NEXT YEAR. AND ONE OTHER THING WE TALKED ABOUT THERE AND I REALIZE BEFORE WE WENT DOWN THERE WERE SOME THINGS AS FAR AS AIR POLLUTION CAN'T BE CONTROLLED ON THE LOCAL LEVEL. AND TO REALLY MAKE A DENT, A SERIOUS DENT IN OUR POLLUTION, AIR POLLUTION HERE, WE'RE GOING TO NEED ALTERNATIVE FUELS FOR CARS. AND WHAT THE CITY IS DOING WITH THE HYBRID VEHICLES AND THE SMALL AMOUNT OF CARS THEY'VE BOUGHT SO FAR, AND, YOU KNOW, THAT MAKES A SMALL DENT I GUESS OR IT HAS AN IMPACT, BUT TO REALLY BE BIG AND MEASUREABLE, YOU ARE GOING TO NEED ALTERNATIVE FUELS, AND I THINK THAT CAN ONLY BE DONE WITH THE HELP OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN COOPERATION -- AND COOPERATION FROM OUR MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS. SO I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO LET US KNOW HOW THE CITY CAN PLUG IN AND SUPPORT ANY EFFORTS ON THAT FRONT ON THE NATIONAL OR STATE LEVEL. I EXPECT THERE PROBABLY WOULD BE MORE ON THE NATIONAL LEVEL THAN THE STATE LEVEL.
>> WE'LL DO THAT.
>>SLUSHER: THANK YOU.
>>MAYOR WATSON: ANYTHING ELSE? THANK YOU, MR. LIBRACH. GOOD WORK. COUNCIL, ON THE OTHER BRIEFING ITEMS, YOU WILL RECALL THAT ITEM NO. 3 WAS POSTPONED UNTIL DECEMBER 7, 2000. ITEM NO. 4, WE PASSED THE ITEM RELATED TO THAT BY CONSENT. THERE'S REALLY NOT A NEED FOR THAT BRIEFING. SO WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND IS WE NOT GO AHEAD WITH THAT BRIEFING SINCE IT'S ALREADY BEEN PASSED. WITH THAT, LET'S GO TO ITEMS THAT ARE SET -- OR HAVE BEEN PULLED FOR DISCUSSION. AND WHAT I'LL DO, FOUR RIGHT NOW, FOR THOSE STAFF MEMBERS WHO MAY NOT BE IN THE ROOM BUT ARE WATCHING AND ANTICIPATING WHEN THEY MIGHT BE CALLED TO ADDRESS AN ITEM, LET ME TELL YOU THE ORDER THAT I WOULD ANTICIPATE WE WOULD GO IN. 17, THEN 73, 74 -- I'M SORRY ABOUT THAT. IF STAFF IS LISTENING AND APPARENTLY MY MIC WASN'T ON. WE ARE NOT TAKING UP THE BRIEFING ON THE RADIO SYSTEM SINCE THAT PASS ODD CONSENT. THE ORDER I WILL TAKE UP DISCUSSION ITEMS WILL BE 17, 73 AND 74, 77 AND 78. ITEM NO. 17, I'LL RECOGNIZE COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER.
>>SLUSHER: WELL, MAYOR, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO NEED COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS, THE SPONSOR, TO WORK THIS OUT, BUT THIS IS AN ITEM -- WELL, THIS GOES WITH A LATER ITEM. LET'S SEE, I FORGET THE NUMBER. 70 SOMETHING. BUT THE IDEA IS THAT THERE IS A FAMILY THAT CAME DOWN AND TALKED ABOUT HAVING A BEAUTY SALON IN THEIR HOME AND THEY WERE CONCERNED THAT THE PLAN WOULD PREVENT THEM FROM DOING THAT, AND I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD PREVENT THEM FROM DOING THAT AND I THINK COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS -- HERE HE COMES.
>>MAYOR WATSON: YEAH, THERE HE IS.
>>SLUSHER: BUT THE WAY THE ITEM FROM COUNCIL IS LISTED, IT WOULD -- IT WOULD CHANGE THIS -- THE WHOLE CODE FOR THE WHOLE CITY. AND WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY KIND OF PROCESS ON THAT TO CHANGE THAT IN THE ENTIRE CODE FOR THE CITY, SO I THINK IT WOULD BE MORE PRUDENT JUST TO FIND A WAY TO EITHER -- TO MAKE THIS SORT OF USE ACCEPTABLE WITHIN THE CHESTNUT PLAN OR TO, JUST FOR THIS INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNER. HAS THE STAFF DONE ANY WORK ON THIS? WE TALKED ABOUT THIS AT THE -- AT THE HEARING LAST TIME.
>>MAYOR WATSON: COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS, DO YOU WANT TO ADDRESS ANYTHING QUICKLY BEFORE WE --.
>>THOMAS: YES. I'M SORRY. YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT CHESTNUT. I AGREE WITH COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER WAS TALKING ABOUT, BUT I THINK THE AGREEMENT THAT WE DID WHEN THEY HAD THE FIRST READING WAS THAT WE WERE GOING TO WORK WITH THE RESIDENT AT 1809 CHESTNUT. AND I THINK WHAT WE ARE -- IF WE CAN HAVE IT IN THEIR PARTICULAR PLAN TO CHANGE IT TO -- IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED AT MF-3, AND IF WE CAN GET IT DOWNZONED TO -- TO THE PROPERTY SF-3. AND THE REASON WAS THAT THE LADY HAS A BEAUTY SALON IN HER HOME AND SHE WANTED TO LEAVE IT THERE BECAUSE AT THE PARTICULAR TIME THEY ARE NOT IN BUSINESS, BUT SHE HAS A DAUGHTER AND A GRANDDAUGHTER WANT TO CONTINUE THE BUSINESS AND THAT WAS THE PURPOSE FOR THAT. AND I THOUGHT WE HAD WORKED IT OUT, BUT IT'S OBVIOUS WE DIDN'T. BUT I DO NOT WANT TO HOLD UP THE PLAN, THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN.
>>MAYOR WATSON: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER.
>>SLUSHER: LET'S HEAR FROM THE STAFF. THAT WAS MY IMPRESSION, THAT STAFF WAS GOING TO GO DEAL WITH THAT, AND SO LET'S GET A REPORT ON THAT.
>> STEVE BARNEY, PLANNING ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION SERVICES. ALICE GLASCO OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND INSPECTION AND MYSELF AND CARE BARE OF PLANNING AND GREG GUERNSEY OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW MET WITH MS. MORRIS, SHARE MORRIS, ON SEPTEMBER 21ST, AND AT THE MEETING WHAT WE AGREED WE WOULD DO IS NOT DOWNZONE HER PROPERTY TO SF-3, BUT INSTEAD MAINTAIN HER MULTI-FAMILY ZONING AND TRY AND PURSUE AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT WOULD ALLOW -- ALLOW THE BEAUTY PARLOR AND OTHER CERTAIN PERSONAL SERVICES WITHIN A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
>>SLUSHER: SO IS THAT THEN REFLECTED IN ITEM 17? IN THE APPROVAL OF THE PLAN?
>> THE -- THE SECOND -- THE ORDINANCE HERE IN FRONT OF YOU STILL HAS YOUR ACTION ON FIRST READING. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED MULTI-FAMILY 3. THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN RECOMMENDATION WAS CHANGING IT TO SINGLE-FAMILY 3 AND WHAT WE'RE AGREEING IS TO NOT DO THAT, TO MAINTAIN THE MULTI-FAMILY 3 THAT EXISTS TODAY. WHAT WE DISCOVERED IN HAVING MET WITH MS. MORRISON, WE FOUND THAT IN 1962, I BELIEVE, THE PROPERTY WAS CHANGED TO MULTI-FAMILY 2. MULTI-FAMILY 3. CONSEQUENTLY IN 1985 WE ADOPTED A ZONING ORDINANCE THAT DROPPED THE ACCESSORY PROVISIONS ALLOWED FOR BEAUTY SHOPS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. SO IN THE '60'S, THE ZONING ORDINANCE ALLOWED BEAUTY PARLORS AS ACCESSORY USES TO RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. THE REWRITE OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE IN '84 ELIMINATED THAT ACCESSORY USE. HOWEVER, THERE ARE USES OUT THERE THAT ARE GRANDFATHERED IF THEY'VE BEEN CONTINUING OVER TIME AND THAT THOSE THAT HAVE BECOME ILLEGAL, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THIS CASE MS. MORRISON JUST LOST HER LICENSE AND HAS NOT BEEN PRACTICING AND THEREFORE THE GRANDFATHERING HAS GONE AWAY BECAUSE THE ORDINANCE NO LONGER ALLOWS THAT ACCESSORY USE. SO OUR SUGGESTION WAS THAT IF THE ZONING OF FIVE-DAY FORECAST 3 WERE TO BE MAINTAINED, THEN THE OPTION OF ALLOWING THIS -- THIS BEAUTY PARLOR USE, WHICH SEEMS TO BE A CITY-WIDE CONCERN OR A LACK OF ACCESSORY USE CITYWIDE WOULD BE TO AMEND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND ADD THAT PROVISION BACK THAT USED TO BE THERE BEFORE 1985. OR, ON THE OTHER HAND, ANOTHER OPTION TO BE TO AMEND THE SMART GROWTH INFILL ORDINANCE THAT ALLOWS NEIGHBORHOODS TO SELECT FROM A MENU OF USES THAT ONLY PERTAIN TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING PROCESS AS OPPOSED TO APPLYING IT CITYWIDE. THOSE ARE THE TWO OPTIONS REGARD THE BEAUTY PAR LORE.
>> AND IF I MIGHT ADD, SUBSEQUENT TO TO OUR MEETING WITH MS. MORRIS, WE RECEIVED A LETTER FROM HER THAT SAID THANK YOU, GLAD TO MEET WITH STAFF, HOWEVER, WHAT WE WOULD REALLY STILL LIKE IS GET A COMMERCIAL MIXED USE ZONING CATEGORY.
>>MAYOR WATSON: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, YOU STILL HAVE THE FLOOR.
>>SLUSHER: IF COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS WANTS TO SAY SOMETHING, HE MIGHT CLEAR THIS UP.
>>MAYOR WATSON: OKAY.
>>THOMAS: I'M -- IF I COULD MAKE A MOTION TO JUST GO AHEAD AND LEAVE IT AT MF, THEN I'LL COME BACK NEXT WEEK WITH THE WORD TO INITIALLY REZONE THE PROPERTY TO G.O. OR EITHER LR NEXT WEEK. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO LEAVE IT REMAIN AS MF 3 AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME AND NEXT WEEK I WILL COME BACK WITH THE WORDING TO REZONE IT.
>>MAYOR WATSON: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER.
>>SLUSHER: I WOULD SECOND THAT WITH A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, HOPEFULLY, THAT WE -- I DON'T SEE ANY OF THE FOLKS THAT WORKED ON THE PLAN, THE LEADERSHIP, HERE TODAY, AND THE STAFF WOULD CONTACT THEM IN THE MEANTIME, REVEREND PARKER, MS. AVRY, MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS OKAY WITH THEM. I MEAN I AGREE WITH COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS THAT WE NEED TO ALLOW THIS USE THERE, AND I DON'T THINK IT WAS THE INTENT OF THE PEOPLE ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN TO PROHIBIT THAT, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THEIR INTENT SEEMS TO BE TO ADD THIS -- MAKE THIS AS A SINGLE FAMILY ZONING. SO I WOULDN'T WANT TO -- I WANT TO PREVENT HAVING A SITUATION WHERE IT'S POSSIBLE, ANYWAY, I DON'T THINK THE FAMILY PLANNED THIS, BUT IN FUTURE YEARS THAT THERE WOULD BE A AN APARTMENT USE AVAILABLE HERE WHEN -- IF THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNERS HAD INTENDED FOR IT TO BE SINGLE-FAMILY. SO WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO WORK OUT IS WHERE THAT YOU MEET THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN INTENT OF THIS BEING A SINGLE-FAMILY PROPERTY, BUT YOU ALLOW THE BEAUTY SALON USE. IS THAT -- IS THAT CLEAR? BECAUSE I THINK THINGS TEND TO GET MORE COMPLICATED THAN THEY SEEM LIKE THEY WOULD BE, AND I UNDERSTAND WHY, BUT -- [LAUGHTER].
>>GARZA: IF I COULD JUST ASK A CLARIFICATION, BECAUSE I THINK ALICE LAID OUT TWO RECOMMENDATIONS. AND FROM EASE OF ADMINISTRATION, I THINK THERE'S ONE THAT I WOULD PREFER, AND THAT IS THE ONE WHERE YOU'VE GOT ACCESSORY USE APPLIES -- YOU TALK ABOUT AMENDMENT TO THE CODE THAT APPLIED CITYWIDE, SIMPLY BECAUSE TO BEGIN TO DO PIECES THROUGHOUT THIS CITY IN MULTIPLE FASHIONS, YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE US NOT BE ABLE TO EASILY ADMINISTER WHAT IS AN ACCEPTABLE ACCESSORY USE IN CERTAIN NEIGHBORHOODS AND IN OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS NOT BE AN ACCEPTABLE ACCESSORY USE. AND AS I UNDERSTOOD, YOU COULD ADOPT THE CHANGE IN THE CODE THAT ALLOWED THE BEAUTY SALON AS AN ACCESSORY USE AS IT EXISTED BEFORE 1985, AND THEN SUBSEQUENTLY DELETE IT AFTER OR AT 1985. IS THAT YOUR PREFERENCE? IS YOUR PREFERENCE TO DO A UNIQUE CATEGORY? ALL I WOULD SUGGEST, IF WE DO THAT, YOU NEED TO BE PREPARED FOR A VERY DIFFICULT ASPECT OF ADMINISTRATION AS TO WHAT NEIGHBORHOODS ARE GOING TO ALLOW CERTAIN THINGS, WHAT WON'T, AND YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE FOLKS VERY CONFUSED FROM A ADMINISTRATIVE STANDPOINT. SO I WOULD PREFER IT BE A BLANKET SO THAT YOU ALLOW THAT USE WITH CERTAIN CONDITIONS AS OPPOSED TO DOING SOMETHING SO UNIQUE WE DO THOSE 100 TIMES OR 50 TIMES AND IT CAUSES DIFFICULTY FROM THE ADMINISTRATION STANDPOINT. ALICE MAY WANT TO ELABORATE.
>>GLASGO: MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO ALLOW IT AS A CITYWIDE AMENDMENT BECAUSE IT'S NOT UNIQUE TO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. I THINK WE ALL KNOW THAT BEAUTY PARLORS OR USES OF THIS NATURE ARE SIMILAR TO HOME OCCUPATION, BUT WOULD HAVE TO BE RESTRICTED. I KNOW THERE IS CONCERN THIS MAY HAVE OTHER USES OR EMBAKTSZ WITHIN NEIGHBORHOODS, BUT MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO ALLOW IT AS A CITYWIDE AMENDMENT AND NOT JUST UNIQUE TO A NEIGHBORHOOD.
>>SLUSHER: COUNCILMEMBERS, I DON'T REALLY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. I MEAN IT'S AMAZING TO ME SINCE SOME THINGS THAT SEEM SIMPLE, HOW MUCH OPPOSITION THEY CAN GENERATE FROM SOME OF OUR CITIZENS. I PERSONALLY CAN'T SEE THE HARM OF A BEAUTY SALON IN A HOME. I THINK THAT'S A LONG TRADITION IN THE UNITED STATES AND PROBABLY AROUND THE WORLD, SO THAT'S FINE WITH ME. I DON'T -- YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW HOW THE AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL MIGHT OPPOSE THAT. I DON'T KNOW.
>>GOODMAN: WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO WEIGH IN BECAUSE I DO SEE A REASON FOR NOT DOING A BLANKET CODE AMENDMENT LIKE THAT, BECAUSE IT'S NOT GOING TO WORK IN EVERY NEIGHBORHOOD AND IT WOULD HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFULLY DEFINED. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS IS TAILOR THE PLAN TO FIT THE NEIGHBORHOODS SO THERE IS NOT SO MUCH COOKIE CUTTER, ALL ENCOMPASSING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS THAT WORK FOR ONE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DON'T WORK FOR ONE NEIGHBORHOOD AND IS PUT INTO THE CODE BECAUSE OF ONE NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE DISADVANTAGE OF OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS. SO IF YOU ARE GOING TO TRY TO BE A LITTLE MORE BROAD IN APPLICATION, I WOULD SAY STILL BE VERY, VERY FINELY DEFINED AND MAKE IT SOMETHING LIKE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITHIN ADOPTED NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, RATHER THAN A BLANKET ORDINANCE AMENDMENT THAT ANYBODY COULD WALK INTO, BECAUSE YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE THE SAME OLD THINGS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO CHANNEL INTO NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING, AND WE WILL HAVE JUST INVENTED ONE MORE THING TO COME FIGHT AT PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCILL BECAUSE IT'S NOT RIGHT FOR EVERYBODY.
>>GARZA: AND MY ONLY COMMENT IS -- AND I REALIZE THERE MIGHT BE SOME DIFFERENCES OF OPINION, IS THAT TO -- AS WE GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS OF PLANS OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS WHERE YOU BEGIN TO DO SUCH SPECIFIC TAILORING ON THINGS THAT CODE INSPECTORS AND OTHER FOLKS NEED TO BE ENFORCING, IT CREATES A VERY DIFFICULT ROAD MAP TO FOLLOW. I'M MINDFUL A FOOLISH CONSISTENCY IS THE HOBNOGGIN OF FOOLISH MINDS SHE BUT WHETHER WE START CREATING DIFFERENT USES ALLOWED IN SOME NEIGHBORHOODS, NOT OTHERS, IT'S GOING TO CREATE SOME CONFUSION. IT DOESN'T MEAN IT CAN'T GET DONE, IT'S GOING TO BE DIFFICULT TO DO. ALICE OFFERED ONE RECOMMENDATION. SHE ALSO OFFERED ANOTHER ONE. THERE IS A DIFFERENT WAY OF DOING THAT AND I WANT TO OFFER CAUTION TO THE COUNCIL THERE IS GOING TO BE SOME DIFFICULTY FOR DOING THINGS SO UNIQUE JUST FROM A PURELY ADMINISTRATIVE STANDPOINT IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT.
>>MAYOR WATSON: LET ME SEE IF I CAN MOVE US TO A QUICKER POINT. BECAUSE WE'RE OBVIOUSLY NOT PREPARED TO DISCUSS WHERE WE ULTIMATELY WILL END UP RIGHT NOW TODAY. AND FRANKLY, THAT'S ONE OF THE DIFFICULTIES THAT OCCURS WHEN AN IDEA TO JUST -- AN IDEA THAT JUST GETS PUT ON THE AGENDA REAL QUICKLY WITHOUT THE ABILITY FOR THEIR TO BE MORE THOROUGH DISCUSSION BEFORE WE GET TO IT. BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THERE ARE THREE GOALS THAT APPEAR TO BE CONFLICTING, PERHAPS ARE NOT CONFLICTING. ONE IS THIS COUNCIL HAS DEMONSTRATED A STRONG DESIRE TO WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORHOODS TO CREATE GOOD NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS THAT DEAL WITH JUST THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS IN A WAY THAT THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS SAY THEY WANT TO BE DEALT WITH. WE HAVE PASSED, FOR EXAMPLE, WITH THIS -- WITH REGARD TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, WE'VE ALREADY PASSED THIS ON FIRST READING AND PATTED OURSELVES ON THE BACK AND THOUGHT WE HAD DONE A GOOD JOB. THE SECOND GOAL IS THAT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE AS WE DO THAT, WE DON'T CREATE SITUATIONS THAT BECOME HORRIBLY INEFFICIENT IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE CITY, AS THE CITY MANAGER HAS I THINK VERY GRAPHICALLY LAID OUT CAN OCCUR BY CHANGING CODE IN WAYS IT WOULD BE TOO RELATED TO SPECIFIC NEIGHBORHOODS. AND THIRD IS WE HAVE AN INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER THAT I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYBODY INDICATE THEY DON'T WANT TO TRY TO HELP UNDER THIS, AND THAT, FRA LITTLE DOWN THE ROAD ON THIS ONE. THE CONCERN I'VE GOT IS WE'RE NOT PREPARED TO SAY, OH, THAT IS THE SOLUTION WE'RE READY TO DO, BECAUSE THERE HASN'T BEEN SUFFICIENT DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW WE GET THERE. AS I UNDERSTAND IT WITH REGARD TO THE INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER, BECAUSE OF THE STATUS OF HER BUSINESS RIGHT NOW, SHE IS NOT NEEDING THIS CHANGE NEXT WEEK. SO WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND WE DO IS GO AHEAD-AS COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS HAS INDICATED, AND BY THE WAY, AS I UNDERSTOOD IT, HE HAD PULLED THE IDEA OF CHANGING THE WHOLE CODE, HE PULLED THAT INDEFINITELY. WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND WE DO IS GO AHEAD AND PASS ITEM NO. 17, KEEPING IN MIND OF COURSE THAT WE HAVE THIS ISSUE THAT HAS NOW COME UP. ASK MS. GLASCO TO PROVIDE US AS MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL WITH INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT HER RECOMMENDATION IS AND WHY SO THAT WE CAN THEN TAKE ACTION THAT MEETS THESE THREE GOALS, WHICH I DON'T BELIEVE TO BE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE, AND WE DO IT IN MORE THAN JUST HAVING THIS KIND OF QUICK DISCUSSION RAISING OUR CONCERNS RIGHT NOW, AND WE PROBABLY WON'T BE ABLE TO DO IT NEXT WEEK, BUT SHORTLY THEREAFTER, ONCE WE'VE BEEN MORE EDUCATED ON IT BE ABLE TO PULL THAT OFF. MAYOR PRO TEM.
>>GOODMAN: LET ME ADD ONE MORE THING THAT I WOULD LIKE US TO LOOK AT IN BETWEEN NOW AND THEN RELATIVE TO SOMETHING BE REALLY CONFUSING BECAUSE IT'S IN A NEIGHBORHOOD AS OPPOSED TO ANOTHER. MY UNDERSTANDING IS OUR TECHNOLOGY UPDATES WERE SLOWLY BUT SURELY TAKING US TO THE ABILITY TO CALL UP ON A COMPUTER SCREEN OR PRINTOUT OR WHATEVER THE CONDITIONS OF AN AREA, SO THAT IF SOMEONE WAS TO ASK WHAT CAN YOU DO ON 3605 X STREET, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO PULL UP THAT AREA IF IT WAS IN A NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, WE WOULD THEN HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION ABOUT THAT NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. AND THAT WOULD SEEM NOT TO BE VERY CONFUSING. SO -- BUT IF WE'RE NOWHERE NEAR THAT AFTER ALL THE MONEY WE'VE SPENT, IF WE HAVE NOT GOTTEN CLOSE TO A LEVEL WHERE WE CAN EVEN THINK ABOUT THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW KIND OF OUR STATUS QUO THERE TOO.
>>MAYOR WATSON: WOULD THAT BE A WAY TO SOLVE THIS?
>>GRIFFITH: YES, MAYOR, IF WE COULD LOOK AT IT A LITTLE MORE -- EVEN MORE BROADLY THAN THE MAYOR PRO TEM IS SUGGESTING, IN ADDITION TO WHAT SHE IS SUGGESTING. WHAT I NEED TO GET A HANDLE IS CERTAINLY EFFICIENCY IS A BIG PRIORITY WITH ALL OF US IN TERMS OF ADMINISTRATION. AND I'M SHARING WHAT THE MANAGER IS SAYING HERE IN TERMS OF HIS COMMITMENT TO FISH EVEN SI. BUT ISN'T SOME CUSTOMIZED ADMINISTRATION INTRINSIC IN A NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING WHOLE APPROACH TO URBAN DESIGN AND URBAN PLANNING? AND IF THERE IS GOING TO BE SOME LIMITATION TO THAT AND SOME PROBLEMS WITH THAT, LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT THEY ARE, BECAUSE I THINK WHEN YOU ASK PEOPLE, WHEN YOU ASK NEIGHBORS TO COME TOGETHER AND PLAN THEIR AREA, THEN I THINK IMPLICIT THAT IS THE CITY IS GOING TO TREAT YOU IN A SPECIAL WAY AS YOU REQUEST IN CERTAIN AREAS, AND PERHAPS WE NEED TO BE MORE SPECIFIC IF THERE ARE GOING TO BE LIMITATIONS TO THAT BECAUSE OF EFFICIENCY CONCERNS WHICH ARE COMPLETELY LEGITIMATE.
>>MAYOR WATSON: AND I THINK THAT'S GOOD AND I THINK MS. GLASCO, WHAT I'M SAYING -- I DON'T THINK WE HAVE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE GOALS HERE ALONG THE LINES OF WHAT'S BEING OUTLINED, BUT WE'RE NOT PREPARED TODAY TO SAY HERE'S HOW WE WANT TO DEAL WITH THAT. AND IF YOU COULD PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION TO ALL OF US, THEN WE'LL BE IN A POSITION SHORTLY AFTER -- VERY SHORTLY TO BRING THAT UP AND DECIDE HOW WE WANT TO APPROACH IT.
>>ALVAREZ: MAYOR?
>>MAYOR WATSON: YES, COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ.
>>ALVAREZ: WE'RE DEALING WITH ONE SPECIFIC PROPERTY AND I THINK THERE MAY BE A WAY WE CAN WORK WITH THE SPECIFIC PROPERTY OWNER, BUT OBVIOUSLY THERE WOULD NEED TO BE A CHANGE IN ZONING. IS THIS SOMETHING THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING TEAM HAS HAD A PROBLEM WITH CHANGING THE ZONING FOR THAT PARTICULAR TRACT, OR WHAT ARE THE DYNAMICS OF THAT? ARE THEY ALL IN AGREEMENT THAT WHAT THIS HOMEOWNER IS DOING IS OKAY, OR HAS THERE BEEN A CONFLICT THERE?
>> I DON'T HAVE A DEFINITIVE STATEMENT FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING TEAM AT THIS POINT ABOUT WHAT THEIR FEELINGS WOULD BE ABOUT COMMERCIAL ZONING. THEY DID SUBMIT A LETTER OF SUPPORT SAYING YES, WE'RE FINE WITH THE IDEA OF THE PAR SHELL STAYING ZONED MULTI-FAMILY 4. THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN -- ONE OF THE BROAD GOALS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN SO TO ENCOURAGE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS. SO THE -- A ZONING RECOMMENDATION FOR COMMERCIAL MIXED USE FOR THE PAR SHELL WOULDN'T BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE BROAD GOALS OF THE PLAN. HOWEVER, AS COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER POINTED OUT, THE LAND USE MAP, THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP SHOWS THAT PARCEL AS SINGLE-FAMILY. SO WE PROBABLY WOULD NEED TO GO BACK AND TALK WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING TEAM.
>>ALVAREZ: IT SEEMS IF YOU COULD GET THE LANDOWNER AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING COMMITTEE TO AGREE ON THIS PARTICULAR TRACT, MAYBE THAT WOULD BE THE EASIEST WAY OF DOING IT. BUT I'M SURE THAT HOPEFULLY IS WHERE WE'RE HEADED.
>>MAYOR WATSON: I THINK WE KNOW WHERE WE WANT TO HEAD. I'M GOING TO RECOGNIZE COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS'S COMMENT AS A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM NO. 17 ON SECOND AND THIRD READING. IS THAT A VALID INTERPRETATION OF YOUR COMMENT, COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS?
>>THOMAS: THE PROBLEM IS -- I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH WHAT EVERYBODY SAID AND I RESPECT WHAT THE SMG CERTIFICATE SAYING ABOUT THE ADMINISTRATION, BUT THE THING IS, WHEN WE DID FIRST READING, WE COMMITTED TO THAT PARTICULAR RESIDENT, HOMEOWNER, THAT WE WERE GOING TO WORK WITH HER, AND I DIDN'T SEE ANYONE -- AND SHE KEPT IN CONTACT WITH MY OFFICE, AND I THINK ALVAREZ OR SOMEONE ELSE'S OFFICE. I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT WE ARE TAKING -- I AGREE WE NEED -- MAYBE WE NEED TO GO BACK -- I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE TOOK CARE OF 1908 CHESTNUT BECAUSE THAT WAS THE ONLY THING THAT WAS HOLDING IT UP, AND MY UNDERSTANDING WAS NO ONE WAS AGAINST THE MF 3 TO REMAIN MF-3 OPPOSED TO THE SINGLE -- THE SF-3. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE BECAUSE WE AS A COUNCIL SAID WE WERE GOING TO WORK WITH HER AND STAFF WAS GOING TO WORK WITH HER, AND THAT'S WHAT -- THIS IS THE REASON WHY I WANTED TO MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE 1809 CHESTNUT TO THE REMAIN -- TO REMAIN MF-3. NEXT WEEK I COULD COME BACK AND THEN WITH PRECISE WORDING AS FOR THE GR OR -- G.O. OR LR.
>>SLUSHER: AND I GUESS I DIDN'T -- WASN'T AWARE THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN LEADERSHIP HAD SAID THEY WERE FINE WITH THIS STAYING -- IS IT MF 3 OR 4? I HADN'T SEEN THAT LETTER AND THEN -- WITH THAT -- WITH THAT BEING THE CASE, I DON'T KNOW WHY WE NEEDED THE OTHER ITEMS CHANGING THE WHOLE CODE FOR THE CITY. SO I MEAN IF THE NEIGHBORHOOD LEADERSHIP IS OKAY WITH THAT, IT DOES SEEM LIKE THAT'S THE SIMPLEST -- I DON'T PARTICULARLY UNDERSTAND WHY YOU WOULD NEED TO COME BACK WITH SOMETHING ELSE NEXT WEEK IF BY THE ACTION THAT YOU JUST PROPOSED --.
>>MAYOR WATSON: HERE'S MY CONCERN WITH THAT IS THAT IF WE'RE NOT COMFORTABLE THAT THAT IS -- THAT IS WHERE YOU DO CREATE EXCLUSIVEITY BETWEEN THE THREE GOALS IS IF THE NEIGHBORHOOD LEADERSHIP IS NOT IN FACT -- AND I DON'T REMEMBER ON FIRST READING, OTHERWISE WE WOULD HAVE CHANGE IDENTITY ON FIRST READING. I AGREE WITH YOU THAT IF THE NEIGHBORHOOD LEADERSHIP WAS FOR IT THERE WAS NO REASON TO HAVE THE CITYWIDE CHANGE TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. SO MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE IN A AN EFFORT TO CREATE WHY WE DON'T CREATE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE SITUATIONS IS PASS IT ON SECOND READING WITH THAT CHANGE, IF WE WANT TO, MAKE THAT PART OF THE MOTION, PASS IT ON SECOND READING AND THEN LET'S GET WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, LET'S FOLLOW UP ON WHAT WE HAVE -- I THINK THE CONSENSUS OF THE COUNCIL, IS A REQUEST ABOUT HOW BEST TO DEAL WITH THIS KIND OF THING, AND THEN IF THAT HAPPENS AS EARLY AS NEXT WEEK, SO BE IT. BUT IT DOESN'T REQUIRE THAT WE PASS SOMETHING ON SECOND AND THIRD READING THAT CHANGES SOMETHING AND THEN WE END UP IN A PROBLEM DOWN THE ROAD.
>>SLUSHER: AND HAVE THIS DISCUSSION AGAIN NEXT WEEK.
>>MAYOR WATSON: YEAH, HAVE THE EXACT SAME DISCUSSION NEXT WEEK.
>>THOMAS: AGREEABLE.
>>MAYOR WATSON: I WANT TO MAKE SURE WHAT WE'RE DOING, WE ARE APPROVING THE ORDINANCE ON SECOND READING ONLY. DO WE -- AND MY RECOMMENDATION FOR EASE AND BECAUSE OF WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE IN THE BACKUP IS WE PASS IT AS WE DID ON FIRST READING KNOWING WE'RE GOING TO PROBABLY HAVE TO DEAL WITH THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY NEXT WEEK. ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT, MAKER OF THE MOTION?
>>THOMAS: WELL, YOU TOOK OUT MY MF.
>>MAYOR WATSON: I DON'T CARE, BUT FOR PURPOSES OF WHERE WE ARE, THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR CLARITY. WE'RE GOING TO BRING IT BACK UP ON THIRD READING ANYWAY.
>>THOMAS: OKAY.
>>MAYOR WATSON: OKAY?
>>SLUSHER: AND I WOULD LIKE -- IF STAFF -- WHAT I SAID EARLIER AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO THE EARLIER MOTION, I DON'T NEED TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO THIS, BUT I WOULD APPRECIATE A LITTLE FURTHER COMMUNICATION WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ON THAT IF -- AS FAR AS THIS BEING DIFFERENT THAN THEY HAD INTENDED AND HOW THAT MIGHT POTENTIALLY ALLOW DIFFERENT USE THERE IN THE FUTURE. JUST SO TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THAT IS UNDERSTOOD AND ACCEPTED.
>> OKAY.
>>SLUSHER: AND I KNOW YOU ALREADY MET WITH -- MAYBE THAT'S ALREADY BEEN TALKED OUT, BUT IF SO, LET'S TALK ABOUT IT. WE DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH IT RIGHT NOW.
>> OKAY.
>>SLUSHER: I'LL CONTACT THEM MYSELF AS WELL.
>>GLASGO: WELL, WE'LL GATHER INFORMATION FOR YOU.
>>MAYOR WATSON: COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH.
>>GRIFFITH: MAYOR, I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE -- BY DOING THE SECOND READING APPROACH, WHICH SOUNDS LIKE A VERY GOOD APPROACH, THAT THE INDIVIDUAL THAT I THINK WE'RE ALL INTERESTED IN AND CONCERNED ABOUT IS NOT GOING TO BE PUT IN A HARDSHIP SITUATION, THAT THERE IS NOT A DEADLINE THAT THE INDIVIDUAL MIGHT BE LOOKING AT.
>>MAYOR WATSON: BASED ON WHAT I'VE JUST HEARD, THAT'S NOT EVEN THE CURRENT USE.
>> CORRECT. THE USE IS NO LONGER IN PLACE. THE --.
>>MAYOR WATSON: THAT'S WHY THERE'S THIS PROBLEM.
>>GLASGO: CORRECT. THIS IS DESIRE FOR FUTURE USE. SO THIS COULD REQUIRE A LOT OF DIALOGUE AS FAR AS THE DIFFERENT ASPECTS, BUT I THINK THE MAYOR'S POINT WAS A GOOD ONE, THAT IF I COULD JUST SEND A MEMO TO THE CITY COUNCILL DETAILING THE OTHER OPTIONS ON HOW TO ACCOMMODATE, ADDRESS THIS PARTICULAR ASPECT MIGHT BE PRUDENT AND PROBABLY BETTER USE OF YOUR TIME.
>>GRIFFITH: ABSOLUTELY. AND THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD WILL BOTH BE INVOLVED IN THAT DIALOGUE YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
>>GLASGO: ABSOLUTELY. WE NEED TO GET IN TOUCH WHERE THE LEADERSHIP AGAIN AND GET SOMETHING BACK TO YOU IN WRITING.
>>GRIFFITH: THANK YOU.
>> IF I MIGHT ADD SOMETHING AT THE RISK OF STATING THE OBVIOUS, BECAUSE --.
>>MAYOR WATSON: SOMETIMES THAT'S HELPFUL.
>> BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T NOTIFIED FOR A ZONING CATEGORY MORE INTENSIVE FOR THAT PROPERTY, ON THIRD READING WE COULD NOT -- WE WOULD NOT HAVE THE OPTION OF UPZONING IT TO SOMETHING MORE INTENSIVE THAN MF. I GUESS MY UNDERSTANDING IS WE WOULD HAVE THE OPTION OR COUNCIL WOULD HAVE THE OPTION OF LEAVING THE ZONING AS IT IS, MF-3, BUT NOT UPZONING IT, JUST BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T -- I MEAN FOR THIRD READING BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T NOTIFIED FOR THAT.
>>MAYOR WATSON: I'M NOT SURE IT'S AS OBVIOUS AS WE THINK IT IS.
>>GLASGO: MAY I TRY -- CURRENTLY THE PROPERTY IS ZONED MF-3. SO YOU COULD ZONE IT MF-3 -- ON THIRD READING. YOU JUST CANNOT GO HIGHER. YOU CANNOT GIVE IT LR --.
>>MAYOR WATSON: GOODNESS GRACIOUS, I HOPE WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE THAT PROBLEM. IF I'M -- GO AHEAD.
>>GLASGO: I DON'T THINK THAT WAS THE INTENT. COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS IS JUST PROPOSING A FUTURE ITEM THAT WOULD DEAL WITH IT IN THE PROPER MANNER AND I DON'T THINK ANYONE IS PLANNING ON --.
>>MAYOR WATSON: YEAH. MAYOR PRO TEM.
>>GOODMAN: AND I THINK THAT WAS IN RESPONSE TO A PROPOSAL THAT MIGHT COME IN THE FUTURE, SO I JUST WANT TO FOREWARN EVERYBODY THAT IF THAT PROPOSAL COMES IN THE FUTURE, THAT'S SOMETHING I WILL FIGHT TO THE DEATH.
>> THE LR AMENDMENT?
>>MAYOR WATSON: IT WOULDN'T BE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.
>>GOODMAN: NO. AND THERE'S ONE MORE THING, IF I MISSED IT, I'M SORRY. COULD WE HAVE THE EXACT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE THAT ALLOWS FOR ACCESSORY USE AND WHAT EXACTLY THE ACCESSORY USE IS WITHIN THAT?
>>GLASGO: THE CURRENT LANGUAGE THAT WOULD --.
>>GOODMAN: THAT ALLOWS IT.
>>GLASGO: OR WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING?
>>GOODMAN: THAT ALOUTION IT NOW.
>>GLASGO: WE CAN GET THAT TO YOU.
>>GOODMAN: THANK YOU.
>>GRIFFITH: AND THE NOTIFICATION THAT YOU TALKED ABOUT THAT WAS GOING TO BE NECESSARY, THAT'S GOING FORWARD.
>>GLASGO: FOR SOMETHING DIFFERENT. WE'LL INCLUDE ALL THAT IN THE MEMORANDUM, THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS AND WHAT THEY ENTAIL.
>>GRIFFITH: THANK YOU.
>>MAYOR WATSON: WITH THAT THE MOTION IS TO PASS IT ON SECOND READING. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED SAY NO. MOTION CARRIES ON ITEM NO. 17. THANK YOU ALL. COUNCILMEMBER WYNN ON ITEM 73 AND 74.
>>WYNN: YES, THANK YOU, MAYOR. ON ITEM NO. 72, EARLIER THIS MORNING WE APPROVED THE MUELLER MASTER PLAN, AS I CALL IT. ITEM NO. 73 IS WHERE WE'RE DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO BEGIN THE NORMAL IMPLEMENTATION OF THAT PLAN, THAT IS, THE ZONING INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS, ET CETERA. I WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO THAT DIRECTION TO THE DIRECTIVE TO THE CITY MANAGER TO PREPARE THE UPCOMING DEM LITION BID PACKAGE IN -- DEMOLITION BID PACKAGES THAT WILL ENABLE US TO DETERMINE THE COST OR THE COST SAVINGS OF NOT DEMOLISHING THE OLD AIRPORT TOWER.
>>MAYOR WATSON: ALL RIGHT. THE MOTION ON ITEM 73 AND 74 WOULD -- I MEAN ON 73 WOULD INCLUDE THE ADDITION THAT COUNCILMEMBER WYNN HAS JUST MADE AND SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION?
>>THOMAS: YES, MAYOR.
>>MAYOR WATSON: COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS.
>>THOMAS: I WON'T MAKE IT NO SECRET, I KNOW THAT COUNCILMEMBER WYNN WANTS TO SAVE THE TOWER. I JUST MAKE A NOTE HAVE WE BEEN ABLE TO SPEAK TO THE COMMITTEE THAT IS WORKING ON THE REVITALIZATION? HOW DO THEY FEEL ABOUT IT?
>>WYNN: I HAVE, BUT REALLY WHAT I'M ATTEMPTING TO DO WITH THIS SLIGHT AMENDMENT TO ITEM 73 IS JUST TO GIVE US THE INFORMATION -- THE FINANCIAL INFORMATION HERE IN A FEW WEEKS OR MONTHS WHEN THE BIDS COME BACK. AS AN EXAMPLE, IF WE FIND OUT THAT IT'S VERY EXPENSIVE TO SAVE THE TOWER, THEN WE WOULD GO BACK AND LET THE COMMUNITY KNOW THAT AND THEN GET INPUT BASED ON THAT. IF WE FIND OUT THAT IN FACT THERE ARE COST SAVINGS FOR NOT DEMOLISHING THE TOWER, WE'LL DO THE SAME THING. SO MY GOAL WITH THIS IS SIMPLY TO GET THE FINANCIAL -- YOU KNOW, THE COST OF POTENTIALLY SAVING IT AND ONCE WE FIND OUT THAT, THEN WE APPROACH -- AND FRANKLY, IN THE MEANTIME WE'LL GET A LOT OF INPUT LIKELY FROM THE COMMUNITY ABOUT IT.
>>MAYOR WATSON: COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH.
>>GRIFFITH: YES, I WOULD LIKE TO SECOND THAT WITH A COMMENT AND A REQUEST. COULD WE ALSO NOT ONLY INVESTIGATE THE FINANCIAL IMPACT, WHICH IS CRITICAL, VERY IMPORTANT, BUT ALSO THE DESIGN IMPACT IN TERMS OF WHAT LIMITATIONS OR OPPORTUNITIES IN TERMS OF DESIGN AND IN TERMS OF IN -- IN FUTURE INCOME FOR THE GENERAL FUND MIGHT BE IMPACTED ALSO? BECAUSE THAT COULD BE A COST AND/OR BIG BENEFIT.
>>MAYOR WATSON: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, DO YOU CONSIDER THAT A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT?
>>WYNN: I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THAT WITH -- I PULLED ITEM NO. 74, AND I WAS GOING TO MAKE -- WHEN WE GET TO THAT ITEM I WAS GOING TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT THAT ESSENTIALLY DISCUSSES AND ADDRESSES THAT ISSUE, ABOUT THE DESIGN.
>>MAYOR WATSON: WITH THAT, WE HAVE ONE PERSON THAT SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. MR. WALKER. AND I KNOW WE'RE ALL SURPRISED BY THIS.
>> I GUESS FIRST THANK YOU FOR PASSING ITEM 72 ON CONSENT. THAT'S GREAT, ACCEPTING THE ROMA MASTER PLAN IS A GREAT STEP IN THE DIRECTION OF COMPLETING THIS PROJECT. NOT SEEING A LOT OF DISCUSSION, I PROBABLY WOULD LIMIT MY COMMENTS TO I DON'T ENCOURAGE MORE DISCUSSION, BUT I THINK SAVING THE TOWER IS A WORTHWHILE THINK TO LOOK AT BECAUSE I I THITS A PART OF THAT HISTORY OF THAT SITE AND IT COULD BE A REALLY GOOD THING. AND ALSO I HOPE THAT AS YOU PASS 73, THAT THAT CREATES A DIRECTIVE FROM COUNCIL DOWN THROUGH STAFF SO WE GET A LOT MORE STAFF RESOURCES DEDICATED TO GETTING THROUGH ZONING, EVALUATION OF INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS AND THE PROCESS. WHICH I THINK THAT -- ALL THOSE STEPS REALLY NEED SOME STAFF ATTENTION AS WELL AS THE ATTENTION OF THE MUELLER IMPLEMENTATION AND I CAN COMMIT ALL NINE MEMBERS THAT HAVE COMMISSION TO BE ON BOARD WITH THAT. SO AGAIN, I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK OUT THIS ONE AND 74 IF THOSE ARE GOING TO PASS THROUGH THAT THESE ARE GREAT STEPS FOR HELPING US FINISH.
>>MAYOR WATSON: THANKS, MR. WALKER. LET ME JUST PUT IN MY TWO CENTS ON THIS, AS ONE OF THE SPONSOR OF ITEM 73, I'M GOING TO BE SUPPORTIVE OF COUNCILMEMBER WYNN'S ADDITION TO THIS, BUT ONE THING I DO WANT TO SAY IS THAT ONE OF THE THINGS WE -- AND I SAY THIS TO YOU ALSO, MR. WALKER AS PART OF THIS AS SOMEBODY WHO HAS -- IF WE USE A WORD THAT STARTS WITH THE LETTER M SOMETIMES WE HEAR FROM YOU THE NEXT DAY. [LAUGHTER]. THAT WE HAVE BEEN STRONGLY ENCOURAGING THAT WE STAY WITH THE MASTER PLAN, STAY WITH THE MASTER PLAN, STAY WITH THE MASTER PLAN. IT WILL BE MORE DIFFICULT FOR US TO STAY WITH THE MASTER PLAN IF, AS WE HAVE NEW IDEAS COME UP, MOST OF THE TIME YOU OPPOSE ANYTHING THAT MIGHT -- EVEN IF IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE MASTER PLAN, IT'S JUST SOMETHING, SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT IN CONCEPT. IT WILL BECOME MORE DIFFICULT FOR US IF WE DO THIS PIECE BY PIECE. I THINK EARLY ENOUGH IN THIS PROCESS NOW THIS WORKS OUT JUST FINE, BUT I THINK WE NEED TO TAKE GREAT CARE THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO REQUIRE CONFORMITY WITHOUT EXCEPTION OR WITH GREAT QUESTION IF WE CHANGE IN ANY WAY THE MASTER PLANNING PROCESS, THEN IT'S GOING TO BE IMPORTANT THAT WE DON'T BE INCONSISTENT IN THAT REGARD.
>> JUST REAL QUICKLY, I THINK THAT THE MASTER PLAN IS WRITTEN TO BE FLEXIBLE AND TO ALLOW FOR AMENDMENTS. THE MUELLER IMPLEMENTATION COMMISSION YOU ALL SET UP TO HANDLE CHANGES TO THE MASTER PLAN AND I THINK THE NEIGHBORHOOD REALLY JUST WANTS THINGS TO HAPPEN THERE IN A TIMELY MANNER BUT TO BE INVOLVED.
>>MAYOR WATSON: I LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR CONTINUED FLEXIBILITY.
>> FAIR ENOUGH. AS LONG AS WE HAVE A SEAT AT THE TABLE, I MEAN THAT'S REALLY --.
>>MAYOR WATSON: AND THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF ITEM NO. 72 PASSING, BUT I DO, I LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR CONTINUED FLEXIBILITY BECAUSE SOMETIMES IT DOESN'T FEEL LIKE IT'S AS FLEXIBLE AS OTHER TIMES SO IT CREATES CONFUSION. I THINK AS WE GO FORWARD ON THIS WONDERFUL POTENTIAL PROJECT THAT WE REMAIN CONSISTENT.
>> WELL, AND WE TRY, AND AGAIN, ALL WE ASK IS STAY INVOLVED, YEAH. WE DON'T LIKE BEING HAVING A NONIKER OF OPPOSING EVERYTHING, BUT IF WE HAVE A SAY IN HOW THEY ARE DEVELOPED, THAT WILL HEAD OFF THE KNEE JERK OPPOSITION WE SO OFTEN GET TAGGED WITH. IF THAT MAKES SENSE.
>>MAYOR WATSON: WELL, FURTHER DISCUSSION?
>>GOODMAN: YES, MAYOR.
>>MAYOR WATSON: MAYOR PRO TEM.
>>GOODMAN: I WANTED TO ASK IF ANYBODY HAS A PROBLEM THAT AT THE SAME TIME ALL THIS IS GOING ON THAT WE ALSO ASK THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION AND THE DESIGN COMMISSION TO JUST PUT SOME THOUGHT INTO HOW WE COULD INCORPORATE THIS LANDMARK INTO WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE AS A PLAN. IT'S OBVIOUS, I THINK, THAT SOMETIMES HISTORIC FACILITIES ARE EASILY ADAPTEDABLE TO A NEW PLAN, AND THIS ONE I THINK MAY BE ONE OF THE EASIEST, IT IS THE MUELLER REDEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND THIS IS A SYMBOL OF MUELLER THAT NO OTHER NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE CITY WILL HAVE. THE OTHER THING IS MAYBE THEY COULD DO THAT FOR THE -- JUST PUT SOME THOUGHTS DOWN ON PAPER OR DISCUSSION ABOUT THE 911 CENTER AS WELL. SOME WAYS THAT THAT CAN BE SOFTENED AND LANDSCAPED AND FACADED INTO A BETTER COMPATIBILITY WITH THE WHOLE DEVELOPMENT.
>>MAYOR WATSON: ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED SAY NO. MOTION CARRIES ON ITEM 73. ITEM 74, COUNCILMEMBER WYNN.
>>WYNN: YES, MAYOR, AS I MENTIONED WITH COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH'S COMMENT EARLIER AND FRANKLY JUST NOW THE MAYOR PRO TEM, AS WE DIRECT THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH ROMA FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN, I WOULD LIKE TO INCLUDE IN THAT DIRECTIVE TO INCLUDE ROMA DEVELOPING THE GRAPHICALLY THE PRELIMINARY NECESSARY MINOR ADJUSTMENTS TO THE PLAN IF THE DECISION IS LATER MADE TO HAVE A TOWER REMAIN WHERE IT IS. ADDS ARIZONA SECOND.
>>MAYOR WATSON: MOTION MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ. COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH.
>>GRIFFITH:, COUNCILMEMBER, DOES YOUR MOTION INCLUDE EVALUATION IN TERMS OF URBAN DESIGN AND PLANNING OF THE -- OF ROBERT MUELLER WITH AND WITHOUT THE TOWER? WHAT I'M GETTING AT IS KEEPING THE TOWER COULD BE -- AND WITH THE INFORMATION I WANT IS IT GOING TO BE MORE BENEFICIAL LONGTERM TO KEEP THE TOWER, PLAN AROUND IT, USE IT, OR IS IT GOING TO BE A DETRIMENT IN TERMS OF PLANNING AND IN TERMS OF THE LONGTERM INCOME TO THE GENERAL FUND? IS THAT -- IS THAT INCLUDED IN YOURS?
>>WYNN: YES, THAT'S WHAT I MEAN BY THE -- FOR THE ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO.
>>GRIFFITH: THANKS.
>>MAYOR WATSON: WITH THAT CLARIFICATION, MR. WALKER, YOU SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. DON'T NEED TO? ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED SAY NO. MOTION CARRIES ON ITEM NO. 74. [ONE MOMENT, PLEASE, WHILE CAPTIONERS CHANGE].
>>WYNN: ... IN FACT IT HAS BEEN DOING THAT. THE WAY THE ORDINANCE IS WORDED IS THAT ALL CHANGES OF USES DO REQUIRE WAIVER FROM THE COUNCIL, WHICH WE ALL AGREED TO. HOWEVER, ANY APPLICANT WAS NOT ALLOWED TO EVEN MAKE APPLICATION AND THEN THERE BY BEGIN THE PERMITTING PROCESS. SO BY THIS ITEM, I AM ASKING THAT WE -- THAT THE NEW INTERIM DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS FOR THIS AREA ALLOW FOR APPLICANTS AT THEIR OWN RISK TO BEGIN APPLICATION, BEGIN THE PERMITTING PROCESS WHILE THEY ARE WAITING FOR THE REQUIRED CHANGE OF USE WAIVER FROM THE COUNCIL. IF I CAN GO ONE STEP FURTHER. I KNOW THERE'S BEEN SOME DISCUSSION THAT PERHAPS OUR INITIAL BOUNDARIES WERE TOO LARGE. I AM PREPARED ALSO, I BELIEVE THERE'S RELATIVE CONSENSUS, TO BRING THOSE BOUNDARIES DOWN FROM 15TH STREET ON THE NORTH DOWN TO 13TH STREET, FROM LAMAR ON THE WEST TO SHOAL CREEK ON THE WEST, AND FROM 5TH STREET ON THE SOUTH TO 7TH STREET ON THE SOUTH. SO ESSENTIALLY AMENDING AND BRINGING IN SLIGHTLY THE NORTHERN, WESTERN AND SOUTHERN BOUNDARIES OF THIS AREA NOTED BY THE INTERIM DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS. THAT IS MY MOTION.
>>GOODMAN: COUNCILMEMBER --
>>GRIFFITH: I SECOND IT WITH A COMMENT. THIS IS A VERY POSITIVE REFINEMENT THAT IF THIS PASSES WILL BE PUTTING IN. THERE WERE SOME -- SOME UNINTENDED CONSENSUSES -- CONSEQUENCES TO THE VERY GOOD ORDINANCE THAT WE PUT IN AND I THINK THIS -- COUNCILMEMBER WYNN -- IS DOING THOSE REFINEMENTS, I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE A STRONGER AND BETTER AND MORE POSITIVE PIECE OF WORK.
>>GOODMAN: THANK YOU. IS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION? THEN WITH THAT MOTION, MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN AND SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE.
>> AYE.
>> OPPOSED? ABSTAINING WITH THE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER TEMPORARILY OFF THE DIAS. WHICH TAKES US TO ITEM 78. WHICH WAS PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBERS GIVE FILTH, SLUSHER AND THOMAS. COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH?
>>GRIFFITH: I WOULD DEFER TO COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS AS THE SPONSOR. DO WE WANT TO HAVE OUR -- OUR EXECUTIVE SESSION BEFORE WE GET INTO THIS OR -- HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO HANDLE IT? THOMAS WELL, I THINK WE NEED TO -- YEAH. EXECUTIVE.
>>MAYOR WATSON: LET ME MAKE SURE ON WHAT'S BEING REQUESTED. ON ITEM NO. 78, THE MAKER OF THE -- THE PROPOSER OF THIS ITEM WANTS TO TAKE IT INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION BEFORE IT'S DISCUSSED.
>>THOMAS: RIGHT.
>>MAYOR WATSON: WITH THAT. COUNCIL, WHAT THAT DOES, I'M GOING TO CONSIDER THAT TO BE A MOTION AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME. WHAT THAT DOES IS THAT TAKES US TO THE EXECUTIVE SESSION. WHERE WE WOULD ENGAGE IN A PRIVATE CONSULTITION WITH OUR ATTORNEY PRUDENT TO SECTOIN 551.071, TO DISCUSS LEGAL ISSUES REGARDING LABOR NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE AUSTIN POLICE ASSOCIATION. DISCUSS CITY OF AUSTIN VERSUS HARRY MWHITTINGTON, ET AL, CAUSE NUMBER 2358, TRAVIS COUNTY COURT AT LAW. REAL PROPERTY PRUDENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 551.072 TO DISCUSS ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY FOR GREEN WAY AND DESTINATION PARKS AS AUTHORIZED UNDER PROPOSITION 2 OF THE NOVEMBER 1988 BOND ELECTION. AND REMEMBER THAT I DID READ OUT THAT -- THAT WE HAD A CHANGE ON ITEM NO. 7 FROM 1988 TO 1998. THAT WOULD ALSO ENCOMPASS ITEM NO. 78 AS REQUESTED BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS. WE WILL ALSO ENGAGE IN A DISCUSSION PERSONAL MATTERS UNDER SECTION 551.074 TO DISCUSS THE APPOINTMENT, EMPLOYMENT AND DUTIES OF THE CITY AUDITOR AND DETERMINE COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS. THE FACT IS THAT WE MAY ACTUALLY TAKE THAT UP AT 2:00, WHICH IS THE TIME WE WILL GO INTO AN EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DO -- TO INTERVIEW THREE PEOPLE, BUT I WANTED TO GO AHEAD AND ANNOUNCE THAT NOW. IS THERE A MOTION.
>>SLUSHER: MAYOR, I'M SORRY I HAD TO STEP OUT OF THE ROOM FOR A SECOND. WE ARE NOT GOING TO TAKE 78 PUBLICLY?
>>MAYOR WATSON: COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS REQUESTED BEFORE THAT BE BROUGHT UP PUBLICLY THAT WE GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.
>>SLUSHER: OH, WELL OKAY.
>>MAYOR WATSON: IS THERE A MOOGS TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AS -- MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION? COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH MOVES TO GO INTO XHEGS, IS THERE A SECOND? SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS. DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED SAY NO. MOTION CARRIES, WE ARE GOING TO RECESS INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. THE EXECUTIVE SESSION WILL BE CONDUCTED ON THE FIFTH FLOOR. FOR THOSE WHO ARE LISTENING, IF WE COMPLETE THE EXECUTIVE SESSION BEFORE 1:30, WHICH IS THE NEXT ITEM, NEXT TIME FOR AN ITEM, ALTHOUGH WE COULD COME BACK, I SUPPOSE, AND TAKE UP ITEM NO. 78, BUT IF WE COMPLETE THE EXECUTIVE SESSION BEFORE 1:30, THEN SOMEONE WILL COME DOWN HERE AND PUBLICLY ANNOUNCE WE HAVE COMPLETED THE EXECUTIVE SESSION, OTHERWISE, WE ARE IN RECESS UNTIL 1:30. BACK TO.
>>MAYOR WATSON: I CALL THE CITY COUNCILL BACK TO ORDER, WE GO TO ITEMS 79 TO 88, GENERAL CITIZENS COMMUNICATIONS. RAMON MALDONADO. RAMON MALDONADO? IS MR. MALDANADO HERE? FOR THOSE OF YOU ARE THAT ARE SIGNED UP FOR GENERAL CITIZENS COMMUNICATIONS, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE MAKE YOUR WAY INTO THE ROOM. CAN I BE HEARD OUT IN THE LOBBY AREA?
>> PLEASE, WELCOME.
>> [INAUDIBLE]. [SPEAKING IN SPANISH] [SPEAKING IN SPANISH] (NO TRANSLATION PROVIDED).
>>GARZA: HE'S BASICALLY HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE EAST CESAR CHAVEZ PLAN, HE'S WORRIED THE INFORMATION HAS NOT GOTTEN OUT TO THE PEOPLE AFFECTED BY THE PLAN. HE BELIEVES SOME OF THAT INFORMATION MAY NOT BE COMPLETELY ACCURATE AND THAT THIS IS AMERICA WHERE THE VOTES WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE BUTTER FLY BALLOTS DO COUNT. I ADDED THAT. THAT WASN'T HIM.
>>MAYOR WATSON: I FIGURED THAT.
>>GARZA: WHEN FOLKS VOTE, THAT WHEN THEY HAVE THE INFORMATION THEY ARE ABLE TO BETTER VOTE. ALSO THAT THE COUNCILMEMBERS ARE ELECTED TO REPRESENT INTERESTS AND THAT THEY WOULD BE LOOKING TO THE COUNCIL TO ENSURE THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THE VARIOUS INTERESTS THAT ARE HERE IS HOW YOU GO ABOUT REPRESENTING THEM. [SPEAKING IN SPANISH].
>>GARZA: ALL THEY HAVE -- THEY HAVE VARIOUS JOB DUTIES, WORK HAS THEY DO, SOME HAVE JOBS WHERE RAMON WORKED AT SOLID WASTE SERVICES, OTHERS HAVE DIFFERENT KINDS OF OCCUPATIONS, BUT THE OCCUPATIONS DON'T YIELD A LOT OF INCOME, SO THEY ARE LIMITED TO THAT. ALL OF THESE THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING IN AUSTIN ARE HAVING THE COST OF LIVING GO UP, FOLKS ARE HAVING TO STRUGGLE TO JUST GET BY. I'M PARAPHRASING.
>> THANK YOU. [BELL RINGING]
>> GRASS I CAN'T SAY GRACIAS.
>> JOSEPHINE ZAMARRIPA FOLLOWED BY SUSANA ALMANZA AND FRANCES MARTINEZ.
>> HELLO. I AM JOSEPHINE ZAMARRIPA, HELLO, MY NAME IS JOSEPHINE ZAMARRIPA, I LIVE AT 607 TILLERY STREET BEHIND CAPITAL METRO. 7 HOUSES FROM NORTH OF BROOK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. I HAVE LIVED HERE FOR 44 YEARS. PRIOR TO -- BEFORE THAT I -- I USED TO LIVE ON EAST SEVENTH STREET NEXT TO THE H.E.B. IN 1945 THERE WAS NO H.E.B. IN -- IN AUSTIN. EAST SEVENTH STREET AND PLEASANT VALLEY. PRESENT. THE STREET OF MY YOUTH WERE ALL QUIET RESIDENTIAL AREA SO IT MADE SENSE FOR US TO ESTABLISH OUR HOME AND RAISE OUR FAMILY HERE. LIKE THE REST OF AUSTIN, TIMES HAVE CHANGED, ESPECIALLY TO MY BELOVED NEIGHBORHOOD. THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT IN PART OF OUR TOWN IT HAS CHANGED FOR THE WORSE. THAT'S WHY I SUPPORT THE ZONING ROLLBACK FOR 618 TILLERY. WHERE I LIVE ON TILLERY LARGE 18 WHEELERS DOMINATE THE ROAD AS THEY DELIVER THEIR SUPPLIES TO THE WAREHOUSE ACROSS THE STREET FROM MY HOUSE. MANY TIMES THESE HUGE TRUCKS ARRIVE AT NIGHT. THOSE NOISY TRUCKS WITH FOUL SMOKE, FUMES FREQUENTLY PARKED ON THE STREET, IMAGINE IF YOU WILL WHAT WOULD IT BE LIKE TO PUT UP WITH THE NOISE OF THOSE 18 -- OF THOSE ENGINES RUNNING ALL NIGHT LONG? I BET YOU WOULD HAVE AS MUCH TROUBLE SLEEPING AS I HAVE FOR THE PAST 15 YEARS. I HEAR THAT AWFUL NOISE EVEN IF MY WINDOWS ARE SHUT AND THE AIR CONDITIONING IS RUNNING. IMAGINE HAVING TO PUT IN REGULAR 8 AND 10 HOURS OF WORK A DAY WHEN YOU HAVEN'T SLEPT A WINK AT NIGHT. THAT MAKES A PERSON GROUCHY. PRIOR TO THAT, WHEN THE WAREHOUSE WAS EMPTY, THE ALARMS WOULD GO OFF. THE DISTURBING ALARMS WOULD CONTINUE FOR HOURS. SOMETIMES IN THE NEXT DAY MANY TIMES THE POLICE WERE UNABLE TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. AND AFTER A WHILE THEY REFUSED TO INVESTIGATE. WE FELT POWERLESS TO ANYTHING. THIS PRETTY PICTURE IS FURTHER ENHANCED BY A LUMBER YARD LOCATED TWO BLOCKS AWAY AND THE MANY CAPITAL METRO BUSES THAT LEAVE THEIR PARKING FACILITIES TO ROUTE ACROSS THE CITY. CONSEQUENTLY THE HEALTHY TREES THAT WE USED -- USED TO FORM A CANOPY OF GREENERY ARE NOW DYING UNDER THE WEIGHT OF THE AIR AND NOISE POLLUTION. I KIND OF FEEL LIKE A TREE SOMETIMES, OLD. DON'T WE DESERVE A CLEAN ENVIRONMENT, SAFE STREET AND TRANQUILITY? THANK YOU FOR THE SUPPORT IN THE ZONING ROLLBACK.
>>MAYOR WATSON: THANK YOU. YES, COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ?
>>ALVAREZ: AS I MENTIONED TO YOU EARLIER, THE COUNCIL DID TAKE ACTION EARLIER TODAY IN INITIATE A ZONING CASE TO LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, THE ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE TRACT OF LAND WHERE THE BUSINESS THAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT, WE WILL BE LOOKING AT WHAT OUR OPTIONS IN TERMS OF HELPING ALLEVIATE THAT SITUATION.
>>GARZA: COUNCILMEMBER, ALICE GLASGO IS HERE TO VISIT WITH FRANCES AND MS. JOSEPHINE ZAMARRIPA SO THEY UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS AND THE TIME IT TAKES. SHE'S IN THE AUDIENCE, SHE CAN VISIT WITH THEM SHORTLY.
>>MAYOR WATSON: SUSANA ALMANZA FOLLOWED BY FRANCES MARTINEZ AND THEN GUS PENA.
>> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS. MY NAME IS SUSANA ALMANZA, I'M WITH BOREA. ON NOVEMBER THE 29TH, 2000 HE WE REVIEWED THE EAST CESAR CHAVEZ NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING. THIS WAS DONE AT THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT. I REVIEWED THE BALLOT WITH TWO OTHERS PRESENT AND SITTING AT THE SAME TABLE AS I. ATTACHED IS A BREAKDOWN ON THE 220 BALLOTS CAST IN THE CESAR CHAVEZ NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. THE PLANNING STAFF EXPLAINED TO ME THAT EACH BALLOT WAS GIVEN A NUMBER IN ORDER TO KEEP UP WITH THE BALLOT. THE RESULTS FROM CESAR CHAVEZ AREA IS BEING BASED ON THE ELECTION RESULT OF THE CESAR CHAVEZ NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. HERE ARE THE FINDINGS AND IF YOU WILL LOOK IT HAS THE BALLOT ADDRESS, ADDRESS OF THE PERSON WHO IS FILLING THE BALLOT, TYPE 1 IS SUPPORT, 2 OVERALL, 3 IS DON'T SUPPORT. THE BALLOT NUMBER IS THE ACTUAL NUMBER GIVEN ON THE BALLOT AND WHERE YOU SEE A CROSS THAT MEANS THAT THE BALLOT HAD TWO BALLOT NUMBERS ASSIGNED TO IT. AND THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION WAS FOUND. 1701 HOLLY WAS GIVEN TWO VOTES, 1406 HASKELL GIVEN 10 VOTES, 1404 HASKELL 3 VOTES, 21 WALLER FIVE VOTES, 1014 SPENCE TWO VOTES, 1022 SPENCE TWO VOTES, 1616 EAST 3RD THREE VOTES, 1506 ROBERT WEAVER TWO VOTES, 1008 WILLOW TWO VOTES, 150155 HASKELL TWO VOTES. 16TH, 17TH, EAST SIXTH STREET, 14 VOTES, 1605 CANTEBERRY TWO VOTES, 72 NAVASOTA 3 VOTES, 1209 EAST CESAR CHAVEZ WAS GIVEN TWO VOTES, AND 1310 GARDEN WAS GIVEN TWO VOTES. IN OTHER WORDS, YOU HAD A TOTAL OF 56 DUPLICATE VOTES THAT WERE -- THAT WAS COUNTED IN THAT RESULT OF 220 BALLOTS THAT WAS DONE, WHICH YOU ARE BASING THE REZONING OF CESAR CHAVEZ PLAN. AND THEN THERE WAS A TOTAL OF 60 BALLOTS THAT HAD NO ADDRESSES WHATSOEVER. SO THERE WAS NO WAY OF KNOWING WHERE THESE PEOPLE WERE VOTING FROM. AND THEN YOU HAD A TOTAL OF 44 BALLOTS THAT HAD NO BALLOT NUMBERS ASSIGNED. I GUESS THIS IS NOT JUST HAPPENING IN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, IT'S ALWAYS KIND OF HAPPENING -- ALSO KIND OF HAPPENING HERE IN THE LOCAL DISTRICT LEVEL IF YOU LOOK AT THE BALLOTS AND IRREGULARITIES THAT HAVE HAPPENED. I COMPUTED THEM. YOU WILL SEE THERE'S 220 BALLOTS. YOU CAN ALSO VIEW THEM. WE DID AN OPEN REQUEST RECORDS ACT AND WE REVIEWED THESE BALLOTS AND YOU CAN SEE NOW WHY WE ARE VERY CONCERNED. IF YOU WERE TO TOTAL THE BALLOTS THAT ACTUALLY HAD NUMBERS AND ADDRESSES ASSIGNED TO THEM, THEY WOULD EQUAL TO 78 TOTAL BALLOTS THAT WERE PROBABLY IN LINE. AND HERE YOU ARE BASING A MAJOR REZONING IN A DISTRICT ON AS FEW AS 78 BALLOTS AND SO I ASK YOU TO DO -- DO AN INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT UNTIL THIS THING IS ALSO REVIEWED. THERE'S ALSO BEEN IRREGULARITIES ON THE VALID PETITION AS YOU KNOW. SO I ASK YOU TO HALT THIS PLAN BECAUSE IT'S JUST NOT RIGHT.
>>MAYOR WATSON: THANK YOU, MS. ALMANZA. FRANCES MARTINEZ, GUS PENA, ROBERT DONLEY.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON MAYOR WATSON AND JESUS GARCIAZA, THE REST OF THE COUNCILMEMBERS. MY NAME IT'S FRANCES MARTINEZ, I AM CHAIRPERSON OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. TODAY I AM HERE WITH SOME CONCERNS WITH THE CESAR CHAVEZ PLAN WHICH IS ALSO THE COMBINED DISTRICT ZONING, WHICH WE ARE MORE CONCERNED WITH. MANY OF US RESIDENTS DID NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT THE COMBINED DISTRICT WAS. FINALLY WE DID GET SOME ANSWERS ENLIGHTENING US AND KNOW WHAT IT CONSISTS OF, WE ARE NOT VERY HAPPY WITH IT UNTIL WE HAVE EXPLORED ALL OF THE PLAN. SO, THEREFORE, THE CONCLUSION IN OUR MEETING WAS THAT TO ASK -- TO ASK YOU ALL HERE DECISION MAKING TO POSTPONE THIS PLAN INDEFINITE SO THAT WE CAN GET ALL THESE BALLOTS COUNTED CORRECTLY. AND IT IS A WORKABLE PLAN FOR EVERYONE. AND SO FOR THIS I HOPE THAT YOU CAN CONSIDER IT. ALSO, I WANT TO LET YOU KNOW THAT WE HAVE -- WE HAVE SOME HORSES THAT COME THERE, THE CARRIAGES THAT COME THERE ON EAST 4TH AND I HOPE THAT THIS CAN BE RESOLVED BECAUSE A LOT OF THE RESIDENTS DON'T LIKE IT, THE SMELL IS TERRIBLE. SO I HOPE THAT THERE'S AN ORDINANCE OR SOMETHING THAT I COULD LOOK INTO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>>MAYOR WATSON: THANK YOU. GUS PENA, FOLLOWED BY ROBERT DONLEY, THEN PAUL HERNANDEZ. GUS PENA? GUS PENA? ROBERT DONLEY? FOLLOWED BY PAUL HERNANDEZ AND DR. SYLVIA HERRERA.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, MY NAME IS ROBERT DONLEY. I AM A MEMBER OF HE WILL CONCEAL I CAN'T, PRESIDENT OF THE BUNA VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. FIRST AND FOREMOST I WANT TO THANK THE PEOPLE AND CITIZENS OF EAST AUSTIN, AFRICAN AMERICAN AND MEXICAN AMERICAN COMMUNITY FOR COMING IN TOGETHER AND VOTING SOLIDLY AGAINST LIGHT RAIL. AND I GUESS THAT IS A REFERENDUM, ALSO, ON THOSE WHO SUPPORTED LIGHT RAIL. SO IN MY VIEW THE ONLY ONE THAT IS -- THAT IS QUALIFIED TO RUN AS MAYOR IN HERE IS DANNY THOMAS. THANK YOU, DANNY THOMAS, FOR -- FOR HAVING YOU HEAR THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I AM VERY UPSET, VERY MUCH UPSET BECAUSE I -- WE KNOW EACH OTHER. ALL OF US KNOW EACH OTHER. WE KNOW THE RACISM THAT EXISTS HERE, THE INSTITUTION. TO BE SO -- SO BLATANT AND SO FLAGRANT, YOU ARE A LAWYER, YOU KNEW THAT THIS IS FRAUD AND FOR YOU TO SUPPORT A PIECE OF FRAUD I -- THERE'S NOT MUCH FOR ME TO SAY THAT -- THAT I COULD SAY SOMETHING IS LOWER THAN THAT. AND YOU ARE THE MAYOR. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS STUFF TO COME DOWN HERE AND HIT -- HIT THIS DIAS. SO YOU ARE THE ONE THAT IS TO BLAME. AND I -- I CHARGE YOU TO REMEDY THIS. YOU MAY SMILE AND SMIRK, THAT'S OKAY, BECAUSE YOU HAVE DONE IT ALL OF THE TIME. BUT YOU SHOULD KNOW HOW OUR PEOPLE FEEL ABOUT YOU. AND ALL OF YOU, ALSO YOU RAOUL, I'M GIVING YOU A MESSAGE FROM THE PEOPLE. THEY DO NOT LIKE AT ALL WHAT YOU ARE DOING TO THEM. NOT FOR THEM. BUT WHAT YOU ARE DOING TO THEM. YOU ARE FOLLOWING IN THE FOOT STEPS OF THAT OTHER PERSON WHOSE NAME IS NOT WORTHY FOR ME TO MENTION WHO HAS SAT IN THIS POSITION. IF YOU WANT TO CONSIDER THAT, THAT'S OKAY. BUT BE READY TO RECEIVE THE SAME KIND OF -- OF [INAUDIBLE] THAT I WILL CONTINUE, I WILL COME IN HERE EVERY WEEK AND ASSAULT YOU ALL FOR WHAT YOU DO. I WILL NOT STAND FOR YOU TO COME AND ASSAULT MY NEIGHBORHOOD THE WAY THAT YOU DO. SO BLATANTLY WITH THESE HISPANICS THAT YOU HAVE AS AGENTS TO -- TO BE YOUR YES MEN AND YOUR UNCLE TOMS. SO THAT'S ALL THAT I HAVE TO SAY. I'M NOT HAPPY.
>>WYNN: MR. MAYOR? THE LAST TIME I CHECKED MY VOTE COUNTS JUST AS MUCH AS THE MAYOR'S DOES, AS DOES THE OTHER SIX COUNCILMEMBERS. I CONSIDER MYSELF EQUALLY TO BLAME. AND TO BE CREDITED. THANK YOU.
>>MAYOR WATSON: PAUL HERNANDEZ? PAUL HERNANDEZ? PAUL HERNANDEZ? DR. SYLVIA HERRERA. DR. SYLVIA HERRERA? DR. HERRERA? JOSE QUINTERO?
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, THANK YOU FOR GIVING THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK BEFORE YOU ALL. MY NAME IS JOSE QUINTERO. AND THAT'S WHY ONE OF THE FORMER MEMBERS SAID SHE HAD BEEN A VOLUNTEER IN AUSTIN FOR 20 YEARS, I HAVE BEEN AT IT HERE SINCE 1974. I KNOW MY NEIGHBORHOOD. COUNCILMAN DANNY THOMAS WITH ALL -- WITH THIS INFORMATION WE ALSO WANTED TO NOTE THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND YOU TO BE ON THE BOARD FOR CAPITAL METRO. I AM CONCERNED BECAUSE THIS IS -- HAS TO BE AN INJUSTICE ZONING FOR THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO SUPPORT THE VALID PETITION. I AM GOING TO ASK ONE OF YOUR COUNCILMEMBERS TO FINALLY COME UP TO THE PLATE, STEP UP, SAY YOU KNOW WHAT THIS IS WRONG? THIS INJUSTICE HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR 70 YEARS. THE WELCOME -- I WELCOME THE COMMENTS OF WHAT YOU SAID MR. WYNN, YOU LOOK AT EAST AUSTIN, SEE WHAT WAS DONE THERE. HE'S MY WITNESS, I WENT TO SCHOOL WITH THIS GUY. WE'VE HAD TOO MANY OUTSIDERS THAT DO NOT REPRESENT MY NEIGHBORHOOD. I KNOW MY NEIGHBORHOOD. I AM ASKING LA RASA FROM EAST AUSTIN TO COME AND CLAIM YOUR LAND BECAUSE A SMART GROWTH AGENDA IS TRYING TO TAKE OVER. THIS SMART GROWTH WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE EVER SUPPORTED, EVER HEARD UNTIL THE MIDDLE OF THE PLAN. SO YOU THINK ABOUT THAT. YOU HAVE CHANGED. I'M SORRY, MAYOR, BUT I GUESS YOUR DOORS ARE CLOSED TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. I HAVE ASKED IN -- I HAVE REQUESTED IN THE PAST THREE YEARS TO MEET WITH YOU. REGARDING THE SOUP KITCHEN AND THE SECURITY. YOU JUST SAID -- SOMEBODY SAID, WELL, WHAT DOES JOE WANT TO TALK ABOUT? I WORK WITH CHIEF SHEFFIELD, COUNCILMAN SKOFSKI AND THEY KNOW WHO I AM, THEY KNOW A LOT OF HISPANIC PEOPLE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. BUT THIS ZONING WILL LET A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT RENT PROPERTY THERE LEAVE AND THAT'S NOT -- THAT'S NOT THE CULTURE THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE SMART GROWTH COME INTO MY NEIGHBORHOOD. WE DON'T WANT YOUR SMART GROWTH. KEEP US OUT OF IT. WE HAVE BEEN RED LINED. WE GET FOR LOANS FOR NO MONIES. WE ALREADY HAVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. WE DON'T NEED AFFORDABLE HOUSING. WE HAVE AFFORD I DON'T BELIEVE HOUSING. PEOPLE ARE NOW PAYING LOW RENTS. AND, MAYOR, WE SHOULD KEEP SAYING THIS IS A GREAT CITY. MAYBE TO YOUR VIEWS. BUT YOU ARE HAVING PEOPLE COME INTO THIS TOWN, THERE'S NOT AFFORDABLE HOUSING OUTSIDE OF EAST AUSTIN EXCEPT EAST AUSTIN. AND NOW YOU WANT TO LAND GRAB THIS BY PUSHING THIS ZONING ON PEOPLE THAT AREN'T EDUCATED. THAT'S WHY WE ARE HERE. I REPRESENT MY PEOPLE. AND WE ARE THE KINGS OF THE EAST, DON'T MESS WITH US, I'M WARNING YOU. WE WILL PROTEST. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION. [BELL RINGING]
>>MAYOR WATSON: THANK YOU, MR. QUINTERO. JENNIFER GALE? JENNIFER GALE? JENNIFER GALE? COUNCIL, THAT CONCLUDES THOSE WHO HAVE SIGNED UP FOR THE 1:30 CITIZENS COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL CITIZENS COMMUNICATIONS. THE NEXT ITEM --.
>>ALVAREZ: MAYOR, COULD I JUST MAKE A COMMENT TO THE FOLKS WHO CAME TO SPEAK ABOUT THE CESAR CHAVEZ PLAN. IT WAS ORIGINALLY SCHEDULED TO COME UP NEXT WEEK ON THE 7TH, BUT WE HAVE PUSHED IT BACK AT LEAST TO THE 14TH AND THEN CERTAINLY WE WILL LOOK AT THE INFORMATION THAT WAS PROVIDED TO SEE, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE CURRENT SITUATION IS WITH REGARD TO THE INFORMATION PROVIDED AS WELL AS WITH THE PETITION AND WHAT THE STATUS OF THAT IS BECAUSE IT'S REAL IMPORTANT THAT THAT GET CLEAR AND THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS THAT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE IT COME UP NEXT WEEK TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL OF THE ISSUES WITH THE VALID PETITION WERE RESOLVED AS WELL. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT CLEAR TO THE FOLKS WHO WERE HERE SO THAT -- WE ARE GOING TO LOOK AT THIS AND SEE WHAT'S THE MOST APPROPRIATE THING TO DO. BUT THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH.
>>MAYOR WATSON: COUNCIL, AT 2:00 WE WERE SCHEDULED TO HAVE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR INTERVIEW CANDIDATES FOR THE CITY AUDITOR POSITION. WHAT I AM GOING TO DO, WE ARE A LITTLE BIT BEFORE 2:00, BUT WE WON'T BEGIN THE EXECUTIVE SESSION BEFORE 2:00. WHAT I AM GOING TO DO IS ASK FOR A MOTION TO RECESS THE CITY COUNCILL MEETING SO THAT WE CAN GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO INTERVIEW CANDIDATES FOR THE CITY AUDITOR POSITION PRUDENT TO SECTION 551.074 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE. FOR THOSE WHO ARE WATCHING AND ARE INTERESTED IN THIS ITEM, THE CITY CHARTER CREATES A CITY AUDITOR'S POSITION. WE CURRENTLY HAVE A VACANCY IN THE CITY AUDITOR'S POSITION. THAT SAME CITY CHARTER CREATES A PROCESS BY WHICH RECOMMENDATIONS WILL BE MADE TO COUNCIL AND COUNCIL WILL SELECT A CITY AUDITOR. THAT PROCESS INCLUDES A FIVE-PERSON COMMITTEE MADE UP THREE -- THREE PEOPLE FROM THE CITY COUNCILL AND FROM THE AUDIT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE OF THE CITY COUNCILL WHICH IS ALSO CREATED BY CHARTER AND TWO OTHER INDIVIDUALS, ONE A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE AND ONE A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE. THAT SPECIAL SELECTION COMMITTEE HAS COMPLETED ITS WORK AND MADE THREE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR INTERVIEWING AND THAT IS WHAT WE WILL BE DOING THIS AFTERNOON WITH THE POTENTIAL, WE ARE POSTED IN CASE WE WANT TO DO THIS -- UNDER ITEM NO. 10, THE POTENTIAL FOR APPOINTING A CITY AUDITOR AND ESTABLISHING COMPENSATION AN BENEFITS. WITH THAT I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.
>> SO MOVE.
>> MOTION MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ. DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED SAY NO. MOTION CARRIES, SO WE WILL GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. FOR THOSE WHO ARE INTERESTED, IT IS MY ANTICIPATED BELIEF THAT WHAT WE WILL DO IS WE WILL BE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR ABOUT -- WELL, FOR AT LEAST AN HOUR AND A HALF. MY BEST GUESS IS THAT WE WILL BE BACK AROUND 4:00. THAT IS NOT TO SAY THAT WE WILL BE IN RECESS UNTIL 4:00. BECAUSE IF WE FINISH SOONER THAN 4:00, WE HAVE BUSINESS THAT WE CAN TAKE CARE OF BEFORE 4:00. WE WILL COME BACK IN. IT'S JUST THAT MY BEST GUESS IS IT WILL BE NEAR 4:00. WE ARE IN RECESS.
>>MAYOR WATSON: I CALL THE CITY COUNCILL BACK TO ORDER. COUNCIL, MY RECOMMENDATION IS THAT WHAT WE DO IS FIRST WE TAKE UP THE ZONING HEARINGS AND APPROVAL OF ORDINANCES AND RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, WE TAKE THAT UP FIRST. WE WORK THAT UNTIL 5:30, IF -- IF THAT'S HOW LONG IT TAKES. AND AT 5:30, WE THEN BREAK TO DO OUR PROCLAMATIONS AND THOSE SORTS OF THINGS. HANG ON, THERE MAY BE ONE OTHER THING WE DO. OKAY. NOW THAT I HAVE SAID ALL OF THAT, COUNCIL, I'M GOING TO CHANGE IT BECAUSE WE WERE WAITING ON -- ON ASSURANCE OF SOMETHING. LET'S GO FIRST TO ITEM NO. 10. AS I INDICATED -- THEN WE WILL GO TO THE ZONING ITEMS. AS I INDICATED BEFORE WE BROKE FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION, THE -- THE CITY AUDITOR'S POSITION HAS BEEN OPEN AND THE CITY AUDITOR'S POSITION IS CREATED BY A CHARTER. THE CHARTER ALSO DESCRIBES A MECHANISM FOR SELECTING A NEW CITY AUDITOR. AND THAT SYSTEM IN A NUTSHELL IS THAT -- IS THAT A FIVE-PERSON COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS PEOPLE TO THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCILL AND THE CITY COUNCILL CAN GO AHEAD AND INTERVIEW IN ADDITION. THE FIVE-MEMBER COMMITTEE IS MADE UP OF THREE MEMBERS OF THE CITY'S AUDIT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE, ALSO CREATED BY CHARTER, AND ONE REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE, ONE REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE. THAT PROCESS HAS WORKED ITS WAY UP UNTIL TODAY WHERE THE CITY COUNCILL AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE INTERVIEWED THREE OUTSTANDING CANDIDATES AND WE ARE -- I BELIEVE IN A POSITION TO MAKE A DECISION OF -- AND VOTE ON IT IN OPEN SESSION HERE. THE POINT THAT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE IS THAT I REALLY WANT TO -- WE ARE GOING TO VOTE HERE IN A MOMENT ON A CITY AUDITOR, BUT I WANT US TO RECOGNIZE THAT THIS TOWN HAS A WEALTH OF TALENT IN IT RIGHT NOW. AND WE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TODAY TO INTERVIEW ACTUALLY THE WHOLE COMMITTEE INTERVIEWED A NUMBER OF TALENTED PEOPLE AND TODAY WE INTERVIEWED THREE PEOPLE, ANY ONE OF WHICH ARE OUTSTANDING. WITH THAT BEING SAID, I WILL NOW ENTERTAIN A MOTION THAT WILL RELATE TO THE RESOLUTION THAT IS IN YOUR BACKUP. THERE ARE -- THE RESOLUTION THAT IS IN YOUR BACKUP HAS A COUPLE OF BLANKS IN IT. I'M NOT GOING TO READ ALL OF THE BENEFITS, I'M JUST GOING TO NEED WHAT WE WOULD NEED TO DO TO FILL IN THE BLANKS WHICH WOULD TAKE US TO ITEM NO. 2. BUT THE HOGS THAT I WILL ACCEPT THAT IS THE CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS STEVE MORGAN AS CITY AUDITOR EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 4TH, 2000, COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR THE CITY AUDITOR WILL BE AS FOLLOWS: A SALARY OF $90,501 ANNUALLY, YOUR RESOLUTION READS EACH PAY PERIOD AND THEY FILLED IN THE BLANK FOR ME AT 90,501 EACH PAY PERIOD. I WILL NOT ACCEPT A MOTION ALONG THOSE LINES. [LAUGHTER]. $90,000501 -- MR. MORGAN LOOKS DISAPPOINTED. [LAUGHTER]. THIS SHOULD BE A HAPPY DAY FOR HIM, WE HAVE TURNED IT INTO SOMETHING SOUR. A SALARY OF 9 ON,051 ANNUALLY, AUTOMOBILE ALLOWANCE OF 110 .16 PER PAY PERIOD AND THEN THE REMAINING STANDARD BENEFIT PACKAGE. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION? MOTION MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH. SECONDED BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM.
>>GRIFFITH: WITH THE CHANGE THAT YOU HAVE INDICATED.
>>MAYOR WATSON: YEAH. I UNDERSTAND.
>>GRIFFITH: IT MIGHT BE MORE APPROPRIATE.
>>MAYOR WATSON: THE ONLY DISCUSSION THAT I WOULD SAY IS IF THOSE THAT DON'T KNOW MR. MORGAN HE HAS BEEN SERVING AS OUR ACTING CITY AUDITOR, WE ARE VERY PLEASED THAT WE HAVE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE ON THIS MOTION. WITH THAT, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> OPPOSED NO? THE MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF 7 TO 0, MR. MORGAN CONGRATULATIONS. WE ARE VERY HAPPY FOR YOU. [APPLAUSE] AND AT THE RISK OF -- WELL, I WAS GOING TO TEASE YOU, BUT I WON'T. WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING?
>> THE MAYOR WAS GOING TO TEASE ME BECAUSE I WASN'T AS CONCISE AS I WAS ADVISED TO BE DURING MY INTERVIEW. BUT THIS IS TRULY AN EARLY CHRISTMAS PRESENT FOR ME AND I -- I DEEPLY APPRECIATE AND I WANT TO THANK THE MAYOR AND THE COUNCILMEMBERS FOR THE WONDERFUL OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE THE CITY AND TO SERVE THE CITIZENS OF AUSTIN. THIS APPOINTMENT SENDS A MESSAGE NOT ONLY TO MY STAFF, BUT ALSO TO ALL OF THE EMPLOYEES IN THE CITY THAT IF YOU WORK HARD AT IMPROVING THE CITY, YOU ARE GOING TO RECEIVE RECOGNITION AND REWARD. I ALSO WANT TO THANK CITY MANAGEMENT, I WANT TO THANK MY STAFF DEEPLY. WHO -- WHO HAVE WORKED SO HARD OVER THE LAST SIX MONTHS WHILE I WAS ACTING CITY AUDITOR. I ALSO WANT TO THANK MY FAMILY AND FRIENDS, ESPECIALLY, SINCE I HAVEN'T BEEN SLEEPING THAT WELL. AND I GET A LITTLE GROUCHY SOMETIMES WHEN I AM NOT SLEEPING THAT WELL. I ALSO --.
>>MAYOR WATSON: YOU ARE NOT GOING TO BE GROUCHY. THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WE HIRED YOU.
>> I STILL PROBABLY WON'T SLEEP THAT WELL AT TIMES.
>>MAYOR WATSON: OOPS.
>> THE MOST IMPORTANT ROLE FOR THE CITY AUDITOR IS TO HELP THE CITY COUNCILL GET THE PERFORMANCE RESULT, THE PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS THE CITIZENS OF AUSTIN EXPECT. AND TO GET THOSE RESULTS WITH A HIGH LEVEL OF INTEGRITY AND ETHICS. AND TO CARRY OUT THIS ROLE OVER THE NEXT -- HOPEFULLY THE NEXT FEW YEARS, YOU ARE GOING TO GET MY VERY BEST EFFORT AND THE VERY BEST EFFORT OF MY STAFF. AND I WANT TO THANK YOU AGAIN FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY. I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH THIS COUNCIL ON THE ISSUES THAT CHALLENGE OUR GREAT CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS, THANK YOU.
>>MAYOR WATSON: THANK YOU, MR. MORGAN, WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU. ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT, COUNCIL, LET'S GO TO THE ZONING ITEMS. MS. GLASGO, IS YOUR MICROPHONE ON. SOW C14-00-,.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, I'M ALICE GRASS GO DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND INSPECTION DEPARTMENT TO PRESENT ZONING CASES TODAY, WE WILL START OFF WITH ALL CONSENT ITEMS, 89, 90, 91 ARE DISCUSSION ITEMS, THEREAFTER I AM GOING TO PROCEED WITH THE CONSENTS AND POSTPONEMENTS. ITEM NO. 92, SOW 2136 LOPGTED AT 1700 THROUGH 1702 BARKLEY DRIVE, FROM SINGLE FAMILY 1 TO P PUBLIC WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THIS CASE, IT'S FOR A WATER AND WASTEWATER LIFT STATION, THE WATER AND WASTEWATER UTILITY DEPARTMENT HAS AGREED TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS WITH NEIGHBORING RESIDENTS AND THOSE CONDITIONS WILL BE HONORED AND THE CASE IS READY FOR ALL THREE READINGS. ITEM NO. 93, C14-00-2139, IS ALSO ANOTHER WATER AND WASTEWATER UTILITY REZONING, LOCATED AT 1307 ALLEN ROAD. THE CHANGE IS FROM SINGLE FAMILY 2 TO P PUBLIC WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY. WE RECOMMEND THE CHANGE AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. WITH THE CONDITIONS AGREED TO BETWEEN THE UTILITY AND THE NEIGHBORING RESIDENTS. THE CASE IS READY FOR ALL THREE READINGS. ITEM NO. 94, CASE C14-00-2142 AT 3500 IH-35, THE REMNANTS OF THE HOME DEPOT CASE THAT YOU ALL REMEMBER AT WOODWARD STREET. THE APPLICANT AGREED TO DEDICATE AN EASEMENT TO THE CITY TO USE AND THIS IS THE REZONING TO RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS AND IT'S READY FOR ALL THREE READINGS. ITEM NO. 95 IS A SMART HOUSING PROJECT THAT IS TIME SENSITIVE. WE HAVE A REQUEST FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION FOR C14-00-2169 TO POSTPONE FOR TWO WEEKS. HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT HAS ASKED THAT YOU POSTPONE IT FOR ONE WEEK DUE TO THE TIME SENSITIVITY OF THIS PROJECT, FUNDING RELATED TIME FRAMES THAT ONE WEEK WOULD HELP MEET THAT TIME FRAME SO STAFF RECOMMENDS THE POSTPONEMENT FOR ONE WEEK TO DECEMBER THE 7TH TO ALLOW THEM TO PROCEED WITH THIS PROJECT IN A TIMELY MANNER. ITEM NO. 96, C14-00-2172, LOCATED AT 1702 EVERGREEN AVENUE, THE CHANGE IS FROM SINGLE FAMILY 3 TO CS, GENERAL COMMERCIAL SERVICES. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THAT REQUEST WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY. AND OTHER CONDITIONS. THIS CASE IS READY FOR ALL THREE READINGS. ITEM NO. 97, CASE DURING 14 HISTORY 002177 LOCATED ON MOPAC EXPRESSWAY NORTH. ZONED LIMITED INDUSTRIAL WITH A PDA PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA AGREEMENT. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING TO CHANGE TRACT 1 TO LI-PDA HISTORIC WITH A HISTORIC DESIGNATION FOR A NATIONAL REGISTER OF LANDMARK AND TO ZONE TRACT 2 TO LIMITED INDUSTRIAL PDA. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THOSE CHANGES AND THE CASE IS READY FOR ALL THREE READINGS. ITEM NO. 98, C14-00-2179, LOCATED ON CENTURY PARK DRIVE. THE CHANGES IS FROM INDUSTRIAL PARK TO SINGLE FAMILY 2, SINGLE FAMILY 3 AND MULTI-FAMILY 1. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THOSE CHANGES WITH CONDITIONS AND THE CASE IS READY -- I BELIEVE THIS IS READY FOR ALL THREE READINGS. ITEM NO. 99, THERE'S A REQUEST TO POSTPONE THIS CASE TO -- TO DECEMBER THE 14TH, THE APPLICANT NEEDS TO RESOLVE SOME ISSUES WITH THE NEIGHBORS. STAFF RECOMMENDS THE POSTPONEMENT TO DECEMBER THE 14TH. ITEM NO. 100, CASE C14-00-2184, ON NORTH U.S. HIGHWAY 183, THE REQUEST IS FROM DEVELOPMENT RESERVE TO GR ZONING. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUEST AND THE CASE IS READY FOR ALL THREE READINGS. ITEM NO. 101, C14-00-2185, LOCATED AT 1711 THREE PONCE ROAD. THE CHANGE FROM SINGLE FAMILY 2 TO LIMITED INDUSTRIAL. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS LIMITED INDUSTRIAL WITH CONDITIONAL OVERLAY. AND WE WOULD LIKE TO MODIFY THE RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION TO BE 35 FEET. WE ERRONEOUSLY ASKED FOR 75 FEET. WE WOULD LIKE TO MODIFY IT TO 35 FEET, READY FOR FIRST READING ONLY. ITEM NOS. 102 IS ONE OF THE VIGNETTE CASES THAT WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST A POSTPONEMENT TO DECEMBER THE 14TH. THE SAME GOES FOR ITEM NO. 103 AND ITEM NO. 104 TO POSTPONE TO DECEMBER THE 14TH. ITEM NO. 105, CASE C14-00-2206 LOCATED AT 13429 CAMPESINA DRIVE. THE CHANGE IS FROM P PUBLIC AND RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO SINGLE FAMILY 6. THE CHANGE IS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLAYING, THE CASE IS READY FOR ALL THREE READINGS. ITEM NO. 106, C14-00-2207, THIS CASE IS LOCATED ON FOURTH AND CONGRESS, THE CHANGE IS TO ALLOW CBD WITH A CURE OVERLAY TO ALLOW FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT TO OCCUR. THE CASE IS RECOMMENDED BY THE COMMISSION AND READY FOR ALL THREE READINGS. ITEM NO. 107, C14-00-2208, ALSO LOCATED ON FOURTH AND CONGRESS, THE CHANGE IS TO COMBINE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT CURE AND THE CASE IS READY FOR ALL THREE READINGS AS RECOMMENDED BY THE COMMISSION. THAT CONCLUDES THE CONSENT.
>>MAYOR WATSON: COUNCIL THE CONSENT AGENDA WILL BE ITEM NO. 892 ALL THREE READINGS, 93 ALL THREE, 94 ALL THREE, 95, A POSTPONEMENT OF ONE WEEK, 96 ALL THREE, 97, 98 ALL THREE, 99 A POSTPONEMENT TO DECEMBER 14TH, 100 ALL THREE READINGS, 101 FIRST READING ONLY, 102, 103, 104 A POSTPONEMENT TO DECEMBER 14TH, 105, 106, 107 ON ALL THREE READINGS. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. MAYOR PRO TEM MOVES APPROVAL. IS THERE A SECOND? SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ.
>> I'M SORRY, MAYOR, ITEM NO. 93 WHERE THE CONDITIONS THAT WERE EXPRESSED SUBJECT TO THOSE IN THE AUGUST 29TH LETTER [INAUDIBLE]?
>> YES.
>>MAYOR WATSON: YES, THAT'S WHAT MY UNDERSTANDING IS, MS. GLASGO WILL YOU VERIFY THAT?
>>GLASGO: THE LETTER THAT IS IN THE BACKUP FOR 92, 93, YES.
>> THESE ARE THE CONDITIONS THAT YOU EXPRESSED ARE THOSE -- I JUST WANT THAT READ INTO THE RECORD, I DIDN'T HEAR THAT.
>>GLASGO: I DID READ THAT INTO THE RECORD.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>>MAYOR WATSON: THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WISHING -- COUNCILMEMBER WYNN WHY DON'T YOU MAKE YOUR STATEMENT?
>>WYNN: I WILL BE VOTING FOR THIS CONSENT AGENDA. I WOULD LIKE TO BE SHOWN AS RECUSING MYSELF FROM VOTING ON ITEMS 106 AND 107.
>>MAYOR WATSON: YES. THE RECORD WILL REFLECT THAT ALTHOUGH COUNCILMEMBER WYNN WILL BE VOTING AND HIS VOTE WILL BE COUNTED ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, IT WILL NOT BE COUNTED AS PART OF THE PASSAGE OF ITEMS 106 AND 107 SHOULD THEY PASS BECAUSE HE WILL BE SHOWN AS RECUSING HIMSELF AND ABSTAINING FROM A VOTE ON THOSE TWO ITEMS. IS THERE ANYONE WISHING TO BE HEARD ON THE CONSENT AGENDA AS READ? ANYONE WISHING TO BE HEARD? ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? ANYONE WISHING TO BE HEARD? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED SAY NO. THE MOTION CARRIES ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
>> TAKE US TO ITEM NO. 89 MS. GLASGO.
>>GLASGO: ITEM NO. 89 IS CASE --.
>>MAYOR WATSON: FOLKS, PLEASE TAKE YOUR CONVERSATIONS OUT OF THE ROOM.
>>GLASGO: ITEM NO. 89 IS CASE C14-00-20 THE 1 LOCATED AT 1306 KRAMER LANE. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A CHANGE FROM SINGLE FAMILY 2. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION AND THAT OF STAFF IS TO DENY THE ZONING CHANGE TO LIMITED OFFICE, WHICH THE -- THE PROPERTY IS IN THE MIDDLE OF A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION AND IT IS THE OPINION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE CITY COUNCIL -- AND STAFF THAT THIS ZONING IS STILL CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH LAMAR AREA STUDY, CONDITIONS HAVE NOT CHANGED TO WARRANT A CHANGE IN AN AREA THAT IS PREDOMINANTLY RESIDENTIAL FOR THAT REASON THE CASE IS NOT RECOMMENDED. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
>>MAYOR WATSON: THANK YOU, MS. GLASGO. MR. BENNETT ARE YOU GOING TO BE MAKING THE PRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT?
>> YES, SIR.
>>MAYOR WATSON: YOU WILL HAVE FIVE MINUTES.
>> DO WE SIT OR STAND OR WHAT?
>>MAYOR WATSON: I DON'T KNOW HOW BEST TO DO IT. WHY DON'T YOU SIT DOWN THERE. IF THAT DOESN'T WORK FOR YOU, WE WILL MAYBE MOVE THINGS OVER HERE, HAVE THIS STANDING MICROPHONE AVAILABLE TO YOU.
>> THAT WOULD BE FINE, I'M JIM BENNETT HERE TODAY ON THE BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO CHANGE THE ZONING. THE PROPERTY IS A SINGLE FAMILY TYPE HOUSE OR STRUCTURE. WE ARE PROPOSING A ZONING CHANGE THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO PUT IN A NEIGHBORHOOD TYPE REAL ESTATE OFFICE. WE ARE NOT -- THERE IS NO NEED TO DO ANY IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SITE. PARKING IS SUFFICIENT ALREADY, IMPERVIOUS COVER IS SUFFICIENT. WE ARE MAKING NO IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN TO GO INSIDE THE BUILDING. RELATIVE TO THE RECOMMENDATION, I WOULD POINT OUT TO YOU THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE LO DISTRICT IS TO ALLOW FOR OFFICES PREDOMINANTLY SERVING NEIGHBORHOOD OR COMMUNITY NEEDS WHICH MAY BE LOCATED WITHIN OR ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. AS MS. GLASGO TOLD YOU, THERE IS A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD PRIMARILY TO THE SOUTH OF US, I BELIEVE IT'S SINGLE FAMILY, TO THE NORTH OF US IF YOU LOOK AT THE BACKUP MATERIAL THAT YOU HAVE, IT'S PRETTY WELL COMPRISED OF DUPLEXES. AND TO THE EAST OF US WE HAVE SOME LR ZONING AND TO THE WEST WE HAVE SOME OFFICE ZONING, WHICH IS CURRENTLY DEVELOPED WITH A COMMERCIAL DAYCARE CENTER. AS INDICATED MY CLIENT IS PROPOSING TO MOVE INTO THIS STRUCTURE AND TO USE IT FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES. WE WOULD NOT HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY THAT NO ADDITIONAL IMPERVIOUS COVER OR INCREASE IN IMPERVIOUS COVER OR BUILDING COVERAGE BE ALLOWED. THE BUILDING IS THERE, THE PARKING IS SUFFICIENT TO MEET OUR NEEDS. WE FEEL LIKE THAT A -- ON THIS SIDE OF THE STREET IT IS SOMEWHAT TRANSITIONING. AS YOU CAN SEE WITH THE LR TO THE EAST AND OFFICE ZONING TO THE WEST. WE THINK THAT THIS KIND OF OFFICE ACCORDING TO THE PURPOSE STATEMENTS OF THE LO DISTRICT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE IN THAT THE STREET ITSELF KRAMER LANE IS A -- IS A THOROUGHFARE STREET. NOT NECESSARILY THOROUGHFARE, BUT I THINK IT'S ACTUALLY CLASSIFIED AS A COLLECTOR STREET. WE WOULD REQUEST THAT THE COUNCIL CONSIDER THE -- THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY TO RESTRICT IT TO WHAT IS THERE NOW, WHICH WOULD NOT BE ANY SIGNIFICANT OUTWARD APPEARANCE AND AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, IT WOULD GENERATE VERY LITTLE TRAFFIC, I THINK THE COUNT IS 262. HOWEVER I'M SURE IF ANYONE HAD A REAL ESTATE OFFICE THAT HAD 260 CLIENTS COME IN THAT WOULD BE QUITE A TRIP. WE WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOU TO CONSIDER THAT AND PERHAPS GRANT THE ZONING WITH CONDITIONAL OVERLAYS TO LIMIT IT TO WHAT YOU SEE IS WHAT IS THERE. I WILL BE AVAILABLE SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, THANK YOU.
>>MAYOR WATSON: THANK YOU. COUNCIL, WE HAVE ONE PERSON SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, ANGELA BAKER. MS. BAKER, IF YOU WOULD TAKE A SEAT RIGHT THERE AND TELL US WHAT YOU THINK.
>> I'M, MAYOR WATSON AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, I'M ANGELA BAKER, A MEMBER OF THE NORTH AUSTIN CIVIC ASSOCIATION, BETTER KNOWN AS NACA, EXCUSE MY VOICE, I FEEL A LITTLE LIKE TYPHOID MARY HERE. NACA --.
>>MAYOR WATSON: HOW IS IT THAT YOU ARE ASKING US TO VOTE? [LAUGHTER].
>> QUICKLY. NACA WISHES TO EXPRESS THEIR OPPOSITION TO THE ZONING CHANGE ON KRAMER. FOR THE PAST TWO YEARS WE HAVE WORKED ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN WHICH, AS YOU KNOW, YOU APPROVED LAST SUMMER. A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THAT PLAN WAS DEDICATED TO PROTECT AND MAINTAIN THE RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER AND INTEGRITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS -- THIS CHARACTER WE BELIEVE WOULD BE DAMAGED BY THE CHANGE IN ZONING. IT'S -- IT'S SORT OF A CREEPING BUSINESS THAT WE BEGIN TO DEVELOP ON KRAMER, THERE ARE WELL MAINTAINED HOMES ON KRAMER, WE FEEL THIS WOULD BE A DISINCENTIVE TO PEOPLE TO MAINTAIN THE PROPERTY AS A RESIDENTIAL AREA. THE PLANNING COMMISSION REJECTED THIS APPLICATION IN OCTOBER AND WE TRUST THAT YOU WILL CONCUR WITH THIS ACTION. THANK YOU.
>>MAYOR WATSON: THANK YOU, MA'AM. MR. BENNETT, DO YOU HAVE ANY REBUTTAL?
>> VERY LITTLE, MAYOR.
>>MAYOR WATSON: PLEASE COME FORWARD.
>> COUNCILMEMBERS THE APPEARANCE OF THIS STRUCTURE IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE NICER LOOKING STRUCTURES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF KRAMER LANE. IT IS WOOD FRAMED, MAINTAINED, WILL CONTINUE TO BE MAINTAINED AND WILL HAVE THE OUTWARD APPEARANCE OF THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE THAT IT IS NOW. IT'S JUST THE FUNCTION THAT WILL OCCUR IN THERE IS THERE WILL BE A REAL ESTATE OFFICE, VERY LOW KEY OFFICE. THANK YOU.
>>MAYOR WATSON: COUNCIL, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH. IS THERE A SECOND? SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ. ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED SAY NO. MOTION CARRIES. PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. REAL QUICKLY, MS. GLASGO, ONCE AGAIN WHAT IS THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON THIS?
>>GLASGO: THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO DENY THE ZONING CHANGE.
>>MAYOR WATSON: PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION?
>>GLASGO: TO DENY.
>>MAYOR WATSON: IS THERE A MOTION ON ITEM NO. 9? -- NUMBER 89.
>>WYNN: I MOVE DENIAL.
>>MAYOR WATSON: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN TO DENY. SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ. ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED SAY NO. MOTION CARRIES ON ITEM NO. 89. [ONE MOMENT PLEASE FOR CHANGE IN CAPTIONERS]
>>GLASGO: ... HAVE NOT BEEN CONTEMPLATED FOR DEVELOPMENT AND IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE THE MAJORITY OF THE PROPERTY THAT IS -- THAT ADJOINS THIS IS IN THE COUNTY, A VERY SMALL PORTION IN THE CITY LIMITS. WITHOUT A DEFINITIVE DEVELOPMENT, BOTH THE PARTLY CLOUDY AND THE STAFF FELT DEVELOPMENT RESERVE DESIGNATION IS APPROPRIATE UNTIL SUCH A TIME THAT THERE CAN BE A DEMONSTRATION THAT THERE IS AN ACOMPANYING PROJECT THAT ONE CAN ASSESS IN DETERMINING WHAT ZONING MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE FOR THAT PORTION THAT IS IN THE CITY LIMITS. IN MOST CASES WHERE WE HAVE AREAS THAT HAVE A SMALL PORTION OF THE TRACT IN THE CITY LIMITS, TYPICALLY ACCESS IS ALL THAT IS NEEDED AND MAYBE A LESS INTENSE ZONING DISTRICT MIGHT BE THE APPROPRIATE DESIGNATION. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE BOTH THE PARTLY CLOUDY AND THE STAFF DO NOT RECOMMEND -- PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF DO NOT RECOMMEND A CHANGE IN ZONING DUE TO THE FACT WE FEEFM THE DEVELOPMENT RESERVE IS APPROPRIATE AT THIS TIME. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
>>MAYOR WATSON: MR. BENNETT.
>> MAYOR AND COUNCIL, I WOULD INVITE YOU TO LOOK AT THE LARGER MAP THAT YOU HAVE HERE BECAUSE IT GIVES YOU A LITTLE BIT MORE THE ZONING PATTERN THAT HAS OCCURRED. NOT JUST IN THE IMMEDIATE RIGHT NEXT TO US. THIS PROPERTY IS OUTLINED IN BLUE. IS CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY IS A STRIP RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG HIGHWAY 290, WHICH IS A SIX TO FOUR-LANE HIGHWAY. THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST HAS SOME COMMERCIAL ZONING, TO THE WEST WE WILL LOCAL RETAIL, AT THE INTERSECTION DOWN HERE AND SOME GENERAL RETAIL RELATIVE TO DEVELOPMENT ON THIS SIDE OF THE STREET. THERE ISN'T ANY. THIS PROPERTY IS PRETTY WELL VACANT FROM THE INTERSECTION OF SPRINGDALE EXCEPT FOR THE INTERSECTION ALL THE WAY DOWN. MY CLIENTS ARE OUT OF TOWN CLIENTS. THEY ARE PROPOSING TO PUT THIS PROPERTY ON THE MARKET. THEY DO NOT HAVE A SITE PLAN NOR DO THEY KNOW WHO A POTENTIAL BUYER IS. THE PROBLEM WITH LEAVING IT D.R. ZONING IS ABOUT THE ONLY THING WE WOULD BE ABLE TO USE IT FOR WOULD BE SINGLE-FAMILY PURPOSE. SO WE'RE ASKING FOR THE ZONING ON THIS U.S. HIGHWAY 290 TO ALLOW US TO HAVE OR TO USE A FRONTAGE AS WELL AS TO GAUGE ACCESS TO THE REAR PORTION OF THE PROPERTY WHICH IS OUTSIDE THE CITY. TO THE EAST OF US YOU HAVE MOKAN RIGHT-OF-WAY WHERE AT ONE TIME MOKAN, THE HIGHWAY WAS PROPOSED. I DON'T KNOW IF IT WILL OR EVER GO IN OR NOT. IT WOULD BE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THAT. AS INDICATED, THE MAJORITY OF THE TRACT IS OUTSIDE THE COUNTY CITY. WE FEEL THE ZENNING IS APPROPRIATE AT THIS TIME SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE OTHER DEVELOPMENT THAT MAY COME SOMEWHERE IN THE FUTURE THAT WOULD CONFLICT WITH THE ZONING AND THE PEOPLE BEING SURPRISED LIKE THE LAST CASE YOU HAD WHERE IT'S DEVELOPED RESIDENTIAL AND SOMEBODY TRIES TO GET IT REZONED. IN THIS CASE WE FEEL LIKE ON THE HIGHWAY FRONTAGE ITSELF WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET A COMMERCIAL-TYPE ZONING THAT WOULD ALLOW ALLOW US TO USE OUR PROPERTY IN A MANNER THAT THE ORDINANCES WOULD ALLOW. I WILL BE AVAILABLE SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
>>MAYOR WATSON: DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF MR. BENNETT AT THIS POINT? MS. GLASCO, DO YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING?
>>GLASGO: NO, SIR.
>>MAYOR WATSON: OKAY. ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? TREK ENGLISH? IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK. FOLLOWED BY JOHN BURTON, DAN PICA AND M. STONEBRAKER.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS TREK ENGLISH AND I'M OPPOSED TO THIS CHANGE IN ZONING FOR THE FOLLOWING FOUR REASONS. THE -- AS YOU HAVE HEARD, THE -- MR. BENNETT SAID THE OWNER IS ONLY INTERESTED IN SELLING THE PROPERTY AS SOON AS HE GETS THE ZONING FMGT WE WILL HAVE NO CONTROL IN THE QUALITY OF DEVELOPMENT THAT WILL TAKE PLACE ON THAT TRACT OF LAND. NO. 2, THE -- THIS TRACT IS LOCATED IN A VERY SENSITIVE AREA IN THAT IT IS -- I DON'T HAVE A DELINEATION AND NEITHER DOES THIS MAP OF THE FLOODPLAIN, BUT THERE IS A CON FLU HE KNOWS OF THREE CREEKS AROUND THIS PROPERTY. THERE ARE TWO CREEKS TO THE WEST OF THE PROPERTY WHICH IS BIG WALNUT AND BUTTERCUP CREEK, WHICH HAS EXTENSIVE FLOODPLAINS NOW, AND TO THE EAST THERE IS A TRIBUTARY THAT RUNS RIGHT ALONG MOKAN, AND ALL OF THE CREEKS JOIN BELOW THE PROPERTY ON THE SOUTH -- ON THE SOUTH PORTION OF THE PROPERTY. THE IMPERVIOUS COVER WOULD BE TOO MUCH UNDER C.S. AND WOULD SET A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT. A LOT OF OUR HOMES WHICH ARE LOCATED ON THE WALNUT PLACE, WHICH IS NOT TOO FAR FROM THIS PROPERTY, HAVE HOMES IN THE FLOODPLAIN AND WE'RE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT IS GOING TO TAKE PLACE, WHETHER IT'S DOWNSTREAM OR UPSTREAM FROM US. IN 1995, JOE CALBRY AND HIS DEPARTMENT PLACED SEVERE RESTRICTIONS ON A PROPERTY LOCATED JUST ACROSS THE HIGHWAY FROM THIS PROPERTY, TO THE NORTHWEST, RIGHT NEXT TO THE CHIMNEY HILLS SUBDIVISION. AND AT THE TIME IT WAS BECAUSE OF THE FLOODPLAIN ON BUTTERCUP CREEK. AND SO I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE THE SAME -- THE SAME RESTRICTIONS ON THIS PROPERTY. NO. 3, MOKAN, WHICH IS THE RAILROAD TRACKS ARE LOCATED VERY NEAR THIS PROPERTY. THIS WOULD MAKE IT VERY DESIRABLE FOR ANY BUSINESS THAT WOULD NEED ACCESS TO RAIL WITH LITTLE CONTROL FOR US TO CURTAIL WHAT WOULD GO IN THERE BECAUSE OF THE COUNTY JURISDICTION. I'M CONCERNED ESPECIALLY ABOUT RAIL TRACKS DUE TO A CERTAIN FACILITY RIGHT NOW THAT IS LOOKING -- TO RELOCATE NEXT TO A RAILROAD TRACK WHICH IS NOW LOCATED IN SOUTH AUSTIN. AND I'M TALKING ABOUT A RECYCLING COMPANY. AND THAT IS ONE THING I'M CONCERNED THAT WOULD BE IDEAL FOR THEM. AND FOURTH, MY LAST OBJECTION IS THAT THIS ZONING EVENTUALLY WILL COST TAXPAYERS A LOT OF MONEY BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT THE CAMPO 2025 ROAD PLAN, A LARGE AMOUNT OF HIS PROPERTY IS ON THE RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT IS GOING TO BE BOUGHT BY TXDOT, AND MOST OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY IS GOING TO BE BOUGHT ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 290. [BUZZER SOUNDS]. THANK YOU. I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU DENY ZONING.
>>MAYOR WATSON: THANK YOU. JOHN BURTON.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL. MY NAME IS JOHN BURTON, I'M THE PRESIDENT OF THE CHIMNEY HILLS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, AND WE HAVE APPROXIMATELY 235 HOMES THAT EMPTY ON CHIMNEY HILL. ONLY ONE WAY IN AND ONE WAY OUT. AND IN THE MORNINGS IT'S A LITTLE DECEIVING BECAUSE THIS 290 HAS AN ISLAND IN THE MIDDLE AND THERE'S A BRIDGE THAT YOU CROSS RIGHT BEFORE AS YOU ARE HEADING EAST, THERE'S A BRIDGE THAT YOU CROSS THAT ALLOWS APPROXIMATELY THREE VEHICLES TO STACK UP BEFORE A TURN. WHEN YOU COME HOME FROM WORK OR WHEN YOU LEAVE, IT'S A REAL FIGHT TO GET IN AND OUT WITH 235 UNCONTROLLED, NO LIGHT, NO ACCESS THIS WAY. IT'S A DOWNHILL RUN FROM THE TOP OF THE HILL, WHICH MAKES THE INTERSECTION EVEN MORE DANGEROUS. OUR CONCERN -- WRE DO SUPPORT THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION TO DENY THIS, AND OUR CONCERN IS OF COURSE SAFETY AND ACCESS. WITHOUT SEEING A SITE PLAN, IT'S HARD FOR US TO DETERMINE -- WE'RE NOT AGAINST DEVELOPMENT, BUT WITHOUT A SITE PLAN, WE FEEL LIKE WE WOULD BE WRITING A BLANK CHECK. THANK YOU.
>>MAYOR WATSON: THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ.
>>ALVAREZ: A QUESTION. WHAT INTERSECTION ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? CAN YOU POUNT IT OUT? AT THE ENTRANCE OF CHIMNEY --
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
>>MAYOR WATSON: THANK YOU, SIR. DAN PICA. FOLLOWED BY M. STONEBRAKER. I'M SORRY. M STONEBRAKER SIGNED UP NOT WISHING TO SPEAK BUT AGAINST.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNCIL. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ADD THAT I WAS AT THE OCTOBER 24TH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AND THE CHAIRMAN MADE THE COMMENT THAT THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY WAS THE PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WHY WE HAVE D.R.. AND I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO REMIND YOU THAT SH-130 DID NOT TAKE THE MOKAN ROUTE BECAUSE OF THE SENSITIVITY OF ALL THE CREEK SYSTEM AROUND THERE. AND THAT'S -- AS MS. ENGLISH SAID, THAT'S A TOP CONCERN. AS WELL AS WHAT MR. BURTON SAID ABOUT THE TRAFFIC PROBLEMS. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. AND I DO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THANK YOU.
>>MAYOR WATSON: THANK YOU. MR. BENNETT, YOU ARE ENTITLE TO DO REBUTTAL. -- ENTITLED TO REBUTTAL.
>> MAYOR AND COUNCIL, THE FIRST SPEAKER SPOKE AS IF WANTING TO PUT PROPERTY ON THE MARKET FOR SALE AND DEVELOPMENT IS DEROGATORY, BUT THAT OCCURS ALL OVER THIS CITY AND ALL OVER AMERICA. PEOPLE GET THEIR PROPERTIES PRESENTABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT. SO THE FACT THAT IT'S GOING TO BE REZONED PERHAPS AND PUT ON THE MARKET FOR SALE IS -- THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT, I DON'T BELIEVE. EVEN THOUGH PART OF THE PROPERTY AND THE LARGER PORTION OF THE PROPERTY IS IN THE COUNTY, AS THIS COUNCIL KNOWS, SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMITS ARE REQUIRED IN THE COUNTY OR OUT OF THE COUNTY. THINGS OF WATER QUALITY, DETENTION PONDS, ALL THOSE THINGS COME INTO PLAY BEFORE THE PROPERTY CAN BE DEVELOPED, AS WELL AS THE TRAFFIC. AS MR. BURTON INDICATED, OUR PROPERTY DOESN'T HAVE ACCESSIBILITY TO THE MEDIAN THAT HE'S REFERRING TO. WE ARE EAST OF THAT MEDIAN BREAK. THE SMALLER PORTION RIGHT NEXT TO OUR PROPERTY WOULD BE ABLE TO CUT ACROSS, BUT WE DON'T OWN THAT. THE ONE SPEAKER SPOKE OF BFI. I DON'T KNOW WHAT BFI REALLY HAD TO DO WITH IT, BUT WE'RE ONLY PRESENTING IT TO THE PUBLIC TO BE DEVELOPED. WE CERTAINLY DON'T THINK THAT THE PROPERTY IS GOING TO -- ON HIGHWAY 290 BE COMPATIBLE WITH RESIDENTIAL USE AND CERTAINLY WOULD NEED SOME KIND OF COMMERCIAL ZONING TO GET ACCESS TO THE BALANCE OF OUR TRACT. IF IT STAYS D.R. AND IF THE AREA BEHIND IT TO THE SOUTH SHOULD BE DEVELOPED RESIDENTIALLY, I WOULDN'T THINK THAT THIS WOULD BE A SPOT HAVING CROSSING THE CREEK THAT WAS MENTIONED TO YOU WHERE AN INTERSECTION WOULD BE MANDATED FROM ANY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TO THE SOUTH. YOU KNOW, AND RESIDENTIAL ON THE MAJOR TORE ROW FAIR ITSELF, THERE'S 200 FOOT OF RIGHT-OF-WAY, THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE APPROPRIATE, SO THE RESIDENTIAL WOULD APPEAR TO COME AT A MAJOR INTERSECTION SUCH AS SPRINGDALE OR ONE OF THE OTHER STREETS. THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TO THE OTHER SIDE IS OUTSIDE THE CITY. IT IS SOME 200 FEET AWAY. SIX-LANE ROAD WITH A MEDIAN IN THE MIDDLE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT IMPACT THAT THIS ZONING COULD HAVE EXCEPT IT WOULD ALLOW VEHICLES TO USE HIGHWAY 290. THAT'S WHY THE HIGHWAY IS THERE, SO THAT IT CAN USE 290. YOU CAN'T TURN INTO THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD FROM OUR SITE. IF YOU WANTED TO GO GO INTO THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU WOULD HAVE TO GO EAST TO THE NEUROSURGEON AROUND, THE NEXT MEDIAN BREAK AND COME BACK WEST TO GET INTO CHIM DMEE CORNERS. CERTAINLY COMMERCIAL ZONING IS APPROPRIATE I BELIEVE ON A HIGHWAY OF THIS NATURE. TO DELAY IT AND SAY SOMEWHERE IN THE FUTURE THAT MAYBE WE'LL REVISIT A ZONING CHANGE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT SIGNIFICANCE THAT MAY HAVE. IT WAS DIFFICULT TO GET A RECOMMENDATION OUT OF STAFF -- [BUZZER SOUNDS] --. AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
>>MAYOR WATSON: THANK YOU, MR. BENNETT. MS. GLASCO, AGAIN, WILL YOU REMIND COUNCIL OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS BY STAFF AND PLANNING COMMISSION WITH REGARD TO ITEM 90?
>>GLASGO: BOTH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE ZONING CHANGE.
>>SLUSHER: MAYOR, COULD WE JUST HAVE A SHORT ELABORATION ON THE REASONS FOR THAT?
>>GLASGO: THE REASON FOR -- FOR THE RECOMMENDATION, I'LL START OFF WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THE --.
>>SLUSHER: THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
>>GLASGO: THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. OUR RECOMMENDATION REALLY WE SAID THAT C.S. COMMERCIAL SERVICES DESIGNATION REQUIRES TRAFFIC OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS THAT ARE -- THAT DON'T SEEM TO BE CONDUCIVE HERE WHERE GIVEN THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT. AND THAT WE FEEL THAT GRANTING C.S. ZONING WILL NOT BE COMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING ZONING PATTERNS THAT IS CURRENTLY CHISING IN THE AREA. THERE'S STILL A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT RESERVE. TYPICALLY WHAT WE'VE SEEN HISTORICALLY FOR AREAS WE'VE DONE STRIP ANNEXATION FOR JUST A SMALL PORTION OF THE TRACT, THE REMAINING PROPERTY THAT IS IN THE COUNTY, TYPICALLY ONLY REQUIRES AN ACCESS POINT BECAUSE YOU REALLY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH DEPTH TO DEVELOP A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THAT STRIP THAT THE APPROPRIATE ZONING WOULD BE MAYBE L.O. OR NO. AND WE FELT LIKE THERE WEREN'T ENOUGH INFORMATION OR PLANS TO MAKE A CASE FOR INTENSIVE ZONING AT THIS POINT.
>>SLUSHER: THANK YOU, MS. GLASCO.
>>MAYOR WATSON: I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION MADE BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH. DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED SAY NO. MOTION CARRIES. PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION WITH REGARD TO ITEM 90.
>>GOODMAN: MAYOR, I MOVE BOTH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
>>MAYOR WATSON: MOTION IS TO APPROVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION, WHICH IS IS A DENIAL. SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. DISCUSSION?
>>GOODMAN: YEAH, I WANTED TO SAY ONE THING.
>>MAYOR WATSON: MAYOR PRO TEM.
>>GOODMAN: I THINK THAT OUR RESPONSIBILITY IS TO BE SO CAREFUL AT THIS POINT BECAUSE EVERYTHING IS D.R. AND REALLY THE ONLY THING THAT IS ZONED RIGHT NOW IS RESIDENTIAL. I DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARILY THE FUTURE FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY THAT IT STAY RESIDENTIAL OR THAT MAYBE EVEN A MIXED USE PLAN, BUT IF WE DO C.S. ON THIS TODAY, WE HAVE SET THE PRECEDENT FOR ALL OF THESE HUGE TRACTS THAT ARE BESIDE IT AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S APPROPRIATE.
>>MAYOR WATSON: FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED SAY NO. MOTION CARRIES ON ITEM NO. 90. ITEM 91, MS. GLASCO.
>>GLASGO: ITEM 91 IS ZONING CASE C14-00-2130. THIS CASE IS LOCATED AT 2607 DEL CURTO ROAD. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A CHANGE FROM SINGLE-FAMILY 3 TO SINGLE-FAMILY 4 A. THIS IS A SMALL LOT SUBDIVISION AND IT SEEMS TO BE COMING A VERY POPULAR REZONING TO ALLOW INFILL DEVELOPMENT FOR TRACTS THAT ARE ALREADY SURROUNDED BY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. THERE IS A VALID PETITION OF 45% AGAINST THE ZONING CHANGE TO SINGLE-FAMILY 4, WHICH ALLOWS SMALL LOTS. HOWEVER, BOTH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE STAFF RECOMMEND THE SINGLE-FAMILY 4 ZONING BECAUSE IT WOULD ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL INFILL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT WITHIN OUR INNERCITY LOCATED TOWARDS THE SOUTH PART OF AUSTIN. THE -- JUST VERY BRIEFLY, THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE EXISTING ZONING AND WHAT IS PROPOSED. THE SINGLE-FAMILY 3 ZONING IS TYPICALLY ZONING THAT ALLOWS DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY OR DUPLEXES. A DUPLEX LOT ACCOMMODATES TWO UNITS. SO GIVEN THE SIZE OF THE LAND AREA HERE, THE DENSITY WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY 22 DO LEX UNITS; WHEREAS WHAT MR. HOWELL IS PROPOSING WITH HIS DEVELOPMENT, HE PROPOSES TO RETAIN TWO HOUSES THAT ARE CURRENTLY ON THE SITE AND ADDING 17 MORE. SO HE WOULD HAVE A TOTAL OF 19 DWELLING UNITS, SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS ON THIS SITE, AS OPPOSED TO 22 POSSIBLE DUPLEXES ON THIS SITE. SO THAT'S THE MAIN DISTINCTION. AND AS SPEAKERS COME FORWARD, AT LEAST YOU WILL HAVE THAT INFORMATION TO HELP YOU UNDERSTAND THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE SINGLE-FAMILY 3 AND THE SINGLE-FAMILY 4 A. I WILL PAUSE THERE AND BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.
>>MAYOR WATSON: ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF MS. GLASCO AT THIS POINT? ALL RIGHT. WE WILL HEAR FROM MR. HOWELL, WHO I UNDERSTAND IS REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT.
>> I DIDN'T HEAR THAT LAST PART.
>>MAYOR WATSON: WELL, YOU ARE THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPLICANT, RIGHT?
>> HE HAD THE APPLICANT.
>> YES I AM. OR YES I ARE. WHAT I HAVE, MAYOR, IS A HANDOUT FOR EACH OF THE COUNCILMEMBERS SO THAT RATHER THAN TRY TO -- [INAUDIBLE - NO MIC ON]. AND THIS IS A COPY OF WHAT IS THERE SO THAT YOU HAVE THAT INFORMATION. I AM BILL HOWELL ACKNOWLEDGE THIS IS CASE C14-00-21230, WE ARE REQUESTING SF-4A SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED ZONING, SMALL LOT. WHAT WE HAVE DONE WITH THIS IS THIS PROPERTY IS ADJACENT TO OUR EXISTING DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS THE VILLAGE AT KINNEY COURT, WHICH IS IN AND OF ITSELF A SMALL LOT DEVELOPMENT. IT IS NOT ZONED SF-4A. IT WAS DONE WITH A LARGE NUMBER OF VARIANCES AND WAIVERS AND HELP FROM SOME FOLKS EVEN HERE. I DIDN'T SAY THAT, DARYL. THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN THAT YOU SEE, WHILE I UNDERSTAND WE'RE ONLY DOING THE ZONING, WE HAVE BROUGHT FORTH THIS CONCEPTUAL PLAN OF WHAT WE WOULD PROPOSE TO DO WITH THE TRACT. WE HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO REACH AN AGREEMENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ON -- ON THEIR OPPOSITION TO OUR ZONING. WHAT WE HAVE DONE SINCE THAT INITIAL MEETING THAT WE HAD WITH THE NEIGHBORS IS THE BEST WE CAN DO TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS THAT WE WERE GIVEN AT THAT MEETING. AND JUST TO RUN DOWN THE LINE, THERE IS A LINE OF TREES THAT EXISTS HERE. THOSE ARE ESSENTIALLY -- I BELIEVE THERE'S FOUR PECAN TREES, AND I DO HAVE THE TREE PORTION ON THE BACK SIDE OF THAT. WHAT WE DID WITH THAT ISSUE AND THE PRIVACY ISSUE WITH THE SF-6 DIRECTLY BEHIND IT WAS TO INCREASE THE REAR YARD SETBACK BY RESTRICTING IT ON THE PLAT ITSELF. WE MOVED THAT REAR YARD SETBACK FROM 10 FEET TO 20 FEET. WE MOVED THE ROADWAY OR RIGHT-OF-WAY INFRASTRUCTURE DOWN TO SAVE AN ADDITIONAL LINE OF TREES SO THAT THEY ARE PART OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND STILL REMAIN IN FRONT OF THE HOUSES. WE INCREASED THE SETBACKS FROM DEL CURTO ROAD ON THE FOUR LOTS THAT YOU SEE AGAINST DEL CURTO ROAD. THE PREDOMINANCE OF THE PEOPLE THAT WERE AT THE MEETING THAT I ATTENDED DID NOT WISH THIS ROADWAY TO GO THROUGH. WE HAVE PROVIDED FOR THAT IN THIS PLAN BY TAKING IT OUT OF THE VILLAGE AT KINNEY COURT AND DOING THE HAMMERHEAD TURN-AROUND AS SHOWN. WE HAVE INCREASED THE WIDTH OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ABOVE WHAT WE HAVE AT KINNEY IN THIS CASE, AS WELL AS INCREASING THE PAVEMENT WIDTH BECAUSE IT IS A TURN-AROUND. WE ARE NOT REQUESTING ANY VARIANCES. EVERYTHING YOU SEE HERE IS EITHER A TRANSPORTATION ISSUE, THE LOTS THEMSELVES EXCEED ALL OF THE STANDARDS IN TOTAL AREA AND WIDTH, AND THEY EXCEED IT IN SETBACKS. WE'VE INCREASED THE SETBACKS ON THE FRONT. THE ORDINANCE ALLOWS 15 FEET, AND WE ALLOWED 15 FEET ON THE HOUSING STRUCTURE ITSELF. WE HAVE INCREASED THE SETBACK AS REGARDS GARAGES, CAR PORTS, ET CETERA, TO 20 FEET. PART OF THAT HAS TO DO WITH SOME OF THE RESTRICTIONS WE PLACE ON THAT PLAT HAVING TO DO WITH NOT PARKING ACROSS PUBLIC SIDEWALKS. THIS ESSENTIALLY COMPLIES WITH EVERYTHING IN THE ORDINANCE THAT YOU FOLKS PASSED IN JUNE OF THIS YEAR. WE HAVE REQUIRED BY PLAT AND IT'S A PART OF THE BUILDING STANDARDS ADDITIONAL PLANNINGS PLANTINGS, ADDITIONAL FENCING TO ATTEMPT AS BEST WE CAN IN THIS SCENARIO TO ADDRESS PRIVACY. THE PROJECT, TO ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS THAT WE HAVE HEARD SECONDHAND THROUGH STAFF, IT IS AN EIGHT DENSITY. THE AVERAGE IMPERVIOUS COVER OVER THIS SITE WOULD BE ABOUT 58%. AND OUTLINED IN THE HANDOUT ON THE LOCATION MAP IN RED, WHAT YOU WILL SEE IS WHAT IS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD EXISTING IN DUPLEX CONFIGURATION. AND THOSE AREAS THAT ARE SHOWN EXCEED WHAT WOULD BE ALLOWED BY ORDINANCE IF WE WERE DOING A DUPLEX COMMUNITY ALREADY. WE FEEL LIKE THIS IS A VERY GOOD USE OF THE PROPERTY. [BUZZER SOUNDS]. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
>>MAYOR WATSON: DOES COUNCIL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME?
>> AND HERE ARE SOME PICTURES OF OUR EXISTING PRODUCTS.
>>ALVAREZ: I GUESS WE HAVEN'T HAD THE PUBLIC HEARING YET. I'LL ASK HIM QUESTIONS AFTER REBUTTAL OR DURING REBUTTAL.
>>MAYOR WATSON: THANK YOU, MR. SHOUL. KATHLEEN SHAUL.
>> MAYOR, WE HAVE A DESIGNATED SPEAKER. COULD WE --.
>>MAYOR WATSON: I WOULD BE HAPPY TO IF THAT MEANS NOT EVERYBODY IS TALKING. WE'LL DO IT HOWEVER YOU WANT, BUT IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING?
>> YEAH, CAN WE RUN IN OUR ORDER?
>>MAYOR WATSON: SURE. IS SOMEBODY TRYING TO DONATE TIME?
>> NO, WE JUST WANTED TO DESIGNATE OUR PRIMARY SPEAKER.
>>MAYOR WATSON: THAT'S FINE. LET ME ASK THIS. KATHLEEN SHAUL, PATRICIA FISKE, CAMILLE PERRY, MARSY ROBERTS, BRIAN KING AND MICHAEL ESPOSITO. DOES ANYBODY OBJECT TO THIS GOING OUT OF THE ORDER IN WHICH THE CARDS ARE SIGNED?
>> NO.
>>MAYOR WATSON: IF THAT'S THE CASE, COME FORWARD AND LET ME KNOW WHO YOU ARE AND I'LL PULL YOUR CARD. GO FOR IT.
>> GOOD EVENING, I'M MARSY ROBERTS AND I'M ON THE STEERING COMMITTEE OF THE SOUTH LAMAR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. BRIAN IS PASSING OUT JUST SOME SORT OF SYNOPSIS OF SOME OF THE POINTS THAT WE WANT TO MAKE HERE.
>> [INAUDIBLE].
>> BRING IT CLOSER TO ME? IS THAT BETTER? SCOOT UP A LITTLE BIT. I JUST WANTED TO START OFF WITH SOME OF THE CORRECTIONS TO THE ZONING REVIEW NOTES THAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU THAT YOU'VE PROBABLY REVIEWED BEFORE YOU CAME TO THIS MEETING. A COUPLE HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED. ONE IS THAT THE VALID PETITION IS NOW AT 45%, NOT 32.25 AS NOTED. AND THE OTHER THING I THINK MR. HOWELL ACTUALLY ALREADY ADDRESSED THIS WAS THAT IN THE REVIEW NOTES IT SAYS THAT HE MET WITH THE PECAN WAY CONDOMINIUMS AND ACTUALLY HE MET WITH THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WAS PRESENT THERE. THE LAST THING IS THAT THE SIDE YARD SETBACKS THAT MR. SHOUL HAS SHOWN ON HIS DRAWINGS DO NOT MEET CURRENT SF-4A STANDARDS WITHOUT VARIANCES. THEY CALL FOR A THREE FOOT SIDE SETBACKS AND SFA CALLS FOR FIVE FOOT SETBACKS. JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT DISTINCTION. AND THE LAST ONE -- THE PRIMARY CONCERN OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WAS ACTUALLY BUILDING DENSITY AND IMPERVIOUS COVER. AND THAT WAS NOT ADDRESSED IN THE CONCEPT DRAWINGS THAT MR. HOWELL SUBMITTED TO US AND IT'S WHY WE COULDN'T COME TO AN AGREEMENT. WE FEEL THAT SF-3 ZONING WILL ADDRESS OUR PRIMARY CONCERN WITH LESS IMPERVIOUS COVER. WITH THAT, I -- I KNOW THAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU A RECOMMENDATION FROM CITY STAFF TO GO AHEAD WITH THIS SF-4A AND THAT YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DO THE SAME. IT WAS INTERESTING FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION TO GO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND EXPRESS OUR DESIRES AND WISHES THAT EVENING AND THEN HAVE ONE QUESTION FIELDED TO US BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED, THEN CLOSED, AND WE WERE TOLD BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT THAT POINT THAT WE REALLY DID NOT KNOW WHAT WE WANTED. AND THAT THEY KNEW BETTER WHAT WE WANTED. WE WANT, YOU KNOW, IT WAS LATE THAT NIGHT, PERHAPS WE DIDN'T EXPRESS OURSELVES VERY WELL, OUR PRESENTATION WAS A LITTLE LOW, AND I KNOW EVERYONE WAS TIRED. BUT WE REALLY WANT TO EXPRESS THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD DOES KNOW WHAT THEY WANT FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE'VE DONE A LOT OF RESEARCH ON THIS. AND WE KNOW THAT IT'S UNUSUAL, BECAUSE WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE US IS A DECISION BETWEEN A SF-4A ZONING WHICH WOULD BE SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS VERSUS STICK WG THE SF-3 ZONING. NOW, THE SF-4A IS CITY STAFF -- CITY STAFF HAS SAID IS 19 SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES VERSUS SINGLE-FAMILY 3 ZONING IS -- [BUZZER SOUNDS] --. EXCUSE ME. ZOOF YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED UNLESS SOMEBODY WANTS TO DONATE.
>>SLUSHER: I'LL ASK A QUESTION. BUT SO THE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD PREFER TO HAVE DUPLEXES WHICH CAN BE BUILT UNDER SF-3 RATHER THAN THE SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSES UNDER THE PROPOSED ZONING?
>> YES, SIR.
>>SLUSHER: AND WOULD YOU ELABORATE BRIEFLY ON THAT?
>> SURE. OUR PRIMARY CONCERN IS WITH MORE GREEN SPACE, LESS IMPERVIOUS COVER. AND WE'RE WILLING TO GIVE UP THE OCCUPANCY, SO WE'RE REALLY -- WE'RE GOING FROM HIGHER OCCUPANCY TO GET LESS IMPERVIOUS COVER AND MORE GREEN SPACE AND MORE AFFORDABLE, AND WE FEEL THAT THIS IS -- AFFORDABLE HOUSING. WE FEEL THIS IN A GREATER WAY SUPPORTS THE CITY'S INITIATIVES FOR SMART GROWTH AND URBAN INFILL AND IT'S AGREEABLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO WE FEEL THAT IT SUPPORTS EVERYTHING THAT EVERYONE WANTS AND EVERYTHING THE CITY SUPPORTS IN EVERY WAY AND THAT NEIGHBORS WANTED. SO -- SURE.
>>MAYOR WATSON: MAYOR PRO TEM.
>>GOODMAN: CAN I ASK BEFORE YOU GO, IN YOUR DISCUSSIONS WHEN YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT DENSITY AND YOU MENTION IN YOUR BULLET SHEET THE CONDOS --
>> YES, MA'AM.
>>GOODMAN: -- ARE YOU THINKING -- LET ME BACK UP. THE REASON THAT I WONDER ABOUT PREFERRING DUPLEXES -- THE REASON WHAT?
>>GOODMAN: THE REASON WHY I'M WONDERING WHY YOU PREFER THE DUPLEXES IS THE DESIGN IRRELEVANT, IT'S SO DIFFICULT TO DESIGN A DUPLEX SO THAT THERE IS ANY DIFFERENCE. USUALLY IF YOU HAVE A SPOT WHERE YOU ARE GOING TO DO DO LEXES, THEY ALL LOOK VERY SIMILAR AND THE FEEL OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS DIFFERENT WHEN THAT HAPPENS THAN IT IS WHEN -- EVEN IF THEY ARE CLOSE EGG TOGETHER, IF THEY ARE INDIVIDUAL SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES. SO DID YOU ALL TALK ABOUT THAT AND OTHER CONDOS OR ANYTHING? DID YOU TALK ABOUT MULTI-FAMILY?
>> YEAH, WELL, THE CONDOS ARE ZONED SF-6 ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY. I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS WAS ZONING IN 1981 AND THAT THERE IS SEVEN UNITS FOR ONE ACRE ON THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY. WE WOULD BE ECSTATIC IF THEY DID THE SAME SOURCE OF DENSITY ON THIS PIECE OF LAND. SO WE DON'T FEEL THE SF-6 ZONING IS A GOOD COMPARISON TO SF 4 A. THE SECOND ISSUE OF DESIGN, WE FEEL THAT WHILE -- WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT URBAN INFILL, WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS THAT YOU ARE TAKING A SUBURBAN HOUSE AND SORT OF SQUISHING IT TOGETHER FOR URBAN INFILL. SO YOU ARE TAKING AUR BAN DESIGN AND IMPLANTING IT INTO AN URBAN AREA. AND WE FEEL THAT A DUPLEX DESIGN IS MORE CONCURRENT -- IT'S AN URBAN DESIGN. AND WHAT THAT ALLOWS, AND THERE'S SOME VERY NICE DESIGNS DONE. WHEN YOU START HAVING COMMON WALLS, YOU FREE UP GREEN SPACE. AND WHEN IT'S SMART DESIGN, IT CAN BE VERY BEAUTIFUL AND EVERYONE HAS NICE PRIVACY AND THERE IS GREAT OPPORTUNITIES FOR TREES, AND IT'S MUCH MORE CONCURRENT WITH I THINK WHAT AUSTIN'S INITIATIVE IS FOR GREEN SPACES AND MORE URBAN INFILL AND IT ALLOWS YOU TO HAVE EVEN HIGHER OCCUPANCY. SO I THINK -- DOES THAT ANSWER THE QUESTION ABOUT THE DESIGN VERSUS TAKING SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES THAT ARE FOUR FEET APART VERSUS HAVING A COMMON WALL AND HAVING MAYBE 10 OR 15 FEET BETWEEN THE UNITS?
>>GOODMAN: YEAH, YEAH, SOUNDS LIKE YOU WERE DISCUSSING WHAT I WAS WONDERING ABOUT. YES.9
>>MAYOR WATSON: THANK YOU, MA'AM.
>> THANK YOU.
>>MAYOR WATSON: KATHLEEN SHAWL. THAT'S NOD NOT THE ORDER YOU WANT TO DO IN?
>> HI, I'M BRIAN KING. NOT KATHLEEN SHAW. AND I LIVE AT 1809 LIGHTSY ROAD ABOUT HALF A MILE FROM THIS PROPERTY IN QUESTION. WHAT I WANTED TO MAKE NOTE OF IS THE STRENGTH OF OUR PETITION. THIS IS A BLOWUP OF THE CITY'S ANALYSIS OF OUR PETITION. THE AREA IN YELLOW IS THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. INSIDE THE CIRCLE OF COURSE IS THE 200 FOOT RADIUS, AND WE HAD TO COME UP TO SPEED ON THAT BECAUSE WHETHER WE STARTED OUR PETITION WE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT COUNTED AND WHAT DIDN'T. SO WE HAVE ABOUT 45 PEOPLE ON OUR PETITION THAT HAVE BEEN SIGNED AND VALIDATED BUT THEY DON'T COUNT BECAUSE THEY ARE OUTSIDE THE CIRCLE. THE AREA IN BLUE IS PROPERTY ALREADY OWNED BY THE DEVELOPER. SO OBVIOUSLY HE'S NOT GOING TO SIGN A PETITION AGAINST HIS OWN DEVELOPMENT. THE AREA IN ORANGE IS NON-OWNER OCCUPIED DUPLEXES. SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE AREA INSIDE THE CIRCLE, THERE'S ONLY ONE PROPERTY OWNER THAT DIDN'T SIGN AND THAT'S BECAUSE HE'S DONE BUSINESS WITH MR. HOWELL BEFORE AND DIDN'T FEEL LIKE IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO GET INVOLVED. FROM THE OWNER OCCUPIED PROPERTY THERE, WE'RE PROBABLY ABOUT 90% ON OUR PETITION IF YOU EXCLUDE HIS PROPERTY AND THE NON-OWNER OCCUPIED DUPLEXES. IT'S ALSO WORTH NOTE THANKING THE PLANNING COMMISSION THOUGHT SF-4A WAS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE OF THE SF-6 THAT IS ADJACENT TO IT. JUST TO THE NORTH IS A CONDOMINIUM, PECAN WAY CONDOMINIUMS AND A COUPLE OF THOSE PEOPLE ARE HERE TO SPEAK TO YOU TONIGHT. THAT WAS PUT IN IN 19781 AND IT'S A LOVELY PROJECT. IT'S AN ACRE. IT'S LANDSCAPED. IF WE HAD THAT DID YOU HAPPEN MRI INDICATED, WE WOULD BE DANCING IN THE STREETS AGAIN. SO THAT KIND OF I THINK BIASED THEIR OPINION BECAUSE IT'S SF-6 WAS RIGHT ADJACENT TO IT, BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S SF-6 AS YOU MIGHT NORMALLY THINK ABOUT IT. AGAIN, I JUST WANT TO UNDERSCORE EVERYTHING THAT MARCY HAS OUTLINED TO YOU AND LET YOU KNOW THAT THIS -- THE SIGNATURES ON THIS ARE FROM THE ASSOCIATION AND NOT JUST ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. WE HAVE HAD SEVERAL MEETINGS, IT'S TAKEN UP A LOT OF ENERGY. WE ACTUALLY THE GOOD THING THAT CAME OUT OF THIS IS WE GOT A PRETTY GOOD GOING NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WHICH WE DIDN'T HAVE BEFORE. WE HAD AKINNY ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION THAT WAS SOME TIME AGO WHEN KINNEY ROAD PHASE ONE STARTED AND EVERYBODY RALLIED AND I WON'T GO INTO THAT, BUT THEY ALL WENT BACK TO SLEEP AND WHEN PHASE 2 CAME UP, WE'RE GETTING A GOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION OUT OF THIS. IT'S NEIGHBORHOOD-WIDE, THERE'S NOT BEEN A DISSENTING VOTE ON WHAT WE PRESENTED TONIGHT WITH REGARD TO OUR DESIRE TO KEEP THE PROPERTY SF-3 WITH NO VARIANCES, NO EXCEPTIONS, AND WE FEEL THAT THAT CODE PROTECTS OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE CHARACTER OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AS IT'S DESIGNED. I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
>>MAYOR WATSON: THANK YOU. WHO IS NEXT?
>> KATHLEEN SHAW. I THANK YOU. I LIVE IN THE CONDOMINIUMS NEXT DOOR, THE 2601 DEL CURTO ROAD. TO ADDRESS YOUR QUESTION ABOUT HAD WE THOUGHT ABOUT THE DUPLEXES ALL LOOK ALIKE, THE KINNEY COURT, ALL THE HOUSES THERE ALL LOOK ALIKE BASICALLY. THERE IS NO -- SO I MEAN THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE AN ISSUE. THEY ARE LOVELY AND THEY ALL LOOK ALIKE. BUT THEY ARE ONLY LIKE FIVE FEET APART. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ADDRESS A THAT WE DRIVE BY THIS KINNEY COURT VILLAGE EVERY DAY. WE SEE THE SMALL LOTS. THERE IS NO ROOM ON THOSE LOTS TO PLANT A TREE. LITERALLY YOU COULD NOT PLANT A PECAN TREE, AN OAK TREE, BUSHES AND FLOWERS, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO PRESENT THE IDEA THAT HE COULD BUILD 14 HOUSES ZONED, WE KEEP TALKING ABOUT THE DUPLEXES. HE COULD ALSO BUILD 14 HOMES INSTEAD OF THE 19. AND I SUGGEST THE DIFFERENCE IS ROOM FOR TREES WHICH WOULD BENEFIT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND I THINK OUR WHOLE CITY AND IT'S A TREND WE NEED TO KEEP, MORE GREEN SPACE. AS WE DO THIS SMART GROWTH AND INFILL. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
>>MAYOR WATSON: THANK YOU. DO YOU ALL CARE WHO IS NEXT? [LAUGHTER].
>> [INAUDIBLE - NO MIC ON].
>>MAYOR WATSON: YOU THINK? THAT WOULD MAKE YOU --
>> I'M PATRICIA FISKE.
>>MAYOR WATSON: WELL, GOOD.
>> AND I ALSO LIVE IN THE PECAN WAY CONDOMINIUMS WHICH ARE DIRECTLY WE SHARE A BOUNDARY WITH THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION AND WE ALSO SHARE A BOUNDARY WITH KINNEY COURT, WHICH IS DIRECTLY BEHIND US. WHEN I MOVED THERE, THERE WERE LOVELY TREES BACK THERE. NOW THERE ARE TWO-STORY HOUSES AND NO TREES. ACCORDING TO THE AUSTIN STATESMAN, MR. HOWELL HAD 27 VARIANCES AND WAIVERS FROM THE CITY TO BUILD KINNEY COURT. HE RECEIVED THE SUPPORT OF THE NEIGHBORS BY TELLING THEM THAT HE WOULD BUILD DUPLEXES IF THEY DID NOT SUPPORT THE ZONING CHANGE. SAME TACTIC HE'S USED WITH US. WE SAY GO AHEAD IF IT MEANS ROOM FOR TREES. TO OBTAIN SUPPORT FOR HIS BIDS FOR VARIANCES AND WAIVERS, MR. HOWELL MADE PROMISE SO THE KINNEY AVENUE NEIGHBORS. WHEN SOME OF THOSE PROMISES WERE NOT KEPT, HE BLAMED IT ON THE CITY CODE. WHEN THE CITIZENS OF THE KINNEY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WENT TO THE CITY THEY WERE TOLD THAT THOSE WERE PRIVATE AGREEMENTS AND THE CITY COULD NOT INTERVENE. WE'RE A NEIGHBORHOOD OF WORKING PEOPLE WITHOUT THE TIME OR THE RESOURCES TO DEAL WITH A MANIPULATIONS OF PROFESSIONALS. WE'RE AWARE OF HOW MR. HOWELL OPERATES AND WE WANT HIM TO BE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW THE PRUDENT ZONING LAWS THAT OTHER DEVELOPERS ARE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW. IT IS MY PERSONAL BELIEF THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS MISSED THE BOAT WITH ITS SO-CALLED SMART GROWTH PLAN. IT MAY SOLVE SOME PROBLEMS FOR URBAN SPRAWL, BUT IT WILL CREATE MORE FOR NEIGHBORS LIKE MEAN ON DEL CURTO. OUR CITY SHOULD NOT BE ENCOURAGING DENSER GROWTH IN AREAS WHERE THE CITIZENS PREFER TREES. KINNEY COURT STANDS OUT LIKE A PIMPLE ON THE OTHERWISE SERENE FACE OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, AND WE DON'T WANT ANOTHER. IN MY 73 YEARS ON THIS EARTH, SPENT MOSTLY IN AUSTIN, MOSTLY IN SOUTH AUSTIN, I HAVE FOUND THAT SOMETHING GOOD DOES COME OUT OF UNPLEASANTNESS, THAT GOOD IS IN THIS CASE IS THAT THE KINNEY COURT WAS THE EMERGENCE OF AN EXPANDED KINNEY AVENUE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION TO INCLUDE A LARGER PART OF THE SOUTH AUSTIN AUSTIN THAT HAD BEEN WITHOUT ONE. WE WILL BE WATCHING ALONG WITH OUR FELLOW NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION MEMBERS, AND I UNDERSTAND YOU'VE GOT DAWSON COMING UP, TO SEE IF THE CITY COUNCIL IS WILLING TO FOLLOW THE SHORT-SIGHTED POLICY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR IF THEY WILL LISTEN TO THE MANDATE OF A MAJORITY, A A LARGE MAJORITY OF THE NEIGHBORS OF THIS PROPERTY. THANK YOU.
>>MAYOR WATSON: ARE YOU CAMILLE PERRY? YOU WOULD BE NEXT.
>> I'M CAMILLE PERRY AND I LIVE AT 2211 IVA LANE BETWEEN KINNEY ROAD AND DEL CURTO. I'VE LIVED THERE ABOUT 30 YEARS. I'M AGAINST CHANGING TO DENSER ZONING BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT WILL INCREASE INCIDENCES OF FLOODING IN THE WEST BOULDIN CREEK WATERSHED LIKE WE HAD THIS MONTH WHICH CLOSED OLTORF AT WEST BOULDIN CREEK AND THE RAILROAD TRACKS. AND IT ALSO THREATENS SOME TRAILER HOMES ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF WEST BOULDIN CREEK. WITH DENSER ZONING, THE RATIO OF -- I'M GOING TO HAVE TO PUT MY GLASSES ON -- OF SOIL NEEDED TO SOAK UP THE RAIN WATER TO BUILDINGS AND PAVEMENT IS DECREASED AND THIS WILL RESULT IN RUNOFF -- IN MORE RUNOFF AND LESS UNDERGROUND WATER FOR TREES. I BELIEVE THE TREES ARE ALSO NEEDED TO IMPROVE THE AIR QUALITY IN GENERAL. I'M AGAINST THE DENSER ZONING BECAUSE I BELIEVE GOOD NEIGHBORHOODS INCLUDE TRIO LINED STREETS ALONG WHICH THE YOUNG AND OLD ALIKE CAN ENJOY WALKING. THERE IS NO SPACE FOR TREES TO GROW ALONG THE STREETS IN THE KINNEY COURTS THAT ARE UNDER CONSTRUCTION NOW. THIS WAS CITED IN THE NEWSPAPER AS A MODEL FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. I'M AGAINST THE SMALLER LOTS BECAUSE I BELIEVE HOMES LARGE ENOUGH FOR FAMILIES NEED YARDS LARGE ENOUGH FOR CHILDREN TO PLAY OUTDOORS. THE HOMES CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION ARE NICE, LARGE FAMILY HOMES. BUT DO NOT HAVE YARDS LARGE ENOUGH FOR A SWING SET AND THEY ARE NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE OTHER HOMES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I'M AGAINST THE DENSER ZONING BECAUSE THE NARROWER STREETS MEAN MORE TRAFFIC JAMS WHERE MORE GASOLINE IS BURNED GOING NOWHERE WHICH POLLUTES THE AIR FOR NOT. TRAFFIC JAMS COULD ALSO IMPEDE ACCESS BY EMERGENCY VEHICLES SHOULD THEY BECOME NECESSARY. I'M AGAINST THIS CHANGE IN ZONING BECAUSE TO COMPENSATE FOR ADDITIONAL RUNOFF OF RAIN WATER THERE, THEY BUILT A RETENTION POND ON ONE LOT -- I GUESS THAT'S ONE LOT. I'M NOT SURE. IT'S QUITE LARGE. AND IT'S ALSO QUITE DEEP. AFTER A RECENT RAIN, IT HAD A LOT OF WATER IN IT, ALONG WITH SOME PAPER CUPS AND OTHER TRASH. I'VE SEEN THESE IN OTHER AREAS. THEY GENERALLY LOOK THAT WAY. AND IN ADDITION TO THAT, THIS ONE IN THIS AREA ONLY HAS A SMALL PICKET FENCE AROUND IT. I DON'T THINK THAT RETENTION PONDS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS ARE SAFE OR ATTRACTIVE. I UNDERSTAND SOME OF THE CHANGES IN THE CURRENT DEVELOPMENT WERE ACQUIRED THROUGH VARIANCES THAT NEGATED A LOT OF THE PROTECTION ZONING SHOULD AFFORD. I HOPE THIS WILL NOT BE THE CASE IN THIS DEVELOPMENT. AND I APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION AND YOUR TIME.
>>MAYOR WATSON: THANK YOU. MICHAEL ESPOSITO I STRONGLY [INAUDIBLE] TO DENY EXISTING SF-3 ZONING FOLLOWING THE BUILDER'S OWN PLANS FOR DUPLEX TO FULFILL IF GOAL OF INCREASED UNITS WHEEL REDUCING IMPERVIOUS COVER. OSCAR LIPCHUCK. HE MIGHT DENY THAT. [LAUGHTER].
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. I LIVE AT 2511 DEL CURTO ROAD. JUST NEXT TO THE CONDOMINIUMS. I AM FOR SMART GROWTH. I AM AGAINST THE CHANGE IN THIS REZONING. I THINK MICHAEL ESPOSITO SAID IT VERY SUCCINCTLY. WE HAVE -- WE CAN HAVE CONDOMINIUMS OR WE CAN HAVE THE TOWN HOMES OR THE DUPLEXES. WE CAN HAVE 14 HOMES THAT ONE OF THE PREVIOUS SPEAKERS HAD MENTIONED. AND THOSE WOULD PROVIDE FOR MORE HOUSING THAT WE NEED. WE -- AUSTIN, THE CITY, THE CITIZENS OF AUSTIN, BUT AT THE SAME TIME BY NOT CHANGING THE REZONING OR THE ZONING CHARACTER OF THIS PARTICULAR LOT OR PLOT, WE WOULD MAINTAIN THE CHARACTER OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. AND IT REALLY IS A VERY NICE NEIGHBORHOOD. ESPECIALLY RIGHT NOW IN THE FALL WITH THE CHANGING LEAVES THAT WE GET. SO AGAIN, I AM FOR SMART GROWTH, BUT I AM AGAINST THIS PARTICULAR CHANGE BECAUSE I THINK THE DUPLEX, TOWN HOMES THAT COULD GO IN THERE OR THE HOMES THEMSELVES WOULD -- WOULD MEET THE NEEDS OF THE CITY. THANK YOU.
>>MAYOR WATSON: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER HAS A QUESTION.
>>SLUSHER: AND THESE WOULD BE ON A CUL-DE-SAC OFF OF THE EXISTING KINNEY COURT, CORRECT?
>> I -- MY UNDERSTANDING, WE HAVE GONE -- THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND MR. HOWELL HAVE GONE BACK AND FORTH ON HOW THAT WOULD BE DESIGNED. IT WOULD PROBABLY HAVE AN OPENING TO DEL CURTO. AND ON THE KINNEY COURT SIDE AS WELL. AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS -- I MAY BE WRONG, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT BECAUSE OF SAFETY CONCERNS, EMERGENCY VEHICLE ENTRANCE, EXITS, THAT PROBABLY TWO SIDES WOULD HAVE.
>>SLUSHER: OKAY. WE'LL GET -- DISCUSS THAT IN A MINUTE.
>>MAYOR WATSON: I'M NOT SURE ANYBODY CAN AGREE ON THAT ON EITHER SIDE.
>> [INAUDIBLE - NO MIC ON].
>> BUT WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE EMERGENCY ACCESS.
>>SLUSHER: BUT WE CAN DISCUSS THAT. I WAS JUST WONDERING, WITH A CUL-DE-SAC, WHICH IS GOING TO BE -- SO IT'S A STREET BY ITSELF, WHY IT WOULD BE SO OBJECTIONABLE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE DENSITY ON THAT STREET SINCE IT WOULD BE AWAY FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD -- JUST ASSUME FOR THE SAKE OF ANSWERING THAT QUESTION.
>> I DON'T THINK THE CUL-DE-SAC WAS A BIG CONCERN. I THINK IT WAS THE WAY THAT MR. HOWELL HAS DONE -- SUBSEQUENTLY DEVELOPED OR SUBSEQUENTLY FILLED IN -- BUILT --.
>>SLUSHER: ON THE KINNEY COURT?
>> THEY ARE BEAUTIFUL HOMES AND MY 16-YEAR-OLD SON ENCOURAGED ME TO MOVE INTO ONE OF THOSE. HE SAID GET RID OF OUR OLD ONE AND BUY ONE OF THOSE. THEY ARE BEAUTIFUL HOMES, BUT THEY DON'T FIT THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THEY REALLY DO NOT. ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS DRIVE DOWN DEL CURTO.
>>SLUSHER: SEE, I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
>> AND I DON'T KNOW IF -- I PROBABLY AM NOT THE RIGHT PERSON TO ANSWER THE CUL-DE-SAC QUESTION.
>>SLUSHER: THAT'S OKAY. IT'S --
>> IS THAT DEL CURTO ON THAT SIDE?
>>SLUSHER: IT'S ON THE LEFT OR THE WEST. [INAUDIBLE - NO MIC ON].
>> SO IT OPENS UP INTO DEL CURTO. IS THAT DEL CURTO?
>> YES.
>>SLUSHER: THAT'S THE KINNEY COURT. DEL CURTO IS --
>> [INAUDIBLE - NO MIC ON].
>>SLUSHER: YEAH, BUT THAT'S THE OPPOSITE END FROM DEL CURTO.
>> SO THIS MUST BE -- [INAUDIBLE].
>>SLUSHER: THAT'S ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU.
>>MAYOR WATSON: MR. HOWELL.
>> [INAUDIBLE - NO MIC ON].
>>MAYOR WATSON: NO. WE'LL HEAR FROM HER, BUT I DON'T HAVE ANOTHER CARD.
>> YES, I DID FILL OUT A CARD.
>>MAYOR WATSON: WELL, COME ON.
>> HI. MY NAME IS CAROL GIBBS, I LIVE ON ROBERTS. I AM PREBL THE FURTHEST REMOVED FROM THIS DEVELOPMENT, BUT I HAVE BEEN THERE 20 YEARS AND HAVE SEEN THE DUPLEXES THAT MR. HOWELL REFERS TO THAT ARE ALREADY THERE AND THAT ARE VERY DENSE. THEY WERE BUILT BEFORE AUSTIN REALLY STARTED GETTING REAL GREEN SENSITIVE. THEY ARE PROBABLY 20 YEARS OLD NOW. BUT THOSE HOUSES WERE BUILT AMONGST THE TREES. THOSE DUPLEXES. YES, THE TRAFFIC IS HEAVY. YES, THERE'S LOTS OF PEOPLE. BUT IT STILL FITS IN. SO AGAIN, WE DON'T HAVE THE PROBLEM OR AT LEAST I, I'LL SPEAK FOR MYSELF, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE CONCEPT OF DUPLEXES AS LONG AS IT STILL -- YOU KNOW, WE HAVE SOME GREENERY. REGARDING THE CURRENT KINNEY CART PHASE 1, IT'S PAINFUL TO GO IN THERE. SO I HAS PLANTED SOME TREES, SOME VERY TALL, BUT VERY SKINNY TREES. I THINK THERE ARE SOME KIND OF OPINION TOE, RED OAK. THEY ARE SO CLOSES TO THE HOUSE, THEY WILL UPROOT THOSE HOUSES IF THEY SURVIVE. AND BY THE END OF THE SUMMER, THEY WERE LOOKING PRETTY PEAKED FROM THE DOUBT. SO HE'S MADE SOME ATTEMPTS TO PLANTED TREES AND AT LEAST -- IN AT LEAST A FEW OF THE OLDER YARDS, BUT IT'S QUESTIONABLE AS TO THEIR VIABILITY. I ALSO WANTED TO REITERATE JUST THAT WE ARE -- I THINK WE ARE ESPECIALLY CONCERNED THAT -- I MEAN THERE WAS A QUESTION AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT, WELL, THE CURRENT THING IS THE -- THE CURRENT PHASE 1 IS SF-3 SO WHY DO YOU WANT TO KEEP THE NEW ONE SF-3? OUR CONCERN WAS I THINK MORE BECAUSE OF THE VARIANCES. ALL THE VARIANCES ON TOP OF THAT BASICALLY MADE IT A SF-4 OR WORSE. AND -- AND WE JUST FEEL I GUESS A LITTLE BIT GUN SHY, SKIDDISH ABOUT THIS DEVELOPMENT HAVING THE KIND OF -- THE EXTRA LEEWAY THAT SF-4 WILL HAVE. WE'RE ALL FOR URBAN INFILL. NOBODY WANTS TO COMMUTE. BUT THE WAY IN WHICH WE SOLVE PHASE -- SAW PHASE 1 DONE IS CHA HAS US VERY NERVOUS ABOUT PHASE 2. PERSONALLY, I AM ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THE WAY THIS DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN -- PHASE 1 HAS BEEN DONE. THE ACTUAL ONSITE SEDIMENTATION, WHAT DO YOU CALL THEM, SILT FENCES, THINGS LIKE THAT ARE NOT MAINTAINED. IT'S JUST -- IT DOESN'T SEEM REAL NEIGHBORLY, AND THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING OF URBAN INFILL, IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE NEIGHBORLY, NOT ONLY BLEND IN VISUALLY, BUT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION, YOU KNOW, NEIGHBORLY RELATIONS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND I INVITE YOU TO COME SEE WHAT WE LOOK LIKE NOW AND WHAT KINNEY COURT LOOKS LIKE AND IMAGINE WHAT THOSE TWO WILL LOOK LIKE.
>>MAYOR WATSON: THANK YOU. MR. HOWELL, YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES REBUTTAL. COUNCIL, WE'RE RIGHT AT 5:30. MY RECOMMENDATION IS GOING TO BE WHEN WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, WE TAKE A BREAK, GO TO THE PROCLAMATIONS AND LIVE MUSIC AND THEN COME BACK AND I'LL TAKE A VOTE ON THIS UNLESS WE BELIEVE THAT IT WILL BE A RAPID VOTE. MR. HOWELL.
>> VERY LITTLE REBUTTAL, MAYOR. IF SOMEONE HAS A QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS THAT WERE PUT ON US AND THAT -- THE RESTRICTIONS PUT ON BY STAFF, THEY ARE CERTAINLY WELCOME TO TALK TO ME ABOUT IT. AT THIS POINT NOBODY ELSE OTHER THAN STAFF HAS TALKED TO ME BIT. WE HAVE SATISFIED THE STAFF THAT WE DID IN FACT DO EXACTLY AS WE WERE ASKED TO DO. AND ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OF THAT, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO HAVE THAT WITH YOU. ASIDE FROM THAT, I'M HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. I BELIEVE MR. ALVAREZ HAD ONE.
>>MAYOR WATSON: COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION?
>>ALVAREZ: YEAH, I BELIEVE IN TALKING TO SOME OF THE RESIDENTS THEY HAD MENTIONED THAT OBVIOUSLY THE CONCERNS ABOUT GOING THIS ROUTE, SF-4A AND THAT YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT IF FOR SOME REASON THIS DIDN'T PASS YOU WOULD MOVE FORWARD WITH THE DUPLEX OPTION. IS THAT SOMETHING YOU ARE SERIOUSLY CONSIDERING OR --
>> COUNCILMEMBER SPELMAN, WE DID THE VILLAGE AT -- COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ, WE DID THE VILLAGE OF KINNEY COURT. THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY CAME UP FOR SALE, IT WAS OFFERED TO A GENTLEMAN WHOSE IDEA WAS TO PUT DUPLEXES ON IT. WE DID NOT WANT THE DUPLEXES. WE HAVE A VERY LARGE INVESTMENT OF THE VILLAGE OF KINNEY COURT. AND TO GIVE YOU SOME PERSPECTIVE OF THAT, WE OPENED IN MARCH. WE WERE SOLD OUT AS OF THIS MONTH, WHICH IS A FAIRLY PHENOMINAL THING EVEN IN THIS MARKETPLACE. THESE ARE SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DWELLINGS WITH A PARK. WE HAVE 60 FAMILIES THAT AT THIS POINT ARE VERY, VERY HAPPY WITH WHERE THEY LIVE. AND WE HAVE A LIST OF OTHER PEOPLE WHO WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE TO BE THERE.
>>GOODMAN: IS THERE A LANDSCAPING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT THAT GOES WITH ANY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT?
>> THERE IS -- THERE IS THE ORDINANCE PROVISION HAVING TO DO WITH CLASS 1 PROTECTED TREES. WE HAVE LANDSCAPING AS A PART OF THE CCNR'S. THE TREES THEY REFERRED TO ARE TREES THAT ARE APPROXIMATELY 12 FEET IN HEIGHT. THEY WERE PLANTED VERY SPECIFICALLY WHAT THEY WERE BECAUSE THEY ARE STREET TREES, WHICH ARE TREES ESSENTIALLY THAT DO NOT HAVE VERY LOW BRANCHES, THEIR CAN KNOW PIECE, THEY ARE -- DO NOT ULTIMATELY GIVE THAT GROWTH EFFECT OF CROSSING THE STREET, DOING THE STREET CANOPY THING.
>>GOODMAN: SO ARE THERE REQUIREMENTS FOR SF-3 AS WELL?
>> COUNCILMEMBER, I'M NOT SURE. I WOULD HAVE TO ASK MR. GUERNSEY. AS TO THE SETBACKS SHOWN ON OUR PROPOSED PLAT FOR THE SITE SETBACKS, IF YOU WOULD LIKE, YOU MAY ASK STAFF MEMBERS -- GREG GUERNSEY, WE ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THAT ORDINANCE WITH THOSE SETBACKS SHOWN AS MINIMUM.
>>GOODMAN: THANK YOU.
>>MAYOR WATSON: FURTHER QUESTIONS? COUNCIL, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH. DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED SAY NO. MOTION CARRIES. PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. COUNCIL, I'M GOING TO INTRODUCE YOU TO SOMEBODY AND I'M GOING TO ASK HER TO HELP ME OUT. IF YOU WILL RECALL, IN THE PAST WE HAVE HAD YOUNG PEOPLE IN OUR COMMUNITY HELP US BY BEING MAYOR FOR A DAY. AND I -- WE STOPPED DOING THAT AND I WAS REMINDED OF WHAT A GOOD PROGRAM IT WAS AND SO WHAT WE DID IN THE MAYOR'S OFFICE IS WE CREATED A LITTLE PROGRAM WHERE WE WENT INTO THE SCHOOLS HERE IN THE AUSTIN AREA AND WE ASKED FOR PEOPLE TO WRITE ESSAYS ABOUT WHY THEY WOULD LIKE TO BE MAYOR FOR A DAY. AND WE HAVE 14 WINNERS FROM AROUND THE COMMUNITY, AND TODAY IS THE FIRST DAY THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE ONE OF OUR YOUNG MAYORS FOR A DAY HELP US OUT. AND SO I WANT TO START -- BEFORE I TAKE A MOTION, I'M GOING TO READ A PROCLAMATION BECAUSE WE'RE REAL PROUD TO HAVE ANGELICA WITH US TODAY. BE IT KNOWN BY THESE PRESENTS THAT I, KIRK WATSON, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS, DO HEREBY PROCLAIM ANGELA HAS MAYOR FOR A DAY IN AUSTIN AND CALL ON ALL CITIZENS TO JOIN ME IN RECOGNIZING THAT SHE IS IN THE FIFTH GRADE AT BART HILLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS AND CONSIDERS HEAR AND WRITING HER FAVORITE SUBJECTS. IN RECOGNIZING THAT SHE ASPIRES TO BE THE FIRST FEMALE HISPANIC PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES --. [APPLAUSE]. -- AND AT THE RATE WE'RE GOING, SHE COULD BE THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. [LAUGHTER]. IN RECOGNIZING THAT SHE ENJOYS EXPERIMENTING IN THE COMPUTERS ON THE COMPUTER, SKETCHING AND PLAYING WITH HER SISTER AND HER CAT RASCAL AND IN RECOGNIZING THAT SHE ENJOYS ALL THE FUN THINGS TO DO IN AUSTIN. WE ARE PLEASED TO HONOR ANGELA AS MAYOR FOR A DAY AND WISH HER WELL IN HER EDUCATIONAL AND POLITICAL PURSUITS. AND IT'S SIGNED BY ME, KIRK WATSON, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS, AND WE ARE VERY PLEASED TO HAVE YOU WITH US, MAYOR DAVILA. [APPLAUSE]. HERE'S WHAT I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO DO.
>> THERE A MOTION TO RECESS THE MEETING?
>> SO MOVED.
>>MAYOR WATSON: MOTION MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER.
>> ALL IN FAVOR?
>> AYE.
>>MAYOR WATSON: ALL OPPOSED?
>> ALL OPPOSED?
>>MAYOR WATSON: MOTION CARRIES. WE'RE IN RECESS UNTIL 6:00. AND MAYOR DAVILA IS GOING TO HELP ME WITH PROCLAMATIONS AND THE LIVE MUSIC. [APPLAUSE].
>>MAYOR WATSON: IF I COULD GET EVERYBODY'S I TENSION. COULD I GET EVERYBODY'S ATTENTION? OUR MAYOR IS GOING TO INTRODUCE OUR LIVE MUSIC.
>> TODD HOKE --.
>>MAYOR WATSON: GET REAL CLOSE TO THE MICROPHONE.
>> TODD HOKE, NOW RESIDES IN AUSTIN WITH HIS WIFE. HE IS ACTIVE IN HELPING THE COMMUNITY AND PARTICIPATES IN MANY VOLUNTEER PROGRAMS SUCH AS MEALS ON WHEELS. TODD'S MUSIC COVERS A WIDE RANGE OF TOPICS FROM CELEBRATING THE BEAT OF WEST TEXAS TO MOURNING THE SHOOTING AT COLUMBINE HIGH SCHOOL. EARLIER THIS YEAR TODD RECORDED AND RELEASED HIS FIRST CD, HEADED WEST ON 10. IN CELEBRATION OF TODD HOKE DAY, TODD AND HIS MUSICAL SIZE KICKS WILL BE PRESENTING A FREE CONCERT TONIGHT AT TRINITY UNITED METHODIST CHURCH AT 600 EAST 50TH STREET. PLEASE JOIN ME TODAY IN WELCOMING TODD HOKE. [APPLAUSE].
>>MAYOR WATSON: AND MAYOR DAVILLA AND I ARE DECLARING TODAY, NOVEMBER 30TH, 2000, AS TODD HOKE DAY IN AUSTIN AND CALLING ON ALL SILT SENSE TO JOIN US IN RECOGNIZING THE MANY OUTSTANDING YXZ BY THE LOCAL MUSIC COMMUNITY TOWARD THE DEVELOPMENT OF AUSTIN'S SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL DIVERSITY AND IN RECOGNIZING THE DEDICATED EFFORTS OF ARTISTS WHICH FURTHER AUSTIN'S STATUS OF THE LIVE MUSIC CAPITAL OF THE WORLD. THIS ONE HAPPENS TO BE SIGNED BY ME, BUT MAYOR DAVILLA JOINS ME IN IT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, TODD HOKE. [APPLAUSE].
>> THANK YOU, MAYORS. WHEN BRENDA JOHNSON AT THE AUSTIN MUSIC OFFICE CONTACTED ME TO SEE IF I WOULD LIKE TO DO THIS AND I PROMPTLY TOLD HER YES, I JUST THOUGHT HE WAS GOING TO GET TO PLAY FOR A ROOM FULL OF WELL DRESSED PEOPLE, WHICH IS KIND OF A RARITY AS A MUSICIAN. BUT WHEN SHE TOLD ME THAT IT WOULD BE PROCLAIMED TODD HOKE DAY IN AUSTIN, I SHARED THAT WITH MY FRIENDS. I GOT A LOT OF RIBBING. THEY WANTED TO KNOW WHEN THE -- WHETHER OR NOT SCHOOLS WOULD BE OUT AND THAT SORT OF THING. THAT'S THE KIND OF FRIENDS I HAVE. BUT ONE NIGHT I WAS SITTING OUT ON OUR FRONT PORCH WATCHING THE MOON AND ALL THAT SORT OF THING AND STARTED THINKING ABOUT WHAT WOULD IT MEAN IF HAVING A DAY NAMED AFTER YOU ACTUALLY GRANTED YOU SOME SORT OF OMNIPOTENCE, SOME OF THE THINGS I WOULD LIKE TO SEE HAPPEN. SO I WROTE A SONG CALLED MY OWN DAY AND MY FRIEND. LINDA IS GOING TO STEP UP AND SIGN THIS AS I GO THROUGH IT. (music) (music) IF I HAD MY OWN DAY, EVERYONE WOULD HAVE A HOME (music) (music). (music) NOBODY WOULD GO HUNGRY, WE WOULD ALL KNOW THAT WE BELONG (music) (music). (music) WHEN THE BIRDS, THEY BE SINGING, SUN WOULD BRIGHTLY SHINE (music) (music). (music) OH, IF I HAD A DAY TO CALL MY OWN. (music) (music). (music) IF I HAD MY OWN DAY, NO NATION WOULD BE AT WAR. THE GUNS, THEY WOULD ALL GROW DUSTY, WE WOULD FORGET WHAT THEY WERE FOR. AND THE GENERALS, THEY WOULD GO FISHING, CLOSE THAT PENTAGON. OH, IF I HAD A DAY ALL MY OWN (music) (music). (music) AND KNOW I KNOW THAT I'M DREAMING, THIS ALL SOUNDS NAIVE, IN THESE TIMES IN WHICH WE'RE LIVING, IT'S SO HARD TO BELIEVE IN THINGS LIKE LOVE AND HUMAN KINDNESS, BUT THERE'S A BETTER WAY. HOW ABOUT YOU JUST WATCH WHAT HAPPENS COME MY -- YEAH, COME MY DAY (music) (music). (music) IF I HAD MY OWN DAY, MY GRANDMOTHER, SHE WOULD BE PROUD (music) (music). (music) SEE HER SMILING DOWN FROM HEAVEN, I WOULD HEAR HER LAUGH OUT LOUD (music) (music). (music) AND SHE WOULD SAY BOY, IT DOES THIS OLD HEART GOOD TO SEE THE THINGS YOU'VE DONE, NOW YOU'VE HAD A BUSY DAY, SLEEP WELL, MY GRANDSON (music) (music). (music) YOU'VE HAD A BUSY DAY, SLEEP WELL MY GRANDSON (music) (music). [APPLAUSE].
>> THANK YOU.
>>MAYOR WATSON: WHY DON'T YOU TELL US WHERE YOU ARE PLAYING.
>> IN ADDITION TO THE FREE SHOW TONIGHT BECAUSE TODD HOKE DAY ISN'T ABOUT THE DOLLAR, FRIENDS, WHICH IS AT TRINITY UNITED METHODIST CHURCH FROM 7 TO 9 AND IF YOU GET DONE ARGUING WHAT YOU ARE HERE TO ARGUE, PLEASE COME UP. I'LL ALSO BE ON WEDNESDAY DECEMBER 27TH OUT AT THE AUSTIN AIRPORT RIGHT AMONGST THE BARBECUE AND BEER VENDORS ON THE STAGE THERE. I'LL BE PLAYING WITH A COUPLE OF FRIENDS FROM 4:00 TO 6:00. SO THANK YOU. HAPPY TODD HOKE DAY. THANKS, MAYORS. [APPLAUSE].
>>MAYOR WATSON: I'VE GOT TO TELL YOU I LOVE HIS COMMENT THAT IF -- BY DECLARING A DAY IN THE NAME OF SOMEBODY THAT MADE THEM BRIGHTER OR SMARTER, THERE ARE A LOT OF FOLKS THIS THIS TOWN I WOULD BE DECLARING THEIR DAY RIGHT NOW. [LAUGHTER]. OUR NEXT PROCLAMATION IS FOR -- DO YOU WANT TO ANNOUNCE THAT?
>>.
>>MAYOR WATSON: ONE OF THE GOOD THINGS ABOUT ME NAMING KIDS AS MAYOR FOR THE DAY IS BOTH OF US CAN SHARE THE MICROPHONE PRETTY EASILY.
>> THE NEXT PROCLAMATION IS FOR THE GIFTED AND TALENTED EDUCATION DAY.
>>MAYOR WATSON: AMANDA, IF YOU WOULD COME UP. I'LL READ THIS, BE IT KNOWN THAT I KIRK WATSON, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS, DO HEREBY PROCLAIM NOVEMBER 29TH THROUGH DECEMBER 2ND, 2000 AS GIFTED AND TALENTED EDUCATION DAYS IN AUSTIN AND I CALL ON ALL CITIZENS TO JOIN ME IN RECOGNIZING THAT THE TEXAS ASSOCIATION FOR THE GIFTED AND TALENTED IS AN 8,000 MEMBER ORGANIZATION THAT ADVOCATES AND SUPPORTS APPROPRIATE EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR TEXAS'S GIFTED AND TALENTED STUDENTS. IN RECOGNIZING THAT THE TEXAS ASSOCIATION FOR THE GIFTED AND TALENTED IS HOLDING ITS 23RD ANNUAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT CONVERSATION FOR EDUCATORS AND PARENTS ENTITLED GIFTED EDUCATION, PASSPORT TO THE 21ST CENTURY, IN OUR FAIR CITY. AND IN WELCOMING ALL ATTENDEES AND WISHING THEM A PRODUCTIVE AND ENJOYABLE EXCHANGE AS WELL AS A PLEASANT STAY. IT'S SIGNED BY ME. MS. BASSON, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. [APPLAUSE].
>>MAYOR WATSON: WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING?
>> JUST VERY QUICKLY. WE CERTAINLY DO APPRECIATE THE PROCLAMATION FROM THE CITY AND I'M HAPPY TO REPORT THAT WE DO HAVE OVER 5,000 EDUCATORS AND PARENTS IN TOWN FOR OUR CONFERENCE. AND WE WOULD WELCOME ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO ATTEND. WE HAVE FILLED THE CONVENTION CENTER, THE HYATT AND THE RADISSON AND IT'S OPEN TO ALL. THANK YOU, MAYOR AND AND THANK YOU, CITY, FOR YOUR SUPPORT.
>>MAYOR WATSON: THANK YOU. [APPLAUSE].
>> NEXT WE HAVE TWO DISTINGUISHED SERVICE AWARDS. WOULD BEN AND TIM FIZZLE PLEASE COME UP?
>>MAYOR WATSON: WHILE THEY ARE COMING FORWARD -- WELL, LET ME JUST -- LET ME JUST SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, AUSTIN IS A SPECIAL PLACE AND ONE THAT WE HAVE LOTS OF OPPORTUNITY TO RECOGNIZE GREAT THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING. YOU KNOW, FOR EXAMPLE, RECOGNIZING SUCH A WONDERFUL PERSON AS OUR MAYOR FOR A DAY AND WHAT SHE CONTRIBUTES TO THE COMMUNITY. AND THEN THERE ARE FOLKS THAT IN EVERY DAY LIFE THEY POP UP AND THEY ARE DOING SOMETHING SPECIAL FOR OUR COMMUNITY. BEN AND TIM ARE HERE WITH US AND THEY ARE BEING HONORED WITH THE DISTINGUISHED SERVICE AWARD. BOTH OF THEM ARE HOME SCHOOLED, THEY ARE DEVOTE CHRISTIANS, BEN IS 16, TIM IS 13. BEN IS INTERESTED IN MILITARY TECHNOLOGY AND MODEL TRAINS, WORKING ON HIS PILOTS LICENSE AND HAS PASSED HIS GROUND TEST. THAT'S WONDERFUL. TIM, WHO I INDICATED AS 13, IS INVOLVED IN HIS CHURCH YOUTH GROUP, PLAYS THE CELLO, INTERESTED IN REPTILES AND LIKE FOOTBALL. HE'S A BOY SCOUT AND ALMOST A STAR SCOUT HAVING EARNED 25 MERIT BADGES SO FAR. BY THE WAY, HIS DAD MIKE IS HIS SCOUT MASTER. BUT WE'RE REAL PROUD OF THEM BECAUSE THEY STOPPED A ROBBERY ATTEMPT OF A NEIGHBOR'S HOME. AND I WANT TO READ THIS DISTINGUISHED SERVICE AWARD THAT WILL GO TO WHAT I WILL DO IS I WILL READ THE ONE THAT GOES TO BEN AND THEN I'LL ASK MAYOR DAVILLA TO READ THE ONE THAT GOES TO TIM. DISTINGUISHED SERVICE AWARD. IN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND APPRECIATION OF HIS SHARP EYES, QUICK RESPONSE AND HEROIC EFFORTS IN ABORTING THE ROBBERY OF A NEIGHBOR'S HOME AND ASSISTING IN THE APPREHENSION OF THE INTRUDERS, BEN IS DESERVING OF PUBLIC ACCLAIM AND RECOGNITION. WE APPRECIATE THE EXAMPLE OF COURAGE AND GOOD NEIGHBORLYNESS IN A HE PROVIDES. PRESENTED THIS 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2000, ON BEHALF OF THE ENTIRE CITY COUNCILL OF AUSTIN, TEXAS, IT'S SIGNED BY ME, KIRK WATSON, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS, AND I COULDN'T BE MORE HAPPY TO PRESENT THIS TO BENEFIT BEN. CONGRATULATIONS. [APPLAUSE].
>>MAYOR WATSON: THANK YOU.
>> OKAY. IN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND APPRECIATION OF HIS SHARP EYES, QUICK RESPONSE AND HEROIC EFFORTS IN AVOIDING THE ROBBERY OF A NEIGHBOR'S HOME AND ASSISTING IN THE APPREHENSION OF INTRUDERS, TIM IS DESERVING OF PUBLIC ACCLAIM AND RECOGNITION. WE APPRECIATE THE EXAMPLE OF COURAGE AND GOOD NEIGHBORLYNESS THAT HE PROVIDES FOR ALL AUSTINITES. PRESENTED THIS 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, AD, 2000. [APPLAUSE].
>>MAYOR WATSON: CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU. WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING? OKAY. ALL RIGHT WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING? THANK YOU GUYS. ON BEHALF OF ALL OF AUSTIN, WE REALLY DO APPRECIATE WHAT YOU MEAN AND THE GOOD EXAMPLE YOU SET. NOT ONLY FOR YOUNG PEOPLE, BUT FOR ALL AUSTINITES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. [APPLAUSE].
>>MAYOR WATSON: COME ON UP. YEAH, LET'S DO THAT REAL QUICK. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO DO THAT. [ONE MOMENT, PLEASE, WHILE CAPTIONERS CHANGE]. FOR WORLD AIDS DAY.
>>MAYOR WATSON: WE HAVE SOME MORE FOLKS COMING UP.
>> LATE COMERS. COME ON EVERYBODY, BE PART OF THIS. IF YOU GOT MORE, COME ON. [LAUGHTER]. GOOD TO HAVE YOU HERE.
>> BE IT KNOWN BY THESE PRESENTS, THAT I KIRK WATSON -- OOPS [LAUGHTER].
>> SAY YOUR NAME.
>> THAT I DAVILA, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS FOR THIS DAY DO HERE BY PROCLAIM DECEMBER 1ST, 2000, AS WORLD AIDS DAY. AND ALL ON ALL CITIZENS TO JOIN ME IN RECOGNIZING THE SERIOUSNESS OF AIDS IN TRAVIS COUNTY. IN ACKNOWLEDGING THOSE AFFECTED BY THE H.I.V. VIRUS THAT CAUSES AIDS, IN RECOGNIZING THE MANY MEDICAL AND SOCIAL SERVICE AGENCIES IN OUR COMMUNITY WHICH ARE PROVIDING MUCH NEEDED CARE, SUPPORT AND EDUCATION IN THE EFFORT TO PREVENT AIDS AND IN RECOGNIZING THE CONTRIBUTIONS MADE BY MANY PEOPLE TO BENEFIT AIDS CARE, EDUCATION AND RESEARCH IN OUR COMMUNITY.
>> CONGRATULATIONS. [APPLAUSE]
>>MAYOR WATSON: I BELIEVE DAVID LOWRY IS GOING TO ACCEPT THIS AND SAY A FEW WORDS.
>> THANK YOU, I APPRECIATE IT. MAYOR, I WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT TO YOU THIS RIBBON TO WEAR TOMORROW FOR WORLD AIDS DAY TO SHOW YOUR AWARENESS OF H.I.V. AND AIDS. JUST A FEW COMMENTS, DECEMBER 1 IS RECOGNIZED THROUGHOUT THE WORLD OR WORLD AIDS DAY. IT'S INTENDED TO BRING AWARENESS TOWARDS THE AIDS EPIDEMIC AND GENERATE A GLOBAL MOBILIZATION RELATIVE TO THE FIGHT AGAINST AIDS. HERE IN TRAVIS COUNTY, SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE AIDS EPIDEMIC, THERE HAS BEEN A CONSUME ACTIVE TOTAL OF 3,594 INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE BEEN DIAGNOSED WITH AIDS. A CUMLATIVE TOTAL. OF THAT NUMBER 2004 HAVE DIED OF AIDS. SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THIS YEAR, 380 NEW CASES OF H.I.V. INVEHICLES HAVE BEEN REPORTED. -- CASES HAVE BEEN REPORTED. IT IS ADVERSELY AFFECTING OUR MINORITY POPULATIONS HERE IN TRAVIS COUNTY. WE NEED TO COME TOGETHER TO WORK TO PREVENT THIS DISEASE. THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT IT IS PREVENTABLE. FOR THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO BECOME INFECTED, IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THEY KNOW THAT THEY ARE INFECTED BECAUSE THERE ARE MEDICAL INTERVENTIONS THAT MAY MAKE A TREMENDOUS DIFFERENCE. MAYOR WATSON, THE COUNCILMEMBERS, MYSELF, WE ARE WEARING THESE RED RIBBONS TO SHOW OUR AWARENESS OF H.I.V. AIDS. WE ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO WEAR A RIBBON TOMORROW, TO TALK WITH YOUR FRIENDS AND FAMILY MEMBERS, EXCUSE ME, ABOUT THIS EPIDEMIC, WHAT CAN BE DONE TO PREVENT EXPOSURE TO THIS VIRUS. I WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS APPRECIATION FOR ALL OF THE WONDERFUL AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE WORKING SO HARD THROUGHOUT OUR COMMUNITY TO FIGHT AIDS AND I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO THANK OUR H.I.V. PLANNING COUNCIL, MEMBERS WHO VOLUNTEER THEIR TIME, DEVOUT A LOT OF ENERGY TO IDENTIFYING WHAT THE NEEDS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH AIDS, AND MAKING DECISIONS ABOUT THE ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND INTERVENTIONS TO AGAIN ATTACK THIS PROBLEM IN OUR COMMUNITY. AND I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO RECOGNIZE THE STAFF WITHIN THE HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT, OUR H.I.V. PREVENTION UNIT AND THE DAVID POWELL CLINIC. A GROUP OF FOLKS WHO ALSO DO A WONDERFUL JOB IN PROVIDING VERY ESSENTIAL SERVICES TO PEOPLE FROM THROUGHOUT OUR COMMUNITY. AND WITH ME TODAY TO ACCEPT THIS PROCLAMATION IS THE CHAIR OF THE H.I.V. PLANNING COUNCIL, BYRON CONNALLY. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK BYRON TO STEP FORWARD. BYRON? [APPLAUSE]
>> I WASN'T PREPARED TO SAY ANYTHING. [LAUGHTER]. WE HAVE GOT AN EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE WAITING FOR US, SO I WILL MAKE THIS SHORT. THANK YOU FROM THE H.I.V. PLANNING COUNCIL AND ALL OF THE PEOPLE, THE VOLUNTEERS, THE COMMUNITY FOR WHOM WE WORK. WE APPRECIATE THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCILL PROCLAIMING DECEMBER 1ST AS WORLD AIDS DAY. THANK YOU. [APPLAUSE]
>>SLUSHER: BRUCE, DO YOU WANT TO COME UP? HEY, BRUCE, LOOKING GOOD. BRUCE WALENSEK IS THE FOUNDER AND OPERATOR, HEAD MAN AT THE ARMADILLO CHRISTMAS BAZAAR, WHICH IS -- HAS BECOME A GREAT TRADITION HERE IN AUSTIN. I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO IT AGAIN THIS YEAR. OPENS ON DECEMBER 9TH. ROSE FROM THE ASHES OF THE ARMADILLO WORLD HEADQUARTERS, HELPS PRESERVE AUSTIN CULTURE. THIS PLAYS A KEY ROLE IN THAT. BRUCE HAS EVEN COME UP WITH A TERM FOR THIS SORT OF THING, CULTURAL ENVIRONMENTALISM. HE WORKS HARD ON THE ARTS COMMISSION, A NUMBER OF OTHER PLACES. THE REALLY GREAT THING IS TO SEE THE PRODUCTS, THE -- THE LOCAL ART. JUST HAVE A REALLY GOOD TIME LISTENING TO AUSTIN MUSIC WHILE YOU ARE SHOPPING. REALLY A GREAT TIME, SO I WANT TO CONGRATULATE BRUCE ON EVERYTHING HE DOES FOR THE COMMUNITY AND I HOPE TO SEE A LOT OF YOU DOWN AT THE ARMADILLO CHRISTMAS BAZAAR, I WILL CERTAINLY BE SPENDING SOME TIME DOWN THERE. I AM GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO MAYOR DAVILA TO PRESENT THE PROCLAMATION.
>> THANK YOU.
>> BE IT KNOWN BY THESE PRESENTS, THAT I ANGELA DAVILA MAYOR OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN DO HERE BY PROCLAIM DECEMBER 9TH THROUGH THE 24TH 2000 AS ARMADILLO CHRISTMAS BAZAAR DAYS IN AUSTIN AND CALL ON ALL CITIZENS TO JOIN ME IN RECOGNIZING THAT IT BEGAN IN 197 A AS A WAY TO GIVE ARTISTS ON THE DRAG A WARM, DRY PLACE TO SPELL, IN RECOGNIZING THAT IT HAS BECOME AN AUSTIN TRADITION -- TO SPELL, IN RECOGNIZING THAT IT HAS ABOUT BECOME AN AUSTIN TRADITION FEATURING THE WORK OF EXCELLENT ARTISTS AND ENTERTAINMENT BY TALENTED MUSICIANS AND IN RECOGNIZING THAT IT'S A UNIQUELY AUSTIN EVENT THAT REPRESENTS THE BEST OF OUR COMMUNITY'S CULTURAL CHARACTER. I CALL ON ALL CITIZENS TO JOIN ME IN CONGRATULATING THE ARMADILLO CHRISTMAS BAZAAR ON ITS 25TH ANNIVERSARY AND TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS FUN AND FESTIVE EVENT. [APPLAUSE]
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MA'AM. [APPLAUSE]
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IT'S A PLEASURE TO LIVE IN A CITY LIKE AUSTIN, TEXAS, WHERE -- WHERE AN EVENT LIKE THIS CAN HAPPEN. WE AT THE ARMADILLO WORLD HEADQUARTERS WERE LOOKING FOR A WAY TO -- TO INCREASE OUR CULTURAL REACH AND HAVE A CASH FLOW IN DECEMBER WHEN LUCINDA WILLIAMS SUGGESTED WE DO THIS. WE HAVE CARRIED THIS ON NOW THROUGH OUR 25TH YEAR. DURING THOSE YEARS I HAVE DONE SOME WORK FOR THE CITY IN SOME VOLUNTEER CAPACITIES, IT'S JUST REALLY WONDERFUL TO HAVE A CITY THAT'S HELPED THIS MUCH FOR OUR ARTISTS AND MUSICIANS WITH THE CONSTRUCTION DOWNTOWN WE WERE CONCERNED AS TO WHETHER OR NOT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO OPERATE THIS YEAR AND MANY OF THE COUNCILMEMBERS, WE REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR EFFORTS AND THOSE OF. >FUTRELL:. ONE OF THE MOST -- OF TOBY FUTRELL. ONE OF THE MOST ENCOURAGING THINGS THAT HAPPENED IS WHAT COUNCIL WAS BEING SWORN IN, ONE OF THE NEW COUNCILMEMBERS, WILL WIN SAID HE WOULD TAKE STRONG STEPS TO SEE THAT THIS DOES NOT BECOME ANOTHER BIG CITY IN THE UNITED STATES OF GENERICA. WE HAVE TRIED TO SEE THAT AUSTIN'S CULTURAL SDWINGS ACTIVENESS, THE THINGS THAT MAKE US DIFFERENT FROM EVERY OTHER CITY CONTINUES TO BE CELEBRATED. IT'S WONDERFUL TO HAVE THESE KINDS OF ALLIES ON THE COUNCIL AND IN THE CITY, WE ARE FOREVER GRATEFUL. THANKS YOU. DISTINCTIVENESS.
>> GOOD JOB, BRUCE, THANKS.
>>THOMAS: I WANT TO ASK THAT SOME OF -- VELMA'S SON AND FAMILY AND FRIENDS COME UP AS WE PRESENT THIS DISTINGUISHED AWARD. LET ME STILL -- TELL PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT AWARE WHAT HAPPENED. VELMA LOEFFLERS WENT HOME. VELMA WAS A VERY HARD WORKER FOR THE COMMUNITY, VERY COMMUNITY ACTIVIST, WORKED ON A LOT OF PROGRAMS IN THE CITY STOOD OUT FOR ISSUES THAT WERE OCCURRING IN THE CITY, WAS WELL KNOWN AT THE COUNCIL, WITH A FRIEND OF HERS, DOROTHY TURNER, THEY CALLED THEM BATMAN AND ROBIN. BUT VELMA LEFT AND WE JUST WANT TO -- TO GIVE THE FAMILY SOMETHING IN REMEMBRANCE OF VELMA AND LET THEM KNOW TO HOLD THEIR HEADS UP THAT GOD IS ABLE TO DO ANYTHING, ANY HEALING, ANY PAIN, HE'S ABLE TO TAKE CARE OF THAT. ON BEHALF OF THE CITY, I'M GOING TO LET THE MAYOR -- WHAT'S YOUR LAST NAME? DAVILA, READ THE PROCLAMATION -- THE DISTINGUISHED SERVICE AWARD.
>> THANK YOU.
>> FOR HER UNTIRING EFFORTS AND UNSELFISH SERVICE TO OUR COMMUNITY AS A HIGHLY RESPECTED AND DEDICATED LEADER AND FOUNDER, AS A COMPASSIONATE AND COMMITTED COMMUNITY ACTIVIST, AND A LOVING MOTHER, SHE WAS DESERVING IN PUBLIC ACCLAIM AND RECOGNITION. IN MEDICAL YUM, VELMA ROBERTS PRESENTED THIS DAY -- MEMORIUM, PRESENTED THIS 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, AD, 2000. THE CITY COUNCILL OF AUSTIN, TEXAS. [APPLAUSE]
>> I WOULD LIKE TO THANK COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS AND THE CITY COUNCILL. I'M PROUD TO ACCEPT THIS AWARD ON BEHALF OF MY MOTHER. BASICALLY WHY SHE WAS HERE WITH ME LIVING UP ON HER ROOF, I HAD THE BEST SEAT IN THE HOUSE TO SEE HER WORK. I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT NOT ONLY DID SHE STRIVE TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN EAST AUSTIN, BUT FOR ALL CITIZENS OF AUSTIN. THANK YOU. [APPLAUSE]
>>MAYOR WATSON: THAT CONCLUDES OUR LIVE MUSIC AND PROCLAMATIONS. I WANT TO SAY JUST A COUPLE OF REAL QUICK THINGS ABOUT OUR MAYOR FOR A DAY. FIRST OF ALL, AS I INDICATED WHEN WE FIRST STARTED THIS, THE WAY WE HAVE CHOSEN TO SELECT OUR VARIOUS MAYORS FOR A DAY IS BECAUSE THEY WROTE ESSAYS AND THEY WERE OUTSTANDING ESSAYS AND IT WAS A LOT OF FUN IN THE MAYOR'S OFFICE TO GET THE OPPORTUNITY TO READ THESE AND JUDGE THESE THINGS. AND ONE OF THE THINGS IS PRETTY COOL WHEN YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET TO NAME SOMEBODY MAYOR FOR A DAY AND THEY GET TO SERVE WITH YOU, WHEN THEY ARE -- WHEN THEY ARE BRIGHT AND INTERESTED AND INVOLVED THE WAY THEY ARE. BUT WE OUGHT TO ALSO SAY A SPECIAL CONGRATULATIONS TO THE PARENTS OF SOMEONE THAT IS DOING SUCH A GOOD JOB AND SO I WANT TO TAKE A MINUTE TO RECOGNIZE HER PARENTS AND I'M GOING TO LET THE MAYOR INTRODUCE HER PARENTS TO US.
>> GO AHEAD.
>> OKAY. I WOULD LIKE TO RECOGNIZE MY PARENTS, MARIA AND JAVIER DAVILA.
>> PLEASE STAND UP. [APPLAUSE]
>>.
>>MAYOR WATSON: CONGRATULATIONS, YOU HAVE A LOT TO BE PROUD OF. WE ARE REAL PROUD OF YOUR DAUGHTER. WHAT YOU CAN DO IS SAY COUNCIL IS GOING TO BE IN RECESS FOR 10 MINUTES AND THEN WE WILL CALL THE COUNCIL BACK TO ORDER.
>> THE COUNCIL IS GOING TO BE IN RECESS FOR ANOTHER 10 MINUTES.
>>MAYOR WATSON: THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH, WE WILL BE IN RECESS FOR 10 MINUTES.
>>MAYOR WATSON: I WILL CALL THE AUSTIN BACK TO ORDER, WE WILL GO BACK TO ITEM NO. 91, WHEN WE RECESSED WE JUST CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM NO. 91, NOW I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION WITH REGARD TO THE SUBSTANCE OF ITEM NO. 91. MAYOR PRO TEM?
>>GOODMAN: I DON'T HAVE A MOTION. I HAVE A COMMENT, THOUGH.
>>MAYOR WATSON: OKAY.
>>GOODMAN: IN BETWEEN WHEN WE LEFT HERE AND NOW, WHAT I HAD THOUGHT MIGHT BE A VIABLE IDEA WAS TO -- TO NOT TAKE ANY ACTION AT ALL AS COUNCIL, WHICH WOULD ALLOW MR. HOW WE WILL TO CONSIDER COMING BACK IN WITH A -- HOWELL COMING BACK IN WITH A NEW ZONING CATEGORY WHICH I THOUGHT IF IT WAS S.F. 6 MIGHT MEET THE NEEDS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN THAT YOU DON'T HAVE A LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE THAT YOU HAVE TO COMPLY WITH UNLESS YOU HAVE A SITE PLAN. IN RESIDENTIAL YOU DON'T HAVE SITE PLANS. S.F. 6 YOU DO. THE MAXIMUM BASE ZONING FOR S.F. 6, THOUGH, IS 12 TO THE ACRE WHICH YOU CAN TALK ABOUT. HARDLY ANYBODY ACTUALLY IS ABLE TO MAX OUT BECAUSE OF TERRAIN, SO ON. BUT I THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE A WAY FOR FOLKS TO COME TOGETHER AND TALK ABOUT THE GREEN SPACE AND IMPERVIOUS COVER. THAT YOU HAD MENTIONED WHEN YOU SPOKE. I HAD THE IDEA THAT, EXCUSE ME, MR. HOWL WASN'T REALLY INTERESTED IN THAT. HE MIGHT CONSIDER IT IF WE TOOK THIS ON FIRST READING, I'M NOT SURE WHAT ANY OF US GAINED BY THAT. SO -- SO IF THAT WERE REALLY TO DO SOME GOOD, I WOULD BE WILLING TO VOTE FOR THIS ON FIRST READING WITH A NOTE UP FRONT THAT ULTIMATELY THIS CASE I WILL NOT VOTE FOR. THE PETITION, THE VALID PETITION IS IN PLACE AND I'M NOT GOING TO GO AGAINST THAT VALID PETITION. BUT I WAS WILLING TO GO WITH THE FIRST READING ONLY IF THERE WAS SOME OPPORTUNITY FOR S.F. 6 OR SOME OTHER ANSWER BETWEEN APPLICANT AND NEIGHBORS. IF THERE IS NO OPPORTUNITY FOR THAT TO HAPPEN, THEN I THINK IT'S JUST AN EFFORT IN FEW TILT FOR US TO DO THAT. THAT WAS MY THOUGHT, AT THIS MOMENT I DON'T HAVE A MOTION, BUT I DID WANT TO LET YOU KNOW WHAT I HAD BEEN THINKING OF.
>>MAYOR WATSON: I HAVE TWO POSSIBLE QUESTIONS MUCH ONE QUESTION IS IF THERE'S AN INCLINATION TOWARDS A SECOND VOTE THAT TELLS US ALL WE NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THIS CASE BECAUSE OF THE VALID PETITION. THE SECOND QUESTION I'M INCLINED TO ASK IS IF -- IF THOSE WHO WERE JUST LISTENING TO THE MAYOR PRO TEM, IF YOU -- FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD, IF YOU BELIEVE THERE'S ANY OPPORTUNITY TO WORK SOMETHING OUT, -- WHETHER WE COULD GO AHEAD AND PASS ON FIRST READING TO TRY TO ACHIEVE THE GOAL THAT THE MAYOR PRO TEM WAS DESCRIBING. LET ME START WITH THAT QUESTION. DO YOU ALL BELIEVE THERE'S ANY POSSIBILITY OF THAT?
>> MAYOR, S.F. 6 OPENS UP A WHOLE NEW CAN OF WORMS. [LAUGHTER].
>>GOODMAN: MAYOR, THAT'S FINE WITH ME, I DON'T WANT ANY OF US TO WASTE OUR TIME. I DO WANT THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO KNOW, THOUGH, THAT THERE IS NO LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE WITH S.F. 3.
>>MAYOR WATSON: I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
>>GOODMAN: MOVE TO DENY.
>>MAYOR WATSON: MOTION TO DENY BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS. ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED SAY NO. NO. MOTION CARRIES ON ITEM NO. 91. THAT WILL TAKE US TO ITEM NO. 78. FOR THE RECORD, WE EARLIER TODAY AS PART OF A MOTION A LITTLE BIT BEFORE THE NOON HOUR, THERE WAS A MOTION TO -- TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AND WE TOOK UP ALL OF THE ITEMS FOR THE EXECUTIVE SESSION AND INCLUDED AS PART OF THAT ITEM NO. 78. FOR THE RECORD, IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, PRIOR TO DISCUSSION OF THE MERITS OF THIS ITEM, IT WAS DECIDED BY COUNCIL NOT TO DISCUSS ITEM NO. 78 IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, SO IT WAS NOT DISCUSSED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO COMMENT ON -- COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?
>>SLUSHER: YEAH, MAYOR, I JUST WANTED TO COMMENT BECAUSE IT WAS COUNCILMEMBER WYNN AND I THAT RAISED CONCERNS ABOUT ADDRESSING THIS ITEM IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. SO I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR US TO -- AT LEAST ONE OF US TO STATE WHY. I THINK THIS -- THIS PROPOSAL POTENTIALLY HAS SOME MERIT AND COULD BE A -- A GOOD THING FOR THE AREA, THE CITY AND THE CITY ITSELF. BUT I DON'T THINK IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO DISCUSS IT IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. IT IS APPROPRIATE TO DISCUSS A REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, BUT THE IDEA BEHIND THAT UNDER STATE LAW, STATE LAW APPROPRIATELY ALLOWS EXECUTIVE SESSIONS ON REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS TO ALLOW FOR PRIVATE NEGOTIATION TO PROTECT THE CITY'S INTERESTS SO THAT THE CITY CAN LOOK AT PROPERTIES WITHOUT PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF THE LOCATION, SO THAT BY PUBLIC DISCLOSURE THE PRICES DON'T GO UP. BUT IN THIS CASE, THE PROPOSAL WAS ON THE AGENDA AS A -- JUST A PROPOSAL TO BUY A PARTICULAR PIECE OF LAND. THE PIECE OF LAND HAS ALREADY BEEN DISCLOSED, THERE'S ALREADY A PRICE PUT ON THE TABLE AND I'M NOT SURE IF THAT WAS BY THE OWNER. I THINK IT WAS BY THE OWNER AND/OR THE COUNCILMEMBER. SO -- SO I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S APPROPRIATE UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES TO DISCUSS IT IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. BECAUSE ALL THE REASONS IN A WE WOULD HAVE UNDER STATE LAW TO DISCUSS IT IN EXECUTIVE SESSION ARE -- WE ARE ALREADY BEYOND THAT POINT. SO I PREFER THAT WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSIONS ON THIS IN PUBLIC.
>> ANYONE ELSE WANT TO COMMENT?
>>.
>>THOMAS:, YES, I WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT. I DEFINITELY WANT THE PUBLIC TO KNOW. I DON'T WANT TO DO ANYTHING THAT'S ILLEGAL. I THINK THE REASON WHY I MADE A MOTION TO TAKE IT TO EXECUTIVE SESSION IS THAT WE WERE DISCUSSING DESTINATION PARK AND GREEN LAND, I JUST ASSUMED THAT WAS GOING TO BE PART OF IT. BUT I AGREE WITH COUNCILMEMBER WYNN AND COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER THAT WE NEEDED TO BRING IT TO THE PUBLIC OUT IN THE PUBLIC. AND I JUST WANT TO ASSURE THE PUBLIC THAT I DON'T WANT TO DO ANYTHING ILLEGAL. THANK YOU.
>>MAYOR WATSON: ALL RIGHT. WELL, AS THE MAKER -- OR AS THE SPONSOR OF ITEM NO. 78, I WILL RECOGNIZE YOU AND GIVE YOU THE FLOOR.
>>THOMAS: YES. WHAT I HAD -- WHAT I WOULD LIKE FOR MS. PLUMBER TO DO IS DO A BRIEF PRESENTATION OF THE LOCATION OF THE LAND AND ALSO HAVE THE OWNER, IF HE DOESN'T MIND SPEAK, MR. DALLET AFTER THE PRESENTATION, THEN I WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT A RESOLUTION TO THE COUNCIL.
>>MAYOR WATSON: MS. PLUMBER.
>> THE TRACT THAT WE ARE DISCUSSING, THIS IS LOYOLA LANE, JOHNNY MORRIS ROAD, YOUR EXISTING PARKLAND ON WALNUT SHOAL CREEK, THE TRACT IS OWNED BY JOHN SCARDINO, HATHAM DALLET. APPROXIMATELY 250 ACRES, KNOWN AS MEADOWS AT TRINITY CROSSING, A 1984 PRELIMINARY PLAN THAT SHOWS 900 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND 24 ACRES OF MULTI-FAMILY. THEY HAVE CURRENTLY DEVELOPED 108 LOTS IN THIS AREA ON THIS PARTICULAR TRACT. YOU HAVE EXISTING PARKLAND HERE, WE CALL IT COLONY PARK. WE HAVE JUST HAVE 17 ACRES HERE THAT'S AN ADDITION THAT PARKS IS LOOKING AT PUTTING IN A RECREATION FACILITY.
>>MAYOR WATSON: ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF MS. PLUMBER AT THIS TIME.
>>THOMAS: YES, I DO. IN THAT PARTICULAR AREA, THE 250 ACRES, ARE -- THERE'S ROOM FOR HOUSING, AFFORDABLE HOUSING?
>> YES, SIR.
>>THOMAS: HOW MANY APPROXIMATELY DO YOU THINK THAT WE COULD OWE NOTICE THAT PARTICULAR 250 ACRES.
>> THE CURRENT PRELIMINARY PLAN IN 1984, SHOWS 900 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. IF IN FACT WE DO RECEIVE SPECIFIC DIRECTION WE WOULD LOOK AT A LAND PLAN AND COMPLETELY ADDRESS THAT PRELIMINARY PLAN. AND THEN THAT WOULD FURTHER TELL YOU.
>>THOMAS: OKAY. ALL RIGHTY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
>>MAYOR WATSON: ANYBODY HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS? LET ME ASK A QUICK QUESTION. HAS THERE BEEN -- IN THE APPROXIMATE OF THE THAT WE HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT THIS, THE QUESTION WAS JUST ASKED ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING. WHAT LEVEL OF INVESTIGATION HAVE WE MADE OTHER THAN WHAT YOU JUST SAID ABOUT THE NUMBER OF LOTS UNDER THE PRELIMINARY PLAN TO DETERMINE HOW WE WOULD GO ABOUT DOING THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR PARKLAND OR ANY OF THAT?
>> WELL, IT WOULD BE PROBABLY 120-DAY FEESIBILITY PERIOD TO SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS ALL OF THE ISSUES NECESSARY, I BELIEVE A LAND PLAN WOULD HELP YOU ADDRESS THOSE. IT IS VERY PRELIMINARY. I HAVE IN FACT A PRELIMINARY PLAN IF YOU ALL WANTED TO SEE IT. JUST VERY SURFACE, LOOKING AT THE SURFACE.
>>MAYOR WATSON: HOW MANY ACRES ARE WE TALKING ABOUT IN -- IN THIS VERY SURFACE KIND OF THING WOULD BE HOUSING, HOW MANY WOULD BE PARK OR --
>> I DON'T THINK, MAYOR, ANY OF THAT IN SPECIFIC HAS -- HAS BEEN DESIGNATED OR LOOKED AT. MS. DUNKERLY AND I WOULD LOOK AT A FINANCIAL PLAN AND ADDRESS THIS IF IN FACT WE RECEIVED DIRECTION TO MOVE FORWARD.
>>MAYOR WATSON: ALL RIGHT. WELL, WITH REGARD TO THE PARK ASPECT OF IT, WITHOUT GOING INTO A WHOLE LOT OF DETAIL ABOUT -- ABOUT PARKLAND AND PARKLAND PURCHASES, IS IT TRUE THAT YOU HAVE BEEN SPENDING A GREAT DEAL OF TIME IDENTIFYING PARKLAND EAST ALONG THE CONCEPT OF OUR DESTINATION PARK AREAS?
>> YES, SIR.
>>MAYOR WATSON: ALL RIGHT. SO ANY SUGGESTION THAT -- THAT THERE'S NOT AN EFFORT GOING ON TO BUY PARKLAND AT OR NEAR IN AREA, THAT WOULDN'T BE ACCURATE?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>>MAYOR WATSON: OKAY. MAYOR PRO TEM? JUDY MAGGIO JUDY, YOU SAID
>>GOODMAN: JUDY, YOU SAID 900 UNITS WERE PLATTED, DOES THAT INCLUDE ANY ADDITIONAL PARKLAND?
>> NO, MA'AM.
>>GOODMAN: SO IT'S SOLID HOUSES?
>> HERE'S THE 1984 PRELIMINARY PLAN. HERE'S YOUR PARKLAND THAT'S IN THE MIDDLE. HERE'S YOUR -- ALL OF YOUR FAMILY, OUR FAMILY IS HERE, YOUR SINGLE FAMILY HERE. BUT, NO, THERE'S NO ADDITIONAL. IN 1984 YOUR PARKLAND DEDICATION WAS NOT IN EFFECT.
>>GOODMAN: HOW MANY ACRES IS THIS AGAIN?
>> APPROXIMATELY 250.
>>GOODMAN: AND IF WE WERE TO TRY TO NEGOTIATE FOR PURCHASE, THERE ARE TWO QUESTIONS, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S APPROPRIATE, BUT I THINK SINCE THE -- SINCE THE POTENTIAL SELLER APPROACHED US; IS THAT RIGHT? THEN MAYBE THERE WOULD BE NO PROBLEM IN SAYING WHAT THE ASKING PRICE IS AND, NUMBER TWO, WHERE WOULD WE GET THE MONEY TO NEGOTIATE FOR PURCHASE?
>> THE ASKING PRICE IS $3 --3,500,000. WE WOULD IN FACT NEED TO PUT A FINANCIAL PLAN TOGETHER TO ADDRESS THAT ACQUISITION.
>>GOODMAN: WHAT FUNDS ARE WE THINKING WE WOULD GO LOOK INTO?
>> PERHAPS, IF I COULD ADDRESS THAT, DEPENDING ON WHAT DIRECTION WE GET, I -- WE WOULD LOOK AT -- AT PROBABLY LOOK AT SOME ADDITIONAL ACQUISITIONS TO -- TO ENHANCE THE PARK THAT WE HAVE THERE, SO WE WOULD HAVE SOME FUNDS FROM -- FROM THE PARKS DEPARTMENT CAPITAL BUDGET. HOUSING WOULD PROBABLY TAKE THE MAJOR PORTION OF THIS AND WE DO HAVE FUNDS AVAILABLE IN THE AUSTIN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION FUNDS. AND THEN THE OTHER THING --.
>>MAYOR WATSON:: INTERRUPT YOU. WHAT PART IN THE AUSTIN HOUSING FINANCE --
>> ACQUISITION FUNDS, WE HAVE SOME THREE AND A HALF MILLION THERE THAT WE WOULD USE. A PORTION OF THAT IF WE WERE TO GO WITH THIS MONEY. HOPEFULLY AS WE NEGOTIATE THIS, WE WOULD RIGHT TO NEGOTIATE SOMETHING SO THAT WE WOULD NOT USE, YOU KNOW, USE UP ALL OF THAT MONEY IN ONE YEAR.
>> OUR GOAL WOULD BE, MAYOR AND COUNCIL, TO TRY TO FIND SOME BALANCE BETWEEN -- YOU DON'T WANT TO DEPLETE YOUR HOUSE ING FUNDS, THERE MAY BE OTHER OPPORTUNITIES WHERE YOU WOULDN'T HAVE THE DOLLARS AVAILABLE. SO WE WILL TRY TO FIND A BALANCE OF HOW IT ALL WILL WORK TOGETHER AND MESH TOGETHER, WHAT PORTION SHOULD COME FROM PARKS, WHAT PORTION SHOULD COME FROM HOUSING. IF APPROPRIATE WHAT PORTION MIGHT COME FROM THE GENERAL FUND IN THERE'S GENERAL FUND NEEDS OUT THERE.
>> I WOULD THINK, ALSO, LOOKING AT THIS IN A VERY SUPERFICIAL WAY, I THINK IT WOULD BE VERY IMPORTANT THAT HE WE DO SOME ACREAGE OUT OF GENERAL FUNDS SO THAT WE COULD EVENTUALLY PUT IN SOME SERVICE TYPE COMMERCIAL AND MAYBE SOME POLICE STORE FRONT OPERATIONS AND THINGS LIKE THAT TO REALLY ENHANCE THAT WHOLE AREA. SO DEPENDING ON THE DIRECTION WE GET, WE WOULD GO BACK AND PROBABLY LET HOUSING -- LET HOUSING TAKE THE FIRST LOOK AT IT TO SEE HOW MUCH IS APPROPRIATE FOR WHAT THEY NEED AND THEN PUT TOGETHER A PACKAGE THAT WE THINK WOULD BALANCE ALL OF THESE NEEDS TOGETHER AND WOULD BE A SUBSTANTIAL BENEFIT. SO IT WOULD BE GENERAL FUND, SOME PARK -- PARKLAND MONEY AND THE AUSTIN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION ACQUISITION FUNDS.
>>GOODMAN: OKAY. MY LAST QUESTION, IF I CAN, MAYOR, IS MORE OF A PRACTICALITY OR MECHANICS QUESTION. I ASSUME THAT IF WE ACQUIRED THIS PROPERTY, WE WOULD THEN BE THINKING OF A PROGRAM WHERE WE IN ESSENCE GAVE THE DEVELOPER THE LAND WHICH WOULD TAKE DOWN THE COST OF THE HOUSE, RIGHT?
>>GARZA: YOU WILL BE DOING AN OUTRIGHT PURCHASE AND PROCEEDING WITH SOMETHING SIMILAR TO SKIP 1, 2, 3, 4, A PROGRAM LIKE THAT WHERE WE WOULD BE WORKING THROUGH THE AUSTIN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THOSE HOUSES, APPROXIMATE BUT THE DEVELOPER WOULD BE OUT OF IT. THERE MIGHT BE -- BUT THE DEVELOPER WOULD BE OUT OF IT. WE MIGHT SELL LOTS TO THE DEVELOPER, BY US OWNING THE LAND BE ABLE TO MAKE IT MORE AFFORDABLE. BUT IT WOULD BE DIFFERENT THAN BUYING IT DOWN AND LETTING THEM DEVELOP IT.
>> OUR DIRECTOR AT AFHC IN FACT WENT OUT YESTERDAY AND TOOK A LOOK AT THIS AREA FOR THE FIRST TIME SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO IN THIS 120 DAY PERIOD, THEY WOULD BE -- IF AND WHEN WE COME BACK TO YOU, WE WOULD HAVE A DEFINITE PLAN OF -- OF HOW TO PROCEED SO THAT YOU ALL WOULD -- BEFORE YOU MAKE A FINAL DECISION OR ANY DECISION, WOULD KNOW WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE WE COULD DO.
>>GOODMAN: WELL, WHAT I AM REMEMBERING, IN ORDER TO TRY TO GET REAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING, I MEAN, ALONG THE LINES OF WHAT WE USED TO THINK OF AS AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WE HAD TO TRY TO COME UP WITH INCENTIVES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT EVEN FROM FOLKS WHO CAME IN WITH AN EDGE BECAUSE WE HAD PROPERTY AVAILABLE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO ... I GUESS I WOULD LIKE TO ALSO KNOW WHAT KIND OF RESOURCES WE HAVE BESIDES THIS 3.5 AND WHAT ARE WE DOING TO OUR ENTIRE POT OF RESOURCES. ARE WE -- ARE WE THINKING THAT THIS WOULD USE VIRTUALLY EVERYTHING THAT WE HAVE? OR WOULD WE STILL HAVE HOUSING FUNDS TO -- TO HELP WITH OTHER INCENTIVES, OTHER PROJECTS?
>> THIS IS THE PLAN THAT WE WOULD PUT TOGETHER DEPENDING ON WHETHER OR NOT THE -- THE SELLER IS WILLING TO NEGOTIATE WITH US AND HOW THEY ARE WILLING TO NEGOTIATE WITH US MIGHT BE A MULTI YEAR PAYOUT. WE COULD USE HOUSING FUNDS. I WOULD THINK, WHEN WE WERE DOING JUST SOME REALLY ROUGH LOOKS AT THIS, WE THOUGHT THAT PERHAPS THE PARK'S SHARE WOULD BE SOMEWHERE IN THE RANGE OF ABOUT $500,000 OR A LITTLE MORE THAN THAT. AND THAT WE DIDN'T QUITE GET AN IDEA OF ON HAVE AN IDEA YET OF WHAT YOU WOULD CARVE OUT FOR THE GENERAL FUND SECTION FOR THE COMMERCIAL, LIGHT COMMERCIAL AND POLICE ACTIVITY. THE BALANCE OF IT WOULD PROBABLY BE THE HOUSING.
>>GARZA: IF I COULD ADD TO THAT, ALSO, WHEN WE WERE OUT THERE AT COLONY PARK THIS LAST SUMMER, RIGHT BEFORE SUMMER, ONE OF THE CONCERNS OF THE -- OF THE NEIGHBORS OUT THERE WAS THE LACK OF -- OF PARK FACILITIES AND AMENITIES FOR THE CHILDREN. I THINK THERE'S BEEN SOME CONCERNS ABOUT NOT PUTTING ALL OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN JUST ONE AREA. I THINK WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE US DO IS TRY TO TALK TO SOME FOLKS AND MAKE SURE THAT WE COME BACK WITH THE BALANCE. WE MAY END UP DOING MORE THAN A MILLION AND A HALF OF PARK MONEY SO WE MAY NEED TO, SO WE VIKE THAT BALANCE OF WHAT THAT COMMUNITY NEEDS IN TERMS OF THAT ASSET THAT WE WERE ASKING FOR LAST SUMMER. AGAIN, ALSO ALLOWING FOR SOME OF THAT TO BE HOUSING THAT'S NOT JUST AFFORDABLE, BUT ALSO REASONABLY PRICED, MODERATELY PRICED, SO IT'S MIXED USE, MIXED INCOME THAT KINDS OF A THING. THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO WORK THROUGH WITH THE LAND PLANNERS, WITH THE COMMUNITY, COME BACK WITH A PLAN TO THE COUNCIL IN TERMS OF FINANCING, HOW WE DO THAT.
>> THE LAND THAT WE WOULD WANT TO GET FOR THE PARKS COMPONENT WOULD EVENTUALLY PROBABLY SUPPORT THE RECREATION CENTER, SWIMMING POOL, BASKETBALL COURT, SOCCER FIELDS, BASEBALL FIELDS, PICNIC TABLES, JUDY, WHAT ELSE? THAT'S ABOUT IT?
>> UH-HUH.
>> TRAILS. SO IT WOULD BE I THINK A VERY WELL BALANCED PARK SYSTEM AND AS JESUS SAID WE WOULD WANT TO LOOK AT WHAT ELSE NEEDS TO GO IN THERE TO MAKE A HEALTHY COMMUNITY.
>>GOODMAN: WELL, I LOVE IT WHEN OPPORTUNITIES POP UP THAT WE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT. WHAT I AM CONCERNED ABOUT, THOUGH, DO WANT TO KNOW IS HOW MUCH OF OUR TOTAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING RESOURCES WE WOULD BE FOCUSING IN ONE PLACE. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE NOT USING EVERYTHING IN ONE PLACE.
>>MAYOR WATSON: IF I COULD PIGGYBACK ON THAT REAL QUICKLY, WOULD THAT BE ALL RIGHT? WE HAVE -- THE PREVIOUS COUNCIL AND THIS COUNCIL HAVE BEEN SYSTEMATICALLY WORKING ON ISSUES RELATED TO AFFORDABILITY NOW FOR SOME TIME, IN FACT IT WAS JUST A FEW WEEKS AGO THAT WE HAD A VERY DETAILED REPORT FROM BOTH MR. HILGERS AND THE DIRECTOR OF AHFC ABOUT -- ABOUT PLANNING. AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE WHAT WE DON'T HAVE, AT LEAST FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THAT WE DON'T HAVE SOMETHING POP UP THAT ALL OF A SUDDEN IS JUST ASSUMED TO BE SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW IT FITS INTO THE OVERALL PLAN. THE OTHER THING THAT I WOULD SAY ABOUT THAT, BECAUSE IT MAY NOT. I THINK THAT PIGGYBACKS ON WHAT THE MAYOR PRO TEM IS SAYING. YOU HAVE X NUMBER OF DOLLARS, WE HAVE BEEN PLAYING ON HOW WE WANT TO GO ABOUT ADDRESSING THE ISSUES OF AFFORDABILITY. THE SECOND PART OF THE REASON THAT I ASKED MS. PLUMBER ABOUT THE PARKS ASPECT OF THAT WAS BECAUSE WE HAVE ALSO BEEN SYSTEMATICALLY APPROACHING PARKS. I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T JUST ASSUME THAT NOW THERE'S SOMETHING HERE THAT -- THE OTHER PART ABOUT IT, ON THE BUILDING AND I APPRECIATE WHAT THE MAYOR -- WHAT THE CITY MANAGER JUST SAID ABOUT THE MIXTURE AND HOW YOU BEST DO IT. WHAT WORRIES ME ABOUT WHAT I HEAR ON THAT IS THAT IT SOUND LIKE WE ARE GOING TO GET IN TO THE DEVELOPMENT BUSINESS. AND WHAT WORRIES ME ABOUT THAT, OF COURSE, IS THAT -- I MEAN, LET'S FACE IT, WE HAVE GOT OVER 700 ACRES OUT AT MUELLER THAT WE ARE STILL TALKING ABOUT HOW IT IS THAT WE BEST WANT TO GO ABOUT DOING THAT. IF WE GET INTO A SITUATION WHERE WE NOW BUY 200 PLUS ACRES, WE SAY THAT WE ARE GOING TO SOMEHOW DEVELOP IT, WE WANT IT TO MEET ALL OF THESE NEEDS, THAT KIND OF THING, WE MAY BE BUYING LAND THAT'S GOING TO TAKE US A LONG TIME TO DO. I'M NOT SURE THAT'S THE BEST APPROACH. WE HAVE NOT, IN MY VIEW, ALWAYS DONE WELL WHEN IT CAME TO US BEING THE DEVELOPER OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING. OTHER COMMENTS? WE HAVE TWO PEOPLE THAT HAVE SIGNED UP. ONE HATHAM DALLETT SAYS HE IS AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. DO YOU WISH TO SPEAK?
>> ALL RIGHT.
>> DR. STERLING LANDS, II SIGNED UP. I SAW HIM EARLIER HE MAY HAVE LEFT. HE INDICATED IF HE WAS PRESS SENT BUT HE WRITES WE DESPERATELY NEED THIS IN NORTHEAST AUSTIN, PLEASE HELP US BY SUPPORTING THIS RESOLUTION. OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS?
>>THOMAS: YES, I NEED TO CLARIFY. I UNDERSTAND WHAT EVERYONE IS SAYING THAT -- THAT AS FAR AS -- I DON'T THINK WE REALLY DON'T WANT TO GO INTO DEVELOPMENT. I THINK WITH THE PLAN THAT WE PUT TOGETHER WOULD ALLOW THE CITY MANAGER TO SIT BACK -- GO BACK AND NEGOTIATE, I THINK THAT WE COULD COME OUT BETTER UNDERSTANDING -- MY -- MY PROPOSAL IS, THE RESOLUTION, IS TO -- TO HAVE 50 ACRES OF THAT TO BE PARK, RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AND ALSO AFFORDABLE HOUSING, MULTIPLE -- YOU KNOW, HOUSES THAT ARE SEMI AFFORDABLE. WHICH HAS 17 ACRES OF CITY OWNED LAND THAT WE ALREADY OWN. QUITE NATURALLY WE DON'T WANT TO BE IN DEVELOPMENT, I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT THIS IS OUR OPPORTUNITY AND SPEAKING TO MR. DALLETT WHEN HE CAME TO ME WITH THE PROPOSAL WAS THAT HE KNEW THAT WE NEEDED PARK, WE NEEDED SOMETHING IN THAT PARTICULAR AREA BECAUSE OF COLONY PARK, WE TALKED ABOUT IT NUMEROUS OF TIMES, I THOUGHT THIS WOULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO AT LEAST SIT AT THE TABLE AND NEGOTIATE WITH OWE TO SEE TO MAKE SOME KIND OF NEGOTIATION AND ALSO COME BACK IN 30 DAYS WITH A PROPOSAL THEN ALLOW THE 120 DAYS TO COMPLETE THE PROCESS.
>>MAYOR WATSON: DO I UNDERSTAND THAT YOUR RESOLUTION WOULD NOT BE NECESSARILY TO DEFINE ANY ASPECTS OF IT RIGHT NOW.
>>THOMAS: NO.
>>MAYOR WATSON: AND THAT AS PART OF THE RESOLUTION WOULD BE TO FOLLOW ALONG THE LINES OF WHAT MS. DUNKERLY WAS SUGGESTING IN RESPONSE TO SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT -- THAT -- THAT IT IS TO ALSO LOOK AT HOW IT FITS INTO OUR OVERALL AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROPOSALS UP TO THIS POINT AND PARKLAND PROPOSALS.
>>THOMAS: RIGHT.
>>MAYOR WATSON: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?
>>SLUSHER: WELL, I AM JUST A LITTLE CONFUSED, IS THAT DIFFERENT THAN THE -- I DON'T HAVE A COPY OF THE RESOLUTION THAT YOU ARE PROPOSING.
>>THOMAS: I WAS GOING TO CHANGE THE WORDING IN IT.
>>SLUSHER: OKAY.
>>THOMAS: BUT YOU CAN GO AHEAD.
>>SLUSHER: THAT'S WHAT I WANTED, IF YOU ARE GOING TO CHANGE THE WORDING THAT WILL ANSWER MY QUESTION. I WASN'T CLEAR ON WHAT EXACTLY IS BEING PROPOSED.
>>THOMAS: OKAY.
>>MAYOR WATSON: GO AHEAD.
>>THOMAS: I MAKE A MOTION TO ALSO -- IF YOU ALLOW ME TO CHANGE THE WORDING OF THE RESOLUTION, IT SAYS THAT THE CITY COUNCILL -- COUNCIL DIRECT THE CITY MANAGER TO CONDUCT AN APPRAISAL AND NEGOTIATE A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF 250 ACRES OF LAND IN THE AREA BETWEEN EAST OF ED BLUESTEIN HIGHWAY AND WEST OF DECKER LAKE FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES NOVEMBER OF 1998, PROP 2 BOND ELECTION, AND AT THE END OF THAT, IT SAYS WITHIN 30 DAYS FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION AND FINAL APPROVAL, COMMA, AND TO COMPLETE THE PROCESS IN 120 DAYS. DID WE GET ALL OF THAT?
>>MAYOR WATSON: I'M WORKING ON IT. I'M NOT SURE THEY DID.
>>SLUSHER: COUNCILMEMBER, IF YOU COULD GO OVER AND JUST SAY THE CHANGES.
>>THOMAS: I WILL DELETING DESTINATION PARK, I AM DELETING THAT AND THE GREEN WAY OUT OF THERE, I PUT FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES. THAT IS DELETED -- DELETE DESTINATION PARKS AND BEFORE THAT THE GREEN WAY AND DESTINATION PARKS.
>>MAYOR WATSON: OKAY. LET ME -- COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH, THEN COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ.
>>GRIFFITH: AS PART OF THAT, COUNCILMEMBER, YOU WOULD TAKE OUT THE REFERENCE TO -- TO PROP 2 AND THE DATE?
>>MAYOR WATSON: YOU REFERRED TO NOVEMBER '98 BOND ELECTION.
>>THOMAS: DID I, I'M SORRY.
>>GRIFFITH: YOU MIGHT WANT TO TAKE THAT OUT.
>>THOMAS: LET ME GO BACK. LISTEN IF COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ WANTS TO SAY SOMETHING. THIS IS WHAT I NEED TO DELETE OUT OF THE RESOLUTION, FOR THE GREEN WAYS AND DESTINATION PARKS, NOVEMBER 1998 PROP 2 BOND ELECTION. THAT NEEDS TO BE DELETED. PUT IN THERE FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES. AND AT THE END OF THE RESOLUTION, IT SAYS FINAL APPROVEAL, COMMA, TO COMPLETE THE PROCESS IN 120 DAYS.
>>MAYOR WATSON: LET ME ASK IF THERE'S A SECOND TO THAT SO THAT WE AT LEAST HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND THAT WE ARE DISCUSSING. IS THERE A SECOND? IS THERE A SECOND? MAYOR PRO TEM SECOND THE MOTION. COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ?
>>ALVAREZ: YEAH, WELL, I MEAN IT APPEARS TO ME THAT THE RESOLUTION STILL DIRECTS STAFF TO -- TO CONDUCT AN APPRAISAL AND NEGOTIATE A CONTRACT. WHICH I THOUGHT WE WERE MOVING AWAY FROM. AND I THOUGHT ORIGINALLY, IT LOOKED LIKE WHERE WE WERE MOVING WAS JUST TO DIRECT TO DO A FEESIBILITY STUDY ON THE POSSIBILITY OF AQIG THIS LAND FOR HOUSING AND/OR -- ACQUIRING THIS LANDS FOR HOUSING AND/OR PARK USES, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS SUFFICIENT TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE THAT AS THE DIRECTIVE TO STAFF OR IF WE HAD TO ACTUALLY ADOPT A RESOLUTION AS -- YOU KNOW, AS WAS PUT FORWARD.
>>MAYOR WATSON: AND IF I MIGHT FOLLOW-UP ON THAT, COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ, COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS, THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WROTE DOWN AS I WAS LISTENING TO YOUR MOTION ON THE RESOLUTION WAS THAT IT -- WHETHER IT WAS GOING TO CONTAIN LANGUAGE THAT DIRECTED STAFF TO DO A FREEZIBILITY STUDY TO DETERMINE IF THE PURCHASE OF -- FACEABILITY STUDY TO DETERMINE IF THE PURCHASE OF -- FEASIBILITY STUDY ... RELATED TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND PARKS. I AGREE WITH COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ, I THOUGHT WE WERE MOVING TOWARD DOING A FEASIBILITY STUDY TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THIS WOULD GET THIS. OBVIOUSLY THAT WOULD INVOLVE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE OWNER ABOUT COST, THAT SORT OF A THING, BUT WOULDN'T ACTUALLY DIRECT STAFF TO NEGOTIATE A CONTRACT THAT THEY ARE BRINGING BACK. [ONE MOMENT PLEASE FOR CHANGE IN
>>MAYOR WATSON: BUT AT THIS POINT NOT KNOWING -- I MEAN I'VE GOT QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT THE EASEMENTS ARE, WHAT THE FLOODPLAIN, THE DRAINAGE ASPECTS, YOU KNOW, WHAT INFRASTRUCTURE IS REALLY OUT THERE, ALL THOSE KINDS OF THINGS. I'M NOT SURE I'M READY TO SAY GO OUT AND NEGOTIATE A CONTRACT THAT YOU BRING BACK TO UP IN 120 DAYS. I WOULD RATHER HAVE A FEASIBILITY STUDY DONE.
>>THOMAS: WELL, IN THE INITIAL PRESENTATION I WAS GOING INTO DETAIL THOSE THINGS THAT YOU ARE SAYING ARE OUT THERE, BUT I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING AND I WOULD REMOVE MY MOTION NOR THE RESOLUTION, BUT I WOULD ACCEPT THE STUDY.
>>MAYOR WATSON: THEN LET ME TRY SOMETHING TO SEE IF WE CAN MOVE THIS SOME WAY, AND I'LL OFFER THIS AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT BECAUSE THAT MAY JUST MAKE IT EASIER. THAT WOULD BE THAT THE COUNCIL DIRECT THE CITY MANAGER TO CONDUCT AN APPRAISAL, NEGOTIATE WITH THE OWNER AND DETERMINE THE FEASIBILITY -- AND DO A FEASIBILITY STUDY TO DETERMINE IF THE PURCHASE OF APPROXIMATELY 250 ACRES IN LAND IN THE AREA BETWEEN EAST OF ED BLUESTEIN AND WEST OF DECKER LANE MEETS PRIOR RESOLUTIONS AND POLL TI DIRECTIVES OF THE CITY COUNCIL -- POLICY DIRECTIVES OF THE CITY COUNCILL RELATED TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND PARKS DEVELOPMENT, AND FURTHER DIRECT THE CITY MANAGER TO PROVIDE A REPORT TO COUNCIL WITHIN 120 DAYS OF THIS RESOLUTION. WOULD YOU CONSIDER THAT A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT?
>>THOMAS: I WOULD CONSIDER THAT.
>>MAYOR WATSON: WOULD YOU CONSIDER IT FRIENDLY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER.
>>SLUSHER: I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY, AND THAT LIMB NATSZ THE PREVIOUS LANGUAGE AND SUBSTITUTES FOR THE PREVIOUS LANGUAGE.
>>MAYOR WATSON: SUBSTITUTES FOR THE PREVIOUS LANGUAGE. I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR, IT DOESN'T EVEN REQUIRE THAT IT PROVIDE A CONTRACT PROPOSAL TO COUNCIL. IT IS INSTEAD A REPORT ON THE FEASIBILITY OF SUCH A THING.
>>SLUSHER: AND WHICH WOULD INCLUDE LOOKING FOR A REVENUE SOURCE.
>>MAYOR WATSON: ABSOLUTELY. I CONSIDER THAT TO BE PART OF THE FEASIBILITY.
>>SLUSHER: OKAY.
>>MAYOR WATSON: ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ANYONE WISHING TO BE HEARD ON THE MOTION NOW THAT WE'VE MADE A CHANGE?
>>SLUSHER: MAYOR, I JUST WANT TO SAY, AS I SAID AT THE BEGINNING, I THINK THIS HAS SOME POTENTIAL. WE ALREADY ARE LOOKING AT MEETING -- OR LOOKING AT BETTER PARK FACILITIES, STUDY THE MASTER PLAN THERE IN THE BUDGET, IF WE COULD GET SOME RETAIL, AFFORDABLE HOUSING HERE BECAUSE THE COLONY PARK AREA HAS THE SUBDIVISION DEVELOPED RIGHT BY 183, BACK FROM 183 AND THERE'S A SECOND PART DOWN MUCH -- ABOUT A MILE FURTHER DOWN THAT DEVELOPED, AND THEN IT'S JUST VACANT LAND IN BETWEEN THERE. SO IF WE COULD FILL THAT IN WITH MIXED USES, I THINK THAT COULD BE REALLY GOOD AND I HOPE THAT SOMETHING LIKE THAT COULD COME OUT OF THIS FEASIBILITY STUDY.
>>MAYOR WATSON: AND THE ONE OTHER THING I MEANT TO MENTION EARLIER THAT I FAILED TO MENTION, I WOULD ALSO LIKE AS PART OF THE FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR US TO CONSIDER TALKING TO THIRD PARTIES THAT ARE IN THE BUSINESS OF BUILDING AFFORDABLE COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE INDICATED A DESIRE TO BE INVOLVED IN OUR COMMUNITY, AND THERE ARE SEVERAL, ONE OF WHICH HAS RECENTLY PURCHASED SOME LAND THAT WE KNOW ABOUT NEAR THIS AREA, AND SEE IF PART OF THE FEASIBILITY WHETHER SOME SORT OF SMART GROWTH PROPOSAL WITH THEM WOULD BE BENEFICIAL AS PART OF ALL THAT. AND I'LL BE HAPPY TO MAKE CONTACT WITH A COUPLE PEOPLE WHO HAVE CONTACTED MY OFFICE IF IT'S DETERMINED THIS IS A WISE MOVE FOR US TO MAKE.
>>SLUSHER: MAYOR? LET ME JUST ADD SOMETHING TO THAT. YOU HAD SAID PEOPLE THAT ARE -- CONTACTING FOLKS THAT ARE INVOLVED IN BUILDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR AFFORDABLE DEVELOPMENTS, I WOULD SAY WE WOULDN'T WANT TO NEXTLY LIMIT TO IT THAT BECAUSE THERE MIGHT BE PEOPLE NOW THAT ARE JUST DOING HIGH END THAT MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN GETTING INVOLVED SOMETHING ALONG THESE LININGS.
>>MAYOR WATSON: NO QUESTION. NO QUESTION. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED SAY NO. MOTION CARRIES ON ITEM NO. 78. YES, COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ.
>>ALVAREZ: DID WE GET A MOTION AND SECOND?
>>MAYOR WATSON: YES, MOTION AND SECOND AND IT WAS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT THAT SUBSTITUTED THE ENTIRE LANGUAGE.
>>ALVAREZ: OKAY. COUNCIL, WHAT I'M GOING TO DO REAL QUICKLY IS GOOD TO ITEM 109, WHICH IS IS A PUBLIC HEARING THAT I DON'T THINK ANYBODY IS HERE TO BE HEARD ON, AND IF THAT'S THE CASE, WE'LL BE ABLE TO TO GO AHEAD AND TAKE ACTION ON ITEM 110 IF ANYBODY IS WAITING IN THE AUDIENCE TO DEAL WITH THAT. SO LET ME CALL 109, WHICH IS CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 25 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO BOUNDARY OF THE CENTRAL URBAN REDEVELOPMENT COMBINING DISTRICT. THE AMENDMENT WOULD EXPAND THE DISTRICT TO INCLUDE THE PROPERTY BETWEEN EAST CESAR CHAVEZ AND DRISKILL STREET EXTENDING EAST FROM RED RIVER STREET APPROXIMATELY 396 FEET MORE OR LESS. IS THERE ANYONE -- MR. GUERNSEY, WHY DON'T YOU MAKE A QUICK PRESENTATION.
>> THIS IS AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT. AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING THAT PASSED TUESDAY, NO ONE SHOWED UP AT THE HEARING, THE PLANNING COMMISSION COMMISSION VOTED TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE EXPANSION OF THE BOUNDARY. IT IS IN THE AREA AS YOU SKIBD. I'M HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.
>>MAYOR WATSON: COUNCIL, THIS HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND RECOMMENDED TO US. IS THERE ANYONE WISHING TO BE HEARD AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 25 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO THE CURE COMBINING DISTRICT? ANYONE WISHING TO BE HEARD? ANYONE WISHING TO BE HEARD? I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION MADE BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM. SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS. ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. -- I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD, COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ.
>>ALVAREZ: MR. GUERNSEY, WHAT EXACTLY ARE WE ADDING TO THE -- TO THE CURE AREA THERE?
>> THE EXPANSION OF THE CURE AREA WOULD BE THE AREA --.
>>ALVAREZ: COULD YOU POINT IT OUT ON THE MAP?
>> YES. IT WOULD BE THE AREA EAST OF RED RIVER, SOUTH OF CESAR CHAVEZ AND GOING UP TO AN EXISTING RESTAURANT KNOWN AS I-HOP, INTERNATIONAL HOUSE OF PANCAKES. IT WOULD GO DOWN ONE BLOCK SOUTH TO THIS STREET CALLED DRISKILL. IT ULS BORDERS TO THE WEST AND THE NORTH. AND IT'S SOUTHEAST OF THE EXISTING CONVENTION CENTER.
>>ALVAREZ: SO EVERYTHING ELSE IS ALREADY PART OF THE CURE?
>> THE CURE BOUNDARY. IN ORDER FOR SOMEONE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE CURE, THEY WOULD HAVE TO ACTUALLY FILE FOR A ZONING CHANGE. WE HAVE A PENDING ZONING CHANGE THAT COUNCIL WILL CONSIDER ON THE 12TH IF THIS IS ACTED ON FAVORABLY.
>>MAYOR WATSON: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING? OPPOSED SAY NO. MOTION CARRIES. ITEM NO. 110, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THE ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 25 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO THE BOUNDARY OF THE CENTRAL URBAN REDEVELOPMENT COMBINING DISTRICT. MOTION MADE AND SECONDED. DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED SAY NO. MOTION CARRIES ON ITEM 110. COUNCIL, ALL THAT LEAVES ON THE AGENDA IS THE ITEM 108 WAS, AS I INDICATED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE DAY TODAY, THERE WAS A CONSENSUS AMONG COUNCIL NOT TO GO FORWARD WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM IN PART BECAUSE OUR BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS AND SUBCOMMITTEES AND BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS ARE INTERESTED IN HAVING A LITTLE MORE TIME TO LOOK AT THIS. HOWEVER, I INDICATED AT THAT TIME THAT IF COUNCILMEMBERS WANTED TO TALK ABOUT THAT, THAT IS -- THIS, IT IS ALL THEIR PREROGATIVE TO DO THAT. AND I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT. ONE OF THE THINGS I'LL SAY QUICK ---WELL, I WAS GOING TO SAY ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS IMPORTANT ABOUT THIS IS IT IS AN ITEM THAT IS RECEIVING A LOT OF PUBLIC DISCUSSION. AND PEOPLE ARE MAKING COMMENTS ON IT, AND I HOPE THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WILL BENEFIT FROM THIS IS THAT THE -- THE WORK THAT OUR BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS WILL DO WILL HELP I WILL LOOSE SI DATE SOME OF THE FACTS. I ALSO INDICATED THIS MORNING THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT GO BACK TO THE PARKS BOARD FOR THEM TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT SOME OF THE TERMS RELATED TO ALL THIS TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT IN FACT IF WE WERE TO ENTER INTO SOME SORT OF AGREEMENT OR SETTLEMENT, THAT IT WOULD PUT US IN A SITUATION WHERE WE MIGHT END UP WITH MORE PARKLAND IN THAT PART OF THE COMMUNITY. SO WITH THAT, WHY DON'T I QUIT TALKING AND SEE IF THERE ARE OTHER COUNCILMEMBERS WHO WOULD LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING.
>>SLUSHER: MAYOR, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING. THANK YOU. AS YOU KNOW, MAYOR, I WAS RELUCTANT TO CANCEL THE HEARING TONIGHT. I REALLY FEEL LIKE WE -- WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT THIS ISSUE AND I DIDN'T AGREE TO THE CANCELLATION UNTIL THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS ASKED FOR MORE TIME, AND EVEN THEN I HAD TO THINK REAL HARD ABOUT IT. IT MIGHT BE I'M A MASICHIST, BUT I REALLY WANTED TO TALK ABOUT THIS ISSUE SO I'M GLAD WE RESERVED THIS TIME AND I HAVE TO WARN FOLKS I AM GOING TO TALK FOR A LITTLE WHILE. I'LL TRY TO GET US OUT OF HERE AT A REASONABLE HOUR. WON'T HAVE TO DO A MOTION TO CONTINUE PAST 10 P.M. OR ANYTHING. AND I REALLY DO REGRET THAT THE CITIZENS AREN'T GOING TO SPEAK TONIGHT. I JUST WANT TO MAKE CLEAR, IT WAS THE CITIZENS GROUPS, THE ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS IN PARTICULAR, THE SAVE OUR SPRINGS ALLIANCE THAT ASKED FOR THIS HEARING TO BE CANCELLED. AND THAT'S A LITTLE MYSTERIOUS TO ME. YOU KNOW, FRANKLY, THE SAME GROUP USUALLY COMPLAINS ABOUT THAT WE DON'T INVOLVE THEM EARLY ENOUGH HAD THE PROCESS. I DON'T NECESSARILY AGREE WITH THAT CRITICISM, BUT WE HEAR IT QUITE A LOT. AND I COUNTED AT LEAST TWO ADS TODAY THAT WERE PURCHASE UNDERSTAND THE AUSTIN CHRONICLE TRYING TO TURN PEOPLE OUT TO THE HEARING. AND SO THAT'S JUST A LITTLE HARD FOR ME TO UNDERSTAND. NOW, WE DELAYED THE HEARINGS ALREADY ONCE, LARGELY DUE TO REQUESTS FROM THE SAME GROUP. YOU KNOW, I JOKED AT THE TIME PEOPLE WERE GOING TO SAY WHEN THEY CAME UP THEN NOVEMBER 30TH AND DECEMBER 7TH, PEOPLE WOULD SAY WELL NOW YOU ARE RUINING OUR CHRISTMAS. THAT DIDN'T QUITE HAPPEN. PEOPLE JUST SAID LET'S CALL THEM OFF AND THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING. I HAVE TO SAY IT'S PARTICULARLY TROUBLING OR MYSTERIOUS TO ME THAT ONCE -- THAT I ISSUED A CALL FOR ALL THE DISCUSSIONS TO NOW BE IN PUBLIC, NO MORE EXECUTIVE SESSIONS ON THIS MATTER, AND THREE OF THE COUNCILMEMBERS QUICKLY AGREED WITH ME AND I THINK WE'RE PROBABLY ALL IN CON KRENS ON THAT. NOW, IT'S JUST SORT OF ODD THAT RIGHT AFTER I DID THAT, ALL OF A SUDDEN THERE'S ALL THESE CALLS TO CANCEL THE HEARING. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY ARE CONNECTED OR NOT, BUT IT WAS A LITTLE ODD. LIKE I SAID. AND THEN THIS MORNING THE S.O.S. DIRECTOR SAID IN THE -- ONE OF THE NEWSPAPERS THAT THE -- THAT NOW THAT THE MAYOR RECOMMENDED CANCELLING THE PUBLIC HEARINGS THE COUNCIL SHOULDN'T DISCUSS THIS FOR US TO DISCUSS THE ISSUES. I DON'T KNOW QUITE WHAT TO SAY TO THAT, BUT I WILL NEVER SUPPORT THE COUNCIL BEING PROHIBITED FROM DISCUSSING AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA. NOW, I WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT MY OWN PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT IN THIS ISSUE THAT I THINK I CAN -- I KNOW THAT I CAN ACCURATELY SAY THAT I'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS ISSUE FROM THE VERY START. A LOT OF YOU, ANYWAY, PROBABLY REALIZE I USED TO BE THE POLITICS WRITER AT THE AUSTIN CHRONICLE. AND ONE DAY BACK IN 1990 OVER AT THE CHRONICLE'S LUX I COULDN'T REMEMBER REDUCE OFFICES ON NUECES STREET, SOMEONE WALKED UP TO ME, I TRIED TO REMEMBER WHO FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, AND I CAN'T, AND WALKED UP TO ME AND HANDED ME A PACKET ABOUT A DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL ALONG BARTON CREEK. YOU KNOW, AND JUST LIKE NOW IN THOSE DAYS, PEOPLE HANDED ME A LOT OF PACKETS. AND AS SOON AS I LOOKED AT THIS AND I REALIZED IT WAS A REALLY BIG DEAL, IT WAS A DEVELOPER'S PLAN FOR A HUGE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON BARTON CREEK CALLED THE BARTON CREEK P.U.D.. THE DEVELOPER WAS A CORPORATION I HADN'T EVEN HEARD OF BEFORE CALLED FREEPORT MCMORAN. I SHOWED LOUIS BLACK, THE PACKET, THE EDITOR OF THE CON KRAL, AND HE SUGGESTED A COVER STORY. WE DID THAT, URGED PEOPLE TO TURN OUT AND OPPOSE THE DEVELOPMENT. AND I TELL YOU, A LOT OF THEM DID AND IT REALLY CHANGED A LOT OF THINGS IN AUSTIN POLITICS STARTING WITH THAT. AND ONE THING WAS IT GOT A LOT MORE PEOPLE INVOLVED IN PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT. THAT'S WHAT REALLY CHANGED THINGS. AND I KNOW THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE OUT THERE TODAY, PROBABLY A LOT OF THEM SAY, WELL, THEY SAID IN THE CHRONICLE TODAY WELL, THE OLD DARYL SLUSH ERX, THE MUCK RAKER, WOULD HAVE NEVER -- WOULD HAVE NEVER EVEN CONSIDERED TALKING TO STRATUS. JUST UNTHINKABLE. BUT NOW THE SHOE IS ON THE OTHER FOOT AND HE'S IN A BIG MESS THERE, BUT WOULD NEVER EVEN CONSIDER TALKING TO THEM. WELL, I WENT BACK AND GOT AN ARTICLE I WROTE DATED JANUARY 15TH, 1993. AND IT'S ALSO SIGNED BHI LOOK WIS BLACK AND NICK BARBER, EDITOR AND PUBLISHER OF THE CHRONICLE THEN AND NOW. AND I TALKED TO LOUIS TODAY AND ASKED HIM IF HE WOULD CONFIRM THAT I WAS THE MAIN WRITER OF THIS BECAUSE I WAS NICE ENOUGH -- MY NAME IS NOT FIRST, BUT I DID, I AUTHORED THIS WHEN JIM BOB MOFFETT WHO WE SAW REST YOU ARE RECOLLECTED TODAY IN THE ADVERTISEMENTS IN THE CHRONICLE, JIM BOB MOFFETT CAME OUT JANUARY 7TH, 1993 AND SAID, I WANT TO TALK PEACE. I WANT TO TALK ABOUT A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. AND SO SOME OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY SAID, WELL, WE SHOULDN'T EVEN CONSIDER THAT. FRANKLY, SOME OF THE SAME FOLKS SAYING WE SHOULDN'T TALK ABOUT IT NOT IN PUBLIC, SHOULDN'T TALK ABOUT IT AS COUNCIL, SHOULDN'T TALK ABOUT IT. HERE'S WHAT I WROTE ALONG WITH LOUIS AND NICK. WHILE WE ARE SKEPTICAL, IT WOULD BE UNWISE TO AUTOMATICALLY REJECT FREEPORT'S OFFER OF PEACE NEGOTIATIONS. THERE IS A DANGER THAT WE ARE IN A WAR WHICH WILL HAVE NO WINNERS. IF THERE IS ANY CHANCE THAT SUCH AN OUTCOME CAN BE AVOIDED, THEN THAT POSSIBILITY SHOULD EXPLORED. MORE OVER, THERE IS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT GENUINE CONCESSIONS MAY BE IN FREEPORT'S BEST INTEREST IN THE LONG RUNS. MOFFETT'S CALL FOR PUBLIC DISCUSSIONS IS WE WILL KOPD AND ENCOURAGE WELCOMED AND ENCOURAGING. THE DISCUSSION NEEDS TO BE VERY PUBLIC AND THE DETAILS OF ANY DEAL NEED TO BE PUBLIC FOR AT LEAST SEVERAL WEEKS BEFORE ANYTHING IS GIVEN APPROVAL BY ANY GOVERNMENTAL BODY. AND THEN SKIPPING AROUND, WE ENDED SAYING PERHAPS THERE IS HOPE. THIS OFFER, IF THERE IS IN FACT AN OFFER, SHOULD BE EXPLORED THOROUGHLY, DILIGENTLY AND IN GOOD FAITH BY ALL SIDES. EVERYONE INVOLVED SHOULD STEP BACK AT LEAST MOMENTARILY FROM THE WAR PATH AND EXPLORE THE POSSIBILITIES AND THE DESIREABILITY OF PEACE. WE MAY ALL LOSE THE WAR IF WE DON'T. THAT SEEMS PRETTY CONSISTENT TO ME. NOT ONLY AM I SAYING LET'S TALK TO THEM, BUT I'M SAYING LET'S DO IT IN THE OPEN. JUST LIKE I'VE CALLED FOR EVERYTHING ABOUT THIS TO BE DONE IN THE OPEN. AND I'M REALLY DISAPPOINTED MYSELF THAT FOLKS AREN'T TALKING TONIGHT, BUT THEY DIDN'T WANT TO. EVIDENTLY. AND YOU KNOW, SO IT'S THE SAME THING WE'RE SAYING RIGHT NOW, AND THAT PROPOSAL TURNED OUT IT DID NOT WORK OUT. I ENDED UP PROPOSING IT, AND JUST LIKE THE MAYOR HAS SAID, I'VE SAID, COUNCILMEMBER WYNN HAS SAID, MAYOR PRO TEM GOODMAN HAS SAID THIS THIS PROPOSAL THAT'S ON THE TABLE RIGHT NOW DOES NOT ADEQUATELY -- DOES NOT ADEQUATELY PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT. SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO VOTE FOR IT. THAT'S ALL RIGHT, I'M NOT -- THANK YOU. I'M NOT LOOKING FOR THE APPLAUSE. BUT I THINK WE -- I THINK WE NEED TO KEEP TALKING BECAUSE I STILL THINK THAT COULD BE A SITUATION WHERE WE HAVE A WAR WHERE EVERYBODY LOSES. AND LET ME JUST STATE A FEW REASONS AND I'M GOING INTO A LITTLE MORE DETAIL. I TOLD YOU I WAS GOING TO TAKE A WHILE. ONE REASON WAS IGNORING THIS SITUATION WON'T MAKE IT GO AWAY. AS I SAID MONTHS AGO, STRATUS OWNS A LOT OF LAND IN THE BARTON SPRINGS ZONE AND THEY WANT TO DEVELOP IT. THAT IS AN EVEN ESCAPEABLE FACT. AND BECAUSE THE STATE GRANDFATHERING LAWS PASSED BY OUR LEGISLATORS, SIGNED BY OUR GOVERNOR, THEY COULD END UP WITH MORE DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT AN AGREEMENT THAN WITH IT. NOW, THERE'S -- THAT'S A POINT TO BE DEBATED. WOULD THAT REALLY HAPPEN? I'M NOT SURE. I DON'T THINK ANYBODY CAN SAY THAT WITH CERTAINTY, ALTHOUGH I THINK SOME WOULD CLAIM TO BE ABLE TO SAY IT WITH CERTAINTY. BUT WE WON'T -- WE'LL HAVE LESS OF AN IDEA WHAT THE TRUTH IS THERE IF WE REFUSE TO TALK ABOUT IT. NOW, I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR, IF WE DON'T MOVE FORWARD, WE'RE NOT MOVINGING FORWARD TONIGHT, WE'RE NOT APPROVING ANYTHING ANY TIME REAL SOON, BUT STRATUS CAN COME IN IN THE MEANTIME AND FILE APPLICATIONS. EVEN S.O.S. HAS SEEN THAT TO BE THE STRATEGY. I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR SOME OF THESE ARE LIKELY TO FALL UNDER STATE GRANDFATHERING LAW. EMPHASIS, THAT IS THE LAW. ANOTHER REASON I WANT TO LOOK AT POSSIBILITIES WHERE WE CAN MEET MORE OF OUR GOALS THAN ONE LIKE MUELLER, AND I'LL ELABORATE ON THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE IN A MINUTE. AND BEFORE I GO ON -- NEXT THING, BEFORE I GO INTO THOSE POINTS, I WANT TO HIT THE FIRST ONE -- I MEAN THE LAST ONE ON THE LIST WHICH IS I THINK THINGS ARE -- WE HAVE A BETTER CHANCE OF COMING TO AN AGREEMENT. WE'RE DEALING WITH DIFFERENT FOLKS THAN WE WERE BACK IN 1990, 1993 AND 1995. YOU KNOW, I'VE TALKED TO BAUU ARM SFRONG AND DOESN'T APPRECIATE ATE, IT'S HEART FOE ME TO -- THEY DID PLAY A BIG PART IN GETTING THE GRANDFATHERING BILL PASSED. AND SOME OTHER BILLS PASSED WHICH THE CITY HAS SUCCESSFULLY CHALLENGED. I DON'T LIKE THAT. BUT IT HAPPENED, AND IT'S THE LAW NOW. SO -- AND WE HAVE TO OBEY THE LAW.
>> BUT I DO WANT TO SAY MR. ARMSTRONG, HE HAS REALLY -- I MEAN I THINK WE HAVE TO ADMIT HE'S SHOWN AN IMPROVEMENT OVER THE PREVIOUS CEO. I MEAN I HAVEN'T KNOWN HIM TO BE CONTEMPT YOU US OF THE VIEWS OF AUSTIN CITIZENS. HE HASN'T SET ANY DEADLINES. CONTRARY TO WHAT I READ IN MY OLD PAPER TODAY, I HAVEN'T HEARD HIM THREATEN THE CITY, THREATEN TO BANKRUPT THE CITY, THREATEN TO DO ANYTHING ELSE TO THE CITY. YOU KNOW, AND HE HASN'T BRAGGED ABOUT HIS GRADE AND HE HASN'T COMPARED HIMSELF TO JESUS. I REALLY THINK WE'VE GOT A BIG IMPROVEMENT THERE. AND I APPRECIATE IT. BUT NOW -- AND I THINK -- I'M GOING TO CALL MYSELF A MORATORIUM NOW ON EVEN MAKING ANY JOKES ABOUT JIM BOB MOFFETT JUST IN THE INTEREST OF TRYING TO REACH PEACE, AND SINCE HE'S NOT -- EVIDENTLY NOT INVOLVED IN IT ANYMORE, DOESN'T EVEN OWN STOCK IN THE COMPANY, AND I WAS PRETTY SKEPTICAL WHETHER THAT'S TRUE OR NOT MYSELF, BUT I'M STARTING TO BELIEVE IT. SO I'M GOING TO LEAVE HIM ALONE, BUT I COULDN'T RESIST POINTING OUT SOME OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN HIM AND MR. ARMSTRONG. NOW I WANT TO DISCUSS A BITTER REALITY WHICH I'VE ALREADY REFERRED TO A COUPLE OF TIMES, THE STATE GAND FATHERING BILL, 1704, WHICH STRATUS IS GOING TO BE FREE TO FILE SOME STUFF UNDER. THEY HAVE FILED SOME THINGS UNDER S.O.S. AND I'M HOPING THAT'S WHAT THEY FILE, BUT LEGALLY WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A HARD TIME IF -- KEEPING THEM FROM FILING THINGS -- WE WON'T BE ABLE TO EXCEPT ON INDIVIDUAL -- WE CAN LOOK AT EACH INDIVIDUAL CASE. AND I WANT PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND THAT AND JUST GIVE YOU A SHORT HISTORY HERE OF THAT. THE 1704 ALLOWS DEVELOPERS TO BUILD UNDER THE WATER QUALITY REGULATIONS IN PLACE AT THE TIME OF THEIR ORIGINAL APPLICATION, NO MATTER HOW OLD THE APPLICATION, NO MATTER HOW OUTDATED THE RULES, SCIENCE OR PUBLIC OPINION HAS ADVANCE UNDERSTAND THE ENSUING YEARS. IT WAS ORIGINALLY PASS UNDERSTAND 1987 AS HOUSE BILL 4. IT WAS STRENGTHENED IN 1995 AS 1704. IT WAS ACCIDENTALLY REPEALED IN 1997. SOMEHOW IT GOT WIPED OUT. I HOPE THAT COUGHING DOESN'T MEAN YOU ALL ARE GETTING BORED. AND IT WAS REINSTRAIGHT IN 1999. I THINK IT'S BAD LEGISLATION, BUT IT DID PASS. IT IS THE LAW. AND THE CITY CAN'T IGNORE IT. NOW, SO SOME SAY THAT THE COUNCIL SHOULD NOT TAKE ACTION IN FEAR OF WHAT THE LOGT YOU ARE SHOULD DO. -- LEGISLATURE SHOULD DO. I'VE SAID THAT BEFORE MYSELF. YOU CAN ALL GO DIG UP AN ARTICLE OR TWO WHERE I SAID THAT. AND I STILL BELIEVE THAT. BUT IN THIS CASE WE AREN'T DEALING WITH WHAT WE'RE AFRAID THE LEGISLATURE IS GOING TO DO. WE'RE DEALING WITH SOMETHING THEY'VE ALREADY DONE AND THAT THE GOVERNOR SIGNED SEVERAL YEARS AGO. AND THE COUNCIL -- YOU KNOW, THE COUNCIL HAS BEEN SUCCESSFUL, THE PREVIOUS COUNCIL AND EVEN STARTING OUT EVEN BEFORE I WAS ON THE COUNCIL AT OVERTURNING SOME OF THE KEY AUSTIN BASHING BILLS. AND WE LOOKED AT THIS ONE. WE HAD MORE THAN A DOZEN EXECUTIVE SESSIONS ON 1704. WE BROUGHT IN ALL THE SAME ATTORNEYS WHO WON THE OTHER AUSTIN BASHING LAWSUITS TO ADVICE US. WE BROUGHT IN SOME OTHER ATTORNEYS RECOMMENDED TO US BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY. WE HAD SOME WIDE-RANGING DISCUSSIONS IN EXECUTIVE SESSION AS IS PERMITTED AND WISELY PERMITTED ON -- UNDER STATE LAW. AND AFTER LENGTHY CONSIDERATION OF VERY SKILLED LEGAL ADVICE, I BELIEVE WE ALL -- AND IF ANYONE THINKS DIFFERENTLY, SPEAK UP, COME TO THE RELUCTANT CONCLUSION THAT CHALLENGING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF 1704 WOULD NOT BE A PRUDENT ACTION. I DON'T PLAN TO GO INTO ANY FURTHER DETAIL BECAUSE THERE'S A SLIM CHANCE THAT SOMEBODY MIGHT COME UP WITH A DIFFERENT IDEA LATER; HOWEVER, I DON'T WANT TO EVEN DANG R ANY POSSIBILITY OF ANYTHING THE CITY MIGHT BE INVOLVED IN AT ANY POINT AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE EXECUTIVE SESSIONS. BUT THAT'S -- BRINGS US TO ANOTHER POINT WHICH I REALLY THINK WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THIS, IF WE'RE EVER GOING TO SETTLE THIS ISSUE WE HAVE TO BE REAL FRANK AND REAL HONEST WITH EACH OTHER. AND THERE HAVE BEEN FOLKS THAT ARE REAL PROMINENT IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY THAT HAVE GONE OUT AND TOLD PEOPLE EVERYTHING WOULD JUST BE FINE, WOULDN'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT ANY AGREEMENTS, STRATUS WOULDN'T EVEN HAVE TO TALK ABOUT IT IF THE CITY COUNCILL JUST HAD THE COURAGE TO SUE OVER 1704. THEY'VE GOT 100% RECORD ON THEIR OTHER LAWSUITS SO WHY DON'T THEY HAVE THE COURAGE TO SUE OVER THIS? WELL, I DON'T -- TO ME IT JUST DOESN'T -- IT DOESN'T REALLY ADD UP THAT WE HAD THE COURAGE TO SUE ON THOSE OTHER ONES, THAT WE WOULD ALL OF A SUDDEN JUST STOP, THAT THERE MUST BE SOME REASONS WHY WE DON'T THINK THAT IT'S A PRUDENT ACTION. NOW, IT'S A PRETTY -- I ADMIT IT'S A PRETTY CRAFTY, SKILLFUL, EVEN RUTHLESS WAY OF MAKING IT APPEAR THE COUNCIL IS NOT FIGHTING AS HARD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AS SOME PEOPLE, BUT I -- I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT. AND I WOULD ASK WHICH COURSE REALLY PROTECTS THE ENVIRONMENT THE MOST? TO TALK ABOUT SETTLING OUR DISPUTES OR PRETENDING LIKE STATE LAWS THAT HAVE BEEN PASSED DON'T EXIST. I WOULD SAY THAT TALKING AND TRYING TO COME UP WITH THINGS IS THE BEST WAY TO DO THAT. AND I READ A LETTER IN THE -- I'M GOING TO GO INTO ANOTHER POINT AND I'LL BE THROUGH IN JUST A MINUTE. BUT I READ ALERTED IN THE CHRONICLE ABOUT LAST WEEK ABOUT SAYING THE CITIZEN RESISTANCE TO THE ORIGINAL BARTON CREEK P.U.D. IS BASICALLY SHUT DOWN DEVELOPMENT OUT THERE, THAT IT'S BEEN REALLY LOW DENSITY. WELL, MAN, I TELL YOU, I AGREE THAT BY THE CITIZEN RESISTANCE SOME OF IT HAS BEEN REALLY GLORIOUS CITIZEN RESISTANCE, IN A LOT OF WAYS WE'VE MADE A A LOT OF FUN AS WELL AND IT'S BEEN PRETTY SUCCESSFUL. I MEAN WE HAVE CHANGED A LOT OF THINGS IN THIS CITY, I WON'T GO INTO A WHOLE LIST OF THEM NOW, AND IT'S TRUE, I AGREE WITH THE POINT THAT THAT WRITER MADE THAT THE -- THERE WOULD BE LESS DEVELOPMENT -- I MOON THERE WOULD BE MORE DEVELOPMENT THERE NOW THAN IF THERE HADN'T BEEN THAT CITIZEN RESISTANCE. I TOTALLY AGREE. THERE IS NO DOUBT, AND I JUST LOVE THE THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE MADE THAT POSSIBLE BECAUSE THEY LOVE THE CITY SO MUCH. BUT IT ALSO SAID IN THAT LETTER THAT ALMOST ALL THE DEVELOPMENT OUT THERE NOW IS LOW DENSITY. AND, YOU KNOW, I'VE SPENT A LOT OF TIME DRIVING THROUGH THAT AREA OVER THE LAST TEN YEARS, MONITORING WHAT IS GOING ON OUT THERE, DEVELOPMENT, A LOT OF IT WITH DRAT GREAT SORROW -- GREAT SORROW AND US FROM SFRATION AND I TELL YOU, IT'S NOT LOW DENSITY. I DROVE OUT THERE THE OTHER NIGHT AND LOOKED AROUND AND OH, I HAVE TO SAY THERE WAS A SIGN OF A STALL IN RELATIONS, MAYBE BETTER RELATIONS BECAUSE FOR ONE OF THE FIRST TIMES EVER I SPENT ANY TIME DRIVING AROUND OUT THERE I DIDN'T GET PULLED OVER BY THE SECURITY FORCES. SO I CONSIDERED THAT TO BE A POSITIVE DEVELOPMENT. COULD BE THEY ARE JUST GETTING LACKS OR SOMETHING. I WANTED TO POINT OUT, I HAD THEN SOMEONE GO OUT AND TAKE PICTURES BECAUSE SEEMS TO ME A LOT OF FOLKS HAVEN'T BEEN OUT IN THE AREA LATELY. IF I COULD GET CHANNEL SIX TO FOCUS IN ON THIS, I JUST WANT TO SHOW A FEW OF THE THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED THERE. AND I HATE IT THAT THIS IS HERE. COULD YOU ALL ZOOM IN ON THE OTHER LAPTOP DOWN HERE? LOOK AT THAT. NOW, THAT'S SOME HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT. THAT IS NOT LOW DENSITY DEVELOPMENT. TO ME THAT'S HEARTBREAKING TO GO OUT TO THIS AREA WE'RE ALL FIGHTING TO SAVE AND SEE THIS KIND OF DEVELOPMENT. AND THIS IS A NUMBER OF SUBDIVISIONS, EXCUSE ME -- SEMI LOW TECH PRESENTATION HERE, BUT -- [LAUGHTER]. THERE IS -- THIS IS NOT -- NOT LOW DENSITY DEVELOPMENT. AND I'LL JUST -- I THINK I MADE THE POINT AND YOU ALL SAW ENOUGH OF MY HAND SO I'LL JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT. BUT THAT'S NOT LOW DENSITY DEVELOPMENT. HOW DID IT HAPPEN? IT HAPPENED WHEN THEY WERE BUILDING UNDER WATER QUALITY PROTECTION ZONES BEFORE THE CITY GOT THAT LAW THROWN OUT AS BEING UNCONSTITUTIONAL. IT HAPPENED UNDER STATE GRANDFATHERING LAWS. AND WE HAVE A POSSIBILITY -- WE CAN POSSIBLY KEEP THAT FROM HAPPENING ESPECIALLY WITH SECTION N THIS. RIGHT HERE, ALL THE PICTURES I JUST SHOWED ARE IN THE AREA BASICALLY TO -- A LITTLE BIT TO THE NORTH OF HENRY MARK COMING FROM THE SOUTHWEST PARKWAY ON TRAVIS COOK ROAD AND IT'S STILL PRETTY UNDEVELOPED UNTIL YOU GET TO JUST PAST HENRY MARK'S ROAD AND THEN YOU START HITTING THE HEAVY DEVELOPMENT AND THE GOLF COURSES AND IT'S REALLY HEARTBREAKING TO ME TO GO THROUGH THERE. BUT THAT'S -- THAT'S THE WAY IT IS. BUT BACK THERE FROM HENRY MARK BACK TO THE PARK WAY, IT'S STILL BASICALLY UNDEVELOPED. IT'S STILL VERY BEAUTIFUL. THERE'S STILL A PANORAMIC VIEW OFF OF THAT FROM THE SOUTHWEST PARKWAY. ALTHOUGH THE WAY IT WAS BUILT, YOU BETTER NOT PULL OVER AND LOOK BECAUSE YOUR CAR WILL STILL BE STICKING OUT ON THE PARK WAY. BUT YOU ALL DON'T WANT TO WIDEN IT OR ANYTHING. SO I THINK -- THERE'S SOME WAYS THAT WE COULD POTENTIALLY KEEP THAT FROM HAPPENING. BUT WE AREN'T GOING TO FIGURE THEM OUT IF WE DON'T TALK ABOUT IT. AND ONE OF THEM IS A POTENTIAL LAND SWAP OR DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS SWAP AT MUELLER AIRPORT. I KNOW THERE'S SOME OF THE COUNCILMEMBERS OPPOSED TO TALKING ABOUT THAT. AND I THINK SOME OF THE COMMUNITY IS PROPOSED TO TALK ABOUT IT, BUT I REALLY THINK WE NEED TO TALK BIT AND NEED TO SEE IF THERE ARE OTHER OPTIONS. BECAUSE THE STRATUS FOLKS ARE WILLING TO TALK. THEY ARE NOT JUST DYING TO PROTECT THE -- I MEAN TO BUILD OVER BARTON CREEK. I THINK MR. ARMSTRONG PROBABLY WOULD PREFER TO BUILD SOMEWHERE ELSE IF WE CAN WORK IT OUT. HE'S NOT JUST GOING TO GIVE UP HIS PROPERTY AND HIS SHAREHOLDERS WOULDN'T LIKE THAT EITHER. THAT'S ANOTHER REALITY HERE. BUT I REALLY THINK WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT A LAND SWAP OR DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS SWAP IN MUELLER, BUT I DON'T WANT TO BUILD UP THE EXPECTATIONS TOO HIGH ON THAT IS A MAGIC GLORIOUS SOLUTION BECAUSE IT MIGHT NOT BE. FOR RUN THING, THERE'S 700 ACRES AT MUELLER, THERE'S 4,000 THAT STRATUS OWN OUT OVER THE AQUIFER. SO THAT -- YOU KNOW, WE'RE STILL GOING TO GET SOME DEVELOPMENT OUT THERE, BUT YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET IT -- WE MIGHT EVEN BE ABLE TO SAVE SECTION N, WHICH IS WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO. BUT WE'VE GOT TO TALK ABOUT IT. NOW, I'M GOING TO YIELD THE FLOOR NOW. I JUST WANT TO SAY I THINK IT'S -- I FEEL THE SAME WAY I DID IN 1993. I THINK WE'VE GOT TO TALK ABOUT A PEACE SETTLEMENT. WE'VE GOT TO TALK ABOUT A WAY OF ENDING THIS LONG STRUGGLE IN A WAY THAT PROTECTS THE ENVIRONMENT, PROTECTS THE CITY'S INTERESTS, PROTECTS THE CITY'S FINANCIAL WELL-BEING, BUT I BELIEVE WE'VE GOT TO TALK ABOUT IT AND, JUST LIKE I SAID IN 1993, WE'VE GOT TO TALK ABOUT IT IN PUBLIC. THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. [APPLAUSE].
>>MAYOR WATSON: ANY OTHER COUNCILMEMBERS? COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?
>>WYNN: ONE OF THE CHALLENGING THINGS THAT COMES WITH GOVERNING IS THE FACT THAT WE HAVE TO PLAY BY THE RULES AND THE RULES BEING LAW IN THIS CASE STATE LAW AS COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER POINTED OUT. THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT THE CITY OF AUSTIN OWES STRATUS MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON THE M.U.D. REIMBURSEABLE ISSUES AT CIRCLE C PER STATE LAW. AND THROUGH THESE LENGTHY NEGOTIATIONS AND WITH A LOT OF HARD WORK BY OUR CITY STAFF AND OUR OUTSIDE ATTORNEY CASEY DOBSON, I THINK WE'RE WITHIN SPITTING DISTANCE OF AN AGREEMENT WITH STRATUS AS TO THAT FIGURE. AND SO I'M GOING TO BE VERY SUPPORTIVE OF US MOVING FORWARD IN ATTEMPT TO GO SETTLE THAT PRIOR TO OUR COURT DATE NEXT MONTH, AND IN FACT I'M JUST GIVING EVERYBODY HEADS UP I WILL HOPEFULLY BE HAVING AN AGENDA ITEM ON THE AGENDA OVER THESE NEXT TWO MEETINGS THAT WE CAN HOPEFULLY GET THAT SETTLED AND I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THE PUBLIC IS AWARE THAT I AND OTHER PEOPLE ARE PUSHING FOR THAT. AND WILL ATTEMPT TO GET THAT DONE PRIOR TO OUR COURT DATE NEXT MONTH.
>>MAYOR WATSON: OTHER COMMENTS? MAYOR PRO TEM.
>>GOODMAN: WELL, I WANTED TO ASK CITY LEGAL IF YOU WOULD MIND ANSWERING A COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR CLARIFICATION. AND THE REASON THAT I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU, ANDY, IS BECAUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO TALK TO ME ARE NOT REALLY CLEAR ON WHAT IT IS WE'RE IN COURT FOR. AND THIS IS RELATIVE TO ANY THOUGHTS OF A POSSIBILITY OF DECREASING IMPERVIOUS COVER OR DEVELOPMENT BY THINKING ABOUT THE TRADE, THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS, SO TO SPEAK, TRADE. SO I WONDER IF YOU CAN, IN A NUTSHELL, GIVE US THE CONTEXT OF THE LITIGATION THAT WE ARE INVOLVED IN AND THAT WAS JUST BEGINNING TO BE TOUCHED ON RELATIVE TO THE MONEY WE OWE IN REIMBURSEABLES. THE RELATIVITY TO OUR CONTROL OR NON-CONTROL OVER LAND USE, AND SINCE COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER GAVE US THE HISTORY, I THINK IF YOU JUST KIND OF TIE IT UP INTO WHAT THIS OPPORTUNITY WE TALK ABOUT AN AGREEMENT WAS BASED ON LITIGATION-WISE, FOLKS WILL HAVE A BETTER IDEA OF EXACTLY WHAT THE POSITION IS THAT WE'RE IN AND TAKING RIGHT NOW.
>> OKAY. I'LL TRY. THE -- SHORTLY AFTER THE CITY ANNEXED THE CIRCLE C MUST IN DECEMBER OF '97, CIRCLE C LAND CORP., A SITUATED SITUATED YAER OF STLAT US FILED A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE CITY CLAIMING THE CITY WAS OBLIGATED UNDER STATE LAW TO IMMEDIATELY PAY THE AMOUNTS OF MONEY THAT THEY HAD UNDER A CONTRACT WITH THE M.U.D. SPENT TO INSTALL WATER, WATER AND WASTEWATER AND DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURE. THAT OBLIGATION THAT THE CITY HAS IS ESTABLISHED BY STATE LAW. WHEN A CITY ANNEXES A MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT AND THERE ARE REIMBURSEMENT CONTRACTS BETWEEN A M.U.D. AND A DEVELOPER, THE CITY IS OBLIGATED TO STEP INTO THE SHOES OF THE M.U.D. AND PAY THOSE REIMBURSEMENT AMOUNTS. NOW, THERE WAS A DISPUTE, IS A DISPUTE ABOUT THE PRECISE AMOUNT AND TIMING OF THAT REPAYMENT, BUT IT IS CLEAR THAT THE CITY WAS GOING TO BE OBLIGATED TO PAY SOME AMOUNT. WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY SETTLED THE DISPUTE EXCEPT WITH RESPECT TO EVERYTHING EXCEPT WE'RE NOW ABOUT $14 MILLION APART. ROUGHLY. I MEAN THAT'S THE CLAIM. IN 1999, DURING THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION, A BILL WAS PASSED THAT IN EFFECT RETROACTIVELY ESTABLISHED SOME PENALTY PROUSZ FOR CITIES THAT -- PROVISIONS FOR CITIES THAT ANNEXED CITIES AND DID NOT PAY M.U.D.. AND THAT IS ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT REMAINS OUTSTANDING IN THE TRIAL THAT WOULD BE -- THAT IS CURRENTLY SET FOR JANUARY 26TH WITH CIRCLE C LAND KORL. IT IS A SUBSIDIARY OF SKRAT STRATUSEN AND UNDERSTANDING WE HAD A NUMBER OF OUTSTANDING DISPUTES WITH STRATUS, LONG STANDING DISPUTES ABOUT HOW THEIR LAND WAS GOING TO BE DEVELOPED, AND THEY OWNED LAND IN THE BARTON CREEK DEVELOPMENT, LANTANA AND IN CIRCLE C AND IN THE CIRCLE C M.U.D., CIRCLE C AREA. IN OUR DISCUSSIONS WITH THEM CONCERNING THE LITIGATION, IT QUICKLY BECAME APPARENT THAT THERE WAS A DESIRE ON THE PART OF BOTH CITY AND STRATUS TO SEE IF IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO RESOLVE ALL OF -- NOT ONLY THE DISPUTES ABOUT THE REIMBURSEABLES, BUT PENDING AND FUTURE DISPUTES ABOUT LAND REGULATIONS. AND THAT WAS THE GENESIS OF THE TERM SHEET AND THE SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS THAT LED TO THE TERM SHEET. SEE IF THERE WAS A WAY IN WHICH THE CITY AND STRATUS COULD MEETLY AN ADEGREE TO RESOLVE -- AGREE TO RESOLVE NOT JUST THE DISPUTE OVER THE REIMBURSEABLES, BUT ALSO HOW THE LAND THAT THEY OWNED WAS GOING TO BE DEVELOPED AND PROVIDE THAT CERTAINTY BOTH TO THEM AND TO THE CITY AS HOW IT WAS GOING TO BE DEVELOPED. AS COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER HAS POINTED OUT, ALTHOUGH THERE AREN'T ANY LAWSUITS THAT STRATUS HAS FILED CONCERNING THE CITY'S -- CONCERNING THEIR RIGHTS THAT THEY ASSERT UNDER STATE LAW TO HAVE -- TO DEVELOP UNDER GRANDFATHERED REGULATIONS, THEY WERE VERY MUCH CONCERNED THAT THAT KIND OF DISPUTE, IF NOT COVERED UNDER A GLOBAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, MIGHT LEAD TO LITIGATION IN THE FUTURE. AND AS PEOPLE IN THE DEVELOPMENT BUSINESS WILL TELL YOU, AND AS THEY HAVE SAID, TIME EQUALS MONEY. AND SO THE BENEFIT FOR THEM, THE REASON THAT THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO CONSIDER COMPROMISING WAS THE CERTAINTY OF HAVING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY THAT ESTABLISHED UP FRONT FOR ALL TIME WHAT ARE THE RULES THAT ARE GOING TO BE -- THIS PARTICULAR TRACT OR THIS PARTICULAR TRACT ARE GOING TO BE USED TO DEVELOP UNDER. AND THAT TO THEM -- THERE'S A VALUE TO THAT FOR THEM AND THERE'S A VALUE TO THAT FOR THE CITY. SO THAT'S HOW THEY GOT HOOKED TOGETHER. IF THAT WAS THE -- I HOPE I ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION.
>>GOODMAN: YES, THANK YOU. I WANTED TO MAKE THE POINT THAT IF WE WERE TO BACK OFF OF ANY AGREEMENT AND GO TO COURT AND EVEN WIN, IT WOULD MAKE NO DIFFERENCE ABOUT WHAT WAS DEVELOPED UNDER 1704 BY STRATUS. THE CITY HAS NO JURISDICTION LEGALLY NOW THAT 1704 HAS BEEN REINSTATED AGAIN, AND IF WE CONTINUE IN LITIGATION AND SAY THAT WE WILL NOT DISCUSS A SETTLEMENT, WE MIGHT EVEN WIN AND NOT OWE THEM AS MUCH MONEY AS THEY SAY THAT THEY ARE OWED, BUT STILL, WE WOULD NOT BE WINNING ANYTHING ON LAND DEVELOPMENT.
>> WE WOULDN'T HAVE RESOLVED THOSE OTHER DISPUTES. THAT'S TRUE.
>>GOODMAN: THANKS. THANKS, MAYOR.
>>MAYOR WATSON: OTHER COMMENTS? LET ME JUST KIND OF BRING IT TO A CLOSE. I WANT TO SAY JUST REAL QUICKLY I THINK THE WHOLE REASON THESE DISCUSSIONS EVEN STARTED WAS BECAUSE EVERY MEMBER OF THIS COUNCIL WANTS TO FIGURE OUT HOW BEST TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT. AND THE PREVIOUS COUNCIL AND THIS COUNCIL HAVE WORKED VERY HARD TO FIGURE OUT THE BEST WAYS TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT, MADE LOTS OF EFFORT, LOTS OF PASSIONATE EFFORT, AND FRANKLY, HAVE HAD LOTS OF GREAT SUCCESS. AND I THINK THAT'S REALLY WHAT THIS IS ABOUT IS HOW DO WE BEST TRY TO FIGURE OUT TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT DEALING IN THE CONTEXT OF THE LAWS THAT WE FACE AND THE DEVELOPMENT PRESSURES THAT THE COMMUNITY FACES, THINGS OF THAT NATURE. I ENCOURAGE PEOPLE THAT ARE INTERESTED HAD THIS, AND ONE OF THE THINGS I LOVE ABOUT AUSTIN IS WE HAVE A LOT OF FOLKS INTERESTED IN HOW THIS CITY GROWS AND DEVELOPS, FRANKLY, IT'S PART OF THE REASON WE'VE HAD SUCCESS I THINK IN PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT AND HAD SUCCESS IN MANAGING THE WAY THE CITY IS RAPIDLY GROWING. BUT I ENCOURAGE THOSE THAT ARE INTERESTED TO SPEND TIME ACTUALLY LOOKING AT THE SITUATIONS AND NOT JUST IMMEDIATELY ASSUMING THAT WHATEVER E-MAIL THEY MIGHT GET SAYS IT ALL. FOR EXAMPLE, AND I ENCOURAGE THE MEDIA ALSO TO HELP IN THAT. FOR EXAMPLE, COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER I THINK HAS LAID OUT PRETTY GRAPHICALLY AND SINCERELY ONE OF THE CONCERNS ABOUT 1704 AND GRANDFATHERED ENTITLEMENT. IT ALWAYS SEEMS THAT THE E-MAILS I RECEIVE BASED UPON OBVIOUSLY AN E-MAIL THAT HAS BEEN SENT OUT BY SOMEBODY DESCRIBING WHAT MAY BE GOING ON, IT ALWAYS STARTS THAT THIS AGREEMENT OR THIS PROPOSAL WILL ALLOW X TO HAPPEN. BUT IT NEVER SEEMS TO TALK ABOUT WHAT COULD HAPPEN IF THERE WAS NOT AN AGREEMENT OR A PROPOSAL. IN OTHER WORDS, I'VE NOT EVEN SEEN IT REPORTED, AND MAYBE IT'S BEEN REPORTED SOMEWHERE AND I'VE MISSED IT, TYPICALLY IT GETS REPORTED THE PROPOSED TERM SHEET WOULD ALLOW X, Y AND Z. IT DOESN'T GET REPORTED ABSENT THAT YOU WOULD HAVE A, B AND C. OR THE POTENTIAL FOR A, B AND C. AND I THINK THAT IS THE KIND OF THING THAT SOME WHO ARE PASSIONATELY CONCERNED ABOUT PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT WOULD LIKE TO KNOW. AND -- AND I'M HOPEFUL THAT THROUGH THIS PROCESS -- I KNOW THE OTHER DAY AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION SUBCOMMITTEE IT WAS LAID OUT IN PRETTY GOOD DETAIL WHAT THE CLAIMED ENTITLEMENTS WERE AND WHAT THAT MEANT AND I THINK THAT MADE A DIFFERENCE TO SOME PEOPLE. I GUESS MY POINT IS BOTH IN THE MEDIA AND THOSE WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THIS, AND I ENCOURAGE TO YOU KEEP YOUR INTEREST IN IT BECAUSE WE ALL WANT TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT AS BEST WE'RE ABLE, TO LOOK AT THAT TOO AND DON'T JUST ASSUME THAT IF THERE IS -- AND SOME OF THE ADS IN THE CHRONICLE TODAY, AND I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO READ EVERYTHING IN THE PAPER TODAY, BUT SOME OF THE ADS IN THE CHRONICLE ACT AS THOUGH THE ONLY WAY THERE'S GOING TO BE DEVELOPMENT OUT IN THAT -- OVER THAT AQUIFER IS IF THIS COUNCIL TAKES SOME SORT OF ACTION. AND WE JUST KNOW THAT'S NOT TRUE. AND THAT'S REALLY NOT THE MOST HONEST WAY TO TALK ABOUT HOW DO WE PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT. AND THE OTHER THING I JUST WANT TO BE REAL CLEAR ON AND I ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT MAKING SURE THEY STATE THINGS ACCURATELY BECAUSE IT IS SOMETHING VERY IMPORTANT TO ALL OF US. FOR EXAMPLE, ONE OF THE FEW THINGS I HAVE HAD TIME TO READ TODAY IN THE CHRONICLE WAS A PHRASE THAT SAYS SOMEHOW I HAVE ANOINTED THIS PROPOSAL AS THE ONLY OR THE BEST WAY TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT. OR TO DEAL WITH THIS. WELL, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY TIMES I HAVE TO SAY PUBLIC I I DON'T FAVOR THIS TERM SHEET. I'VE SAID THAT OVER AND OVER AGAIN, BY THE WAY, IT WAS REPORTED BY A REPORTER WHO HADN'T TALKED TO ME. AND THAT CREATES DIFFICULTY IN THIS COMMUNITY'S EFFORT TO TRY TO PASSIONATELY AND APPROPRIATELY PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT.
>>SLUSHER: MAYOR, THEY ARE JUST NOT AS ACCURATE AS THEY USED TO BE. [LAUGHTER].
>>MAYOR WATSON: BUT LET ME END BY SAYING THIS. STAY ENGAGED BECAUSE IT'S ONLY BY OUR ENGAGEMENT THAT WE ARE TRULY GOING TO DO THE BEST WE CAN TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT. BUT AS WE STAY ENGAGED, LET'S BE WILLING TO THINK OF POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES. LET'S BE WILLING TO TO TALK ABOUT ALTERNATIVES THAT MAY NOT WORK. YOU KNOW, I'VE GOT TO TELL YOU, I FRANKLY FAVOR TALKING ABOUT MUELLER AS ONE MECHANISM FOR PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT. THAT MAY NOT WORK. IT MAY NOT WORK. I CAN THINK OF A WHOLE VARIETY OF REASONS IT MAY NOT WORK. BUT WHY ISN'T IT WORTH TALKING ABOUT? YOU KNOW, IF -- AND IF WE CONCLUDE AFTER A HEALTHY DISCUSSION IT DOESN'T WORK, MAN, WE'VE CONCLUDED THAT. BUT IF WE'RE GOING TO BE PASSIONATE ABOUT PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT, IF WE'RE GOING TO COME PASSIONATE ABOUT MANAGING OUR GROWTH, LET'S THROW THE IDEAS OUT, LET'S TALK ABOUT THEM AND SEE IF THEY WORK AS OPPOSED TO JUST SAYING NOT ONLY NO, BUT -- WELL, THE FINAL THING I'LL SAY IS KEEP IN MIND THAT IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT REACHING AN AGREEMENT. AND BY THE WAY, WE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO REACH AN AGREEMENT. AS I'VE SAID, I DON'T FAVOR THIS TERM SHEET. I DON'T THINK IT GOES FAR ENOUGH TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT THE WAY I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTED. BUT -- BUT, AS YOU ARE THINKING YOUR WAY THROUGH THAT AND YOU ARE GIVING US INPUT AND YOU ARE GIVING US ALTERNATIVES AND THOUGHTS ON HOW WE CAN DO THAT, BE WILLING TO LOOK AT WHAT THE ALTERNATIVES MIGHT BE. AND I JUST ENCOURAGE EVERYBODY TO DEAL WITH IT IN THAT WAY. COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH.
>>GRIFFITH: YES. THANK YOU, MAYOR, MAY I BUILD ON YOUR OBSERVATION, WHICH I THINK IS TOTALLY TRUE THAT WHAT WE'RE ALL INTERESTED IN PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT. ESPECIALLY BARTON CREEK, BARTON SPRINGS AND THE EDWARDS AQUIFER. AND BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT IS OUR FUNDAMENTAL UNPHING GOAL, WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST -- UNPHING GOAL IS WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST IS SOMETHING WE NEED TO DO IN ORDER TO KNOW WHAT TO DO TO DO THAT. AND THAT WOULD BE TO HAVE OUR STAFF AND OUTSIDE CONSULTING SUPPORT, IF NEED BE, TO FIND OUT THE ANSWER TO THAT ONE QUESTION. WHAT WOULD IT TAKE TO SAVE BARTON CREEK AND BARTON SPRINGS AND THE EDWARDS AQUIFER? I KNOW THERE'S ANOTHER ORGANIZATION IN TOWN THAT HAS A RESPONSIBILITY SIMILAR TO THIS AND THEY ARE UNDERTAKING THAT KIND OF STUDY. AND TO PARA PHASE WHAT THEY SAY, WITH CENTRAL TEXAS CHANGING AS FAST AS IT IS, THE AQUIFER CAN'T AFFORD TO WAIT AND SEE WHAT WILL HAPPEN WHEN ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS CHANGE. WE NEED TO BE SMART ENOUGH TO KNOW HOW THE AQUIFER WILL RESPOND TO MORE PEOPLE AND MORE POLLUTION SO THAT WE CAN CHOOSE TO TAKE THE RIGHT PROTECTIVE MEASURES. THAT'S WHY THE ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY IS A HIGH PRIORITY FOR ME. RIGHT NOW WE KNOW A LOT ABOUT THE AQUIFER, A LOT ABOUT WATER QUALITY, BUT WE DON'T HAVE NOW THE PREDICTIVE CAPABILITY, AND THAT'S WHAT THIS RESEARCH WOULD BE INTENDED TO DO, TO GIVE US THE ABILITY TO LOOK FORWARD RATHER THAN JUST LOOKING AT HOW IT IS NOW. I HOPE WE'LL VERY, VERY SERIOUSLY CONSIDER DOING THAT RESEARCH. ONE OF THE GOOD THINGS ABOUT THIS PLAN THAT WE ADOPTED TONIGHT, THAT WE ACCEPTED, IT HAS THE IMPLEMENTATION LAID OUT. AND THERE'S A TWO-STEP PROCESS. IN CHAPTER 8, WHICH IS THE IMPLEMENTATION PIECE. AND I THINK WE CAN TALK TO ANYBODY WE WANT TO TALK TO IN THE FRAMEWORK OF THIS RECOMMENDED IMPLEMENTATION PART OF THE PLAN. IT'S -- IT'S A TWO-STEP. THE FIRST STEP IS WE DO A REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS, AND WE SEARCH FOR THE VERY FINEST, MOST EXPERIENCED IN TERMS OF REDEVELOPMENT AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT BUILDING AND WE MAY GET HOPEFULLY 10 TO 12 RESPONSES FROM THE BEST IN THE COUNTRY. AND THEN THE SECOND STEP IS YOU DO A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR YOUR SHORT LIST, WHICH IS THE TWO OR THREE THAT YOU ARE IMPRESSED WITH FROM THE REQUESTS FOR QUALIFICATIONS, AND THEN YOU MAKE A DEAL WITH A MASTER DEVELOPER WHO IS YOUR CHOICE. THAT -- THAT'S THE RECOMMENDED AND I THINK THE WISEST WAY TO GO BECAUSE THE MOST IMPORTANT CHOICE WE'LL EVER MAKE IN TERMS OF -- OF THE QUALITY AND THE RETURN ON INVESTMENT THAT WE ALL WANT AT ROBERT MUELLER IS GOING TO BE THE CHOICE OF THAT MASTER DEVELOPER. THEN AFTER WE GET THE FINEST ONE WE CAN, THEN THE NEXT STEPS ARE -- THAT ARE OUTLINED IN THE PLAN WE'VE ACCEPTED IS THERE'S A THREE-STEP PROCESS, AND WITHIN THAT THERE'S SIX PACKAGES THAT WILL GO OUT. AND CERTAINLY ANY AND EVERYBODY WHO WOULD LIKE TO SHOULD RESPOND, A, TO THE REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS, AND LATER ON ALSO THE -- THOSE SIX PACKAGES THAT WILL GO OUT. SO THERE'S PLENTY OF ROOM FOR INCLUSION FOR ANYBODY. EVERYBODY SEEMS TO TALK ABOUT THE SOUTH TEXAS NUCLEAR PROJECT AS SOMETHING THAT WENT WRONG. AND IN THE CASE OF ROBERT MUELLER, I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT BECAUSE IT MIGHT BE RELEVANT. NONE OF THE CITIES INVOLVED IN THAT PROJECT HAD EVER BUILT A NUKE AND THEY CHOSE A BIG LOCAL AREA BUILDER WITH WORLD WIDE EXPERIENCE WHEN THEY CHOSE BROWN & ROOT, HOWEVER, BROWN & ROOT HAD NEVER BUILT A NUKE NULT. A CITY LIKE AUSTIN THAT CHOOSES A MASTER DEVELOPER THAT HAS NOT DONE TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD PROJECTS AND BEING A CITY THAT HAS LIMITED EXPERIENCE IN DEVELOPMENT, AS WAS POINTED OUT EARLIER TONIGHT BY OUR MANAGER, THE SITUATION YOU HAVE THERE IS YOU GOT SOMEBODY TRYING TO RIDE A HORSE THAT'S NEVER RIDDEN A HORSE AND YOU'VE GOT A HORSE THAT'S NEVER BEEN RIDDEN. SOMEBODY NEEDS TO KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING. SO THAT MEANS THAT OUR -- THE NEXT THING I HOPE WE'LL DO IS TO -- NOW THAT WE'VE ACCEPTED THE PLAN IS TO STAY WITH THE PROGRAM, DO THE REQUESTS FOR QUALIFICATIONS, THEN THE REQUESTS FOR PROPOSAL, AND GET THE VERY BEST FOR ROBERT MUELLER AND THE BEST FOR AUSTIN AND ESPECIALLY FOR EAST AUSTIN. THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES, THERE ARE MASTER DEVELOPERS THAT ARE QUALIFIED TO DO A PROJECT LIKE ROBERT MUELLER. AND I BELIEVE THAT SEVERAL OF THEM ARE GOING TO BE EXTREMELY INTERESTED IN MUELLER. WE GO THROUGH THE OPEN REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS PROCESS, WE'LL LEARN FROM THE WORLD CLASS MASTER DEVELOPERS THE ANSWER OF HOW THEY HAVE DONE SIMILAR PROJECTS IN THE PAST. BY THE TIME WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS AND NARROWED OUR SEARCH DOWN TO THE TWO OR THREE FINALISTS, WE WILL THEN TRULY UNDERSTAND HOW OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE MASTER DEVELOPER SHOULD WORK. AND EVEN AFTER THIS PROCESS, AS COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS HAS POINTED OUT, IF WE DISCOVERED THAT WE HAVE MADE A MISTAKE IN CHOOSING THE MASTER DEVELOPER, DURING PHASE 1, WE CAN TAKE A CHANCE BECAUSE WE WILL STILL OWN PHASES 2 AND 3. IF, ON THE OTHER HAND, WE HAVE A MADE A GREAT CHOICE AND PHASE 1 IS SUCCESSFUL, THEN PHASE 2 WILL GO UP IN VALUE AND OUR GENERAL FUND WILL BENEFIT FROM THAT INCREASE. IF WE MAINTAIN OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY, MUCH OF THE OFFICE AND COMMERCIAL CAN BE DEVELOPED WITH LONG-TERM LEASES, GIVING US AN INCOME STREAM THAT WILL KEEP TAXES DOWN FOR OUR CHILDREN AND OUR GRANDCHILDREN. IF A DEVELOPER OWNS THE LAND, WE CAN MAKE A DEAL FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR A FEW YEARS ON SOME OF THE UNITS, BUT AFTER THOSE YEARS ARE UP, THE UNITS WILL RETURN TO MARKET. ONLY IF WE'RE SMART ENOUGH TO KEEP CONTROL OF THE LAND, WE CAN SELL REVENUE BONDS, OWN SOME OF THAT LOW INCOME HOUSING, AND THEN IT CAN BE AFFORDABLE FROM NOW ON. IT'S BEEN SAID THAT IF A DEVELOPER SAYS THAT THEY WILL ADHERE TO THE CONCEPT PLAN, THAT THAT'S OKAY. THAT'S ALL THAT MATTERS. OTHER THINGS DON'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE. I DON'T THINK THAT'S TRUE. I THINK IT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO GET THE VERY FINE E.T.. IF WE TRADE ROBERT MUELLER, THEN DID DEVELOPER WILL OWN THE LAND. THE CITY CAN HAVE THE DEVELOPER SIGN A LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT THAT GUARANTEES THAT THE DEVELOPER WILL FOLLOW THE ROMA REDEVELOPMENT PLAN. HOWEVER, IF THAT DEVELOPER DECIDES THAT THE PROJECT WILL BE MORE PROFITABLE BY MODIFYING THE PLAN, IT WILL ONLY BECOME APPARENT THAT MODIFICATIONS ARE BEING MADE AS YEARS GO BY. THE NEIGHBORS AND THE REDEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE CAN THEN NOTIFY THE CITY STAFF. IF THE CITY STAFF CHOOSES TO BRING LEGAL ACTION TO ENFORCE THE PLAN, THEN THAT -- CLEARLY WE HAVE MADE A MISTAKE BY CHOOSING THAT PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT. THEIR ADVICE TO COUNCIL COULD BE THAT THE DEVELOPER IS FOLLOWING THE SPIRIT OF THE PLAN. AND THAT THE PLAN IS ONLY A SET OF GENERAL GUIDELINES. AT THAT POINT, THE GAME IS OVER AND EAST AUSTIN LOSES AGAIN. LET'S STAY WITH THE PROGRAM. LET'S -- LET'S GO FOR THE VERY FINEST MASTER DEVELOPER THAT WE CAN ATTRACT. AND HAVE THE MOST OPEN PUBLIC INCLUSIVE PROCESS WE CAN. [ONE MOMENT, PLEASE, WHILE CAPTIONERS CHANGE].
>>GOODMAN:: IN FACT I ORIGINAL THOUGHT IN ORDER TO AVOID SOME OF THE VAGUE GARIES THAT MIGHT -- VAGUEARES THAT MIGHT HAPPEN THAT THE DISTRICT OR AUTHORITY WAS THE BEST WAY TO GO, MUCH LIKE WE HAVE ARA, BECAUSE THEN IT WOULD BE THE NEIGHBORS FROM THE NEIGHBORHOODS THEMSELVES THAT OVERSAW ANY FLEXIBILITY, ANY MODIFICATION, ANY CHANGE TO THAT PLAN. THEIR VESTED INTEREST WOULD ALWAYS BE A GREAT BENEFIT IN ANY DISCUSSION. SO I AM WAITING ACTUALLY WITH GREAT CURIOSITY TO SEE WHO ANSWERS THE R.F.P. BECAUSE I STILL DON'T HAVE AN ABSOLUTE IDEA OF WHO OR WHAT THIS ENTITY WOULD BE THAT WE CONTRACT WITH TO BE A MASTER DEVELOPER AND WHAT KIND OF GUARANTEES WE HAVE THAT OVER THE YEARS THEY WOULD NOT BECOME VIRTUALLY A BUREAUCRACY OF GOVERNANCE AND DISTANCE IT FROM THE BALKS WHOSE FUTURE IT IS THAT WE THINK -- THE FOLKS WHOSE FUTURE IT IS THAT WE THINK WE GUARANTEE WITH THE PLAN
>>GRIFFITH: MAYOR PRO TEM I AM DELIGHTED THAT YOU ARE STAYING WITH THE TWO-STEP PROCESS. THE RISK OF NOT DOING THAT AND -- AND WORKING WITH SOMEBODY, NEGOTIATING WITH SOMEBODY OUTSIDE OF THAT PROCESS, THE RISK IS THAT THEN YOU DON'T HAVE ANY OPTIONS AND YOU DON'T HAVE -- YOU DON'T HAVE THE RESPONSES FROM -- FROM THE BEST IN THE COUNTRY. SO I'M REALLY GLAD THAT YOU ARE FEELING THAT WAY.
>>GOODMAN: LET ME BE CLEAR WHAT I JUST SAID. [LAUGHTER]. I DON'T WANT YOU TO THINK THAT I AM SAYING SOMETHING THAT I'M NOT. [LAUGHTER]. I THINK THAT -- THAT WE COMPROMISE THE INTEGRITY OF THE PLAN IF WE IN THIS INSTANCE OR ANY OTHER INSTANCE SAY WE HAVE GOT A MASTER PLAN, BUT WE ARE GOING TO TRADE YOU A DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY FOR X AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO FOLLOW THAT PLAN, YOU CAN DO ANYTHING THAT YOU WANT. AND ALTHOUGH ON OCCASION THE CITY HAS NOT BEEN WHAT YOU MIGHT CALL A SHINING EXAMPLE OF HOW BEST TO WRITE A CONTRACT WITH GUARANTEES AND SAFEGUARDS, I THINK ON THIS ONE THERE WOULD BE SO MANY PEOPLE WATCHING THAT IF THERE WAS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A CONTINGENCY TRADE OF SOME KIND FOR AN OPPORTUNITY IN THE REDEVELOPMENT OF MORE AT THE PROPER TIME AND UNDER THE ACCORDING GOVERNANCE OF MASTER DEVELOPER AND/OR AUTHORITY OR WHATEVER, I WOULD REALLY BE SURPRISED IF SOMEHOW WE WERE UNDERMINING OR SABOTAGING THE PLAN ITSELF BECAUSE I CAN'T IMAGINE ANYBODY WOULD JUST GIVE AWAY THE FARM. AND I THINK THAT ALONG WITH THE VALUE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUADRANT AND WANTING TO FIND A WAY TO HAVE LESS DEVELOPMENT THAT -- THAT DEFINITELY IMPACTS. AND AT THE SAME TIME TRY TO FIND A WAY TO DEVELOP, REDEVELOP MUELLER INTO THE KIND OF BENEFIT THAT THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS DESERVE. IT'S JUST UNIMAGINABLE TO ME THAT ANYBODY IS PROPOSING THAT ONE IS LESS IMPORTANT THAN THE OTHERS GIVEN THE INITIATIVES THAT WE HAVE BEGUN IN THE PAST YEAR. I DON'T KNOW WHAT TWO STEP YOU ARE MEANING, SO I'M NOT SURE THAT I AM COMMITTING TO THAT. BUT I AM COMMITTING TO TRYING TO KEEP THE AQUIFER AS UNDEVELOPED AS WE CAN HUMANLY DO SO AND I AM COMMITTED TO MAKING SURE THE MASTER PLAN FOR MUELLER IS NOT COMPROMISED BY ANY DISCUSSIONS THAT WE HAVE IN ANY LAWSUIT OR ANYWHERE ELSE.
>>MAYOR WATSON: SURE
>>GRIFFITH: YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO REVIEW --.
>>MAYOR WATSON: A MOTION MAY BE PROPOSE, BUT GO AHEAD
>>GRIFFITH: YES. IN CHAPTER 8, THE TWO-STEP PROCESS IS THE NATIONAL SEARCH FOR THE BEST POSSIBLE MASTER DEVELOPER WE CAN GET. WE DO THE -- WE DO THE REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS, THEN THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS, THEN YOU NEGOTIATE WITH THE ONE THAT -- THAT WINS. AND EVERYTHING YOU HAVE SAID WILL COME OUT IN THAT PROCESS. SO WE ARE LUCKY THAT THAT'S WHAT'S BEING RECOMMENDED.
>>MAYOR WATSON: AT THE RISK OF STENING THIS LONGER, I JUST WANT TO SAY ONE THING, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE COMMUNITY ALSO TO START THINKING ABOUT WHAT IT MEANS TO SAY THE WORDS MASTER DEVELOPER. HE HAVE WE WILL STRAIGHTED THE -- ELEVATED THE PHRASE MASTER DEVELOPER INTO SOMETHING THAT I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE LIKE BEAUTY, IT'S GOING TO BE IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER ON WHAT THAT MEANS. I ALSO THINK WE NEED TO ALSO GIVE THOUGHT TO WHAT OUR EXPECTATIONS ARE, HOWEVER THIS ENDS UP. IF IT ENDS UP THAT WE DO R.F.P. PROCESSES, THINGS LIKE THAT, WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT OUR EXPECTATIONS MAY BE THERE, BECAUSE IT IS HIGHLY CONCEIVABLE, FOLKS, THAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR A "MASTER DEVELOPER OF THE WORLD CLASS" WHATEVER PHRASE WE USE TO -- TO ELEVATE THAT PROCESS. I FIND IT INTRIGUING THAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR A MASTER DEVELOPER, IT'S ALMOST LIKE WE SAY WE WANT YOU BECAUSE YOU ARE A MASTER DEVELOPER, BUT MAN THINK HOW GOOD YOU ARE GOING TO DO WHEN WE START HELPING YOU. BECAUSE WHAT WE ARE SAYING TO THAT MASTER DEVELOPER IS HERE'S THE DEAL, WE ARE GOING TO DO A MASTER DEVELOPMENT, WE ARE CREATED THIS COMMISSION THAT'S GOING TO LOOK OVER OUR SHOULDER -- YOUR SHOULDER ON EVERYTHING THAT YOU DO, STEP BY STEP, FLEXIBLE OR NOT, EVEN THE WAY YOU DESIGN THINGS, WE ARE GOING TO COME DOWN AND SAY WE DON'T LIKE THE WAY THAT YOU DESIGN IT, WE HAVE A CITY COUNCIL WILLING TO SNATCH YOU UP BY THE NAP OF YOUR NECK SAY WE DON'T LIKE THE WAY YOU ARE DOING THAT, THAT SORT OF A THING, WHILE IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO US, 700, 800 ACRES, WHEN WE START TALKING ABOUT MASTER DEVELOPMENT, SOMETIMES YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT A WHOLE LOT MORE THAN THAT. IF YOU JUST THINK ABOUT WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT OVER 4,000 ACRES, A LOT OF THE -- YOU KNOW, THE -- THE BRADLEY DEVELOPMENT WAS OVER 3,000 ACRES, STEINER RANCH WAS OVER 4,000 ACRES, AVERY RANCH, ALL OF THOSE KINDS OF THINGS, SO IT MAY BE THAT "MASTER DEVELOPERS", WHATEVER THAT IS IN YOUR EYES, IT MAY BE THAT THIS 700 PLUS ACRES WHICH IS VERY IMPORTANT TO US, I'M -- AS I WAS THE SPONSOR OF THE RESOLUTION, ONE OF THE SPONSORS OF THE RESOLUTION TONIGHT I AM COMMITTED TO MAKING SURE THAT MASTER PLAN AS NEWLY FLEXIBLE AS IT MAY BE IS MET. BUT WE OUGHT TO START THINKING ABOUT WHAT OUR EXPECTATIONS ARE WITH REGARD TO "MASTER DEVELOPERS" IN ADDITION. I THINK THAT'S PART OF THE HEALTHY DISCUSSION. I THINK WE SHOULD CONSIDER THAT. I WAS AFRAID OF THAT, BUT GO AHEAD COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH
>>GRIFFITH: NOT TO BELABOR THIS, BUT FORTUNATELY PART OF CHAPTER 8 IS PRETTY CLEAR ON THE ROLES AND THE IMPORTANCE, THE CRITICAL IMPORTANCE OF GETTING THAT MASTER DEVELOPER EXACTLY THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU JUST ASKED.
>>ALVAREZ: I SEE A COUPLE OF -- NOT -- AND I HAVE COUPLE, NOT ABOUT THE MASTER DEVELOPER, THOUGH. [LAUGHTER]. ALTHOUGH I MEAN I DO THINK THAT THERE'S SOME MERIT TO THE NEED TO HAVE SOMEONE WHO IS -- WHAT HAS DONE A PROJECT SUCH AS THIS IN THE PAST TO -- TO, YOU KNOW, MAYBE ALSO DO A PROJECT LIKE THIS. SO ... JUST IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, INCREASING OUR POTENTIAL FOR REALIZING THAT VISION THAT WE HAVE FOR MUELLER, BUT I COULD -- I COULD SPEAK AT LENGTH AS DID COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, MAYBE NOT QUITE --.
>>SLUSHER: NOT THAT LONG, HUH?
>>.
>>ALVAREZ: NOT QUITE AS LONG, BUT SORT OF HOW I FEEL ABOUT THIS WHOLE SITUATION WE ARE IN. SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT I HAVE OBVIOUSLY JUST ABOUT THE DEAL IN GENERAL. EVERYONE SO FAR HAS EXPRESSED CONCERNS WITH REGARD TO THE DEAL. SO THAT'S -- THAT SHOULDN'T BE A SURPRISE TO ANYONE. BUT AS WELL AS AGAIN MY CONCERNS ABOUT EVEN BRINGING MUELLER INTO THE -- INTO THE DISCUSSION AND I THINK THAT THERE'S MAYBE A REMOTE, YOU KNOW, INSTANCE WHERE I THINK WE COULD DO SOMETHING WITH IT, BUT -- BUT UNTIL I THINK THE -- THE DEAL WE ARE TALKING ABOUT COMES CLOSE TO SOMETHING THAT I THINK THAT WE CAN ALL AT LEAST THINK ABOUT IT OR THAT WE MIGHT VOTE ON, LIKE OTHERS, I'M NOT CLOSE AT ALL RIGHT NOW TO VOTING FOR THE DEAL AS IT STANDS. BUT -- AND WHAT I WOULD HOPE AND I THINK COUNCILMEMBER WYNN MADE A REFERENCE TO THE FACT THAT WE NEEDED TO -- MAYBE NEXT MEETING, PUT AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA TO VOTE ON WHETHER WE WANT TO BRING MUELLER IN OR NOT, JUST SO THAT WE CAN GET THAT BEHIND US. THEN I THINK ALSO IN ORDER IS JUST FOR US TO -- TO EVEN DECIDE DO WE WANT TO GO FORWARD OR NOT. WE ARE ABOUT TO -- TO START SOME PUBLIC HEARINGS, YOU KNOW, A COUPLE OF -- OF PUBLIC HEARINGS THAT WILL HAPPEN AT SOME POINT. BUT IT SEEMS LIKE AFTER THE MUELLER DISCUSSION, I MEAN, I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE NEXT -- DEPENDING ON WHERE THAT -- WHERE THAT LEADS, THE MUELLER DISCUSSION, THAT WOULD BE THE NEXT DECISION THAT WE WILL BE FACED WITH IS -- IS, YOU KNOW, ARE WE CLOSE ENOUGH NOW THAT WE ARE EVEN WILLING TO -- WE HAVE THE VOTES I GUESS TO KEEP THIS NEGOTIATION GOING. AND WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO ASK FOR -- AND THAT'S WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST FOR NEXT TIME, OBVIOUSLY, LIKE TO HEAR WHAT OTHER COUNCILMEMBERS HAVE TO SAY. WHAT I HAVE DIFFICULTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS -- THE AGREEMENT WE HAD IS SORT OF COMPARING HOW CAN WE COMPARE IT TO SOMETHING TO SEE IF THIS IS GOOD OR NOT BECAUSE IT'S JUST -- IT'S JUST SO MUCH INVOLVED. IT JUST ENCOMPASSES SO MUCH THAT I THINK WE NEED SOME BENCHMARKS. I HAVE ASKED FOR A COMPARISON FROM STAFF ON HOW DOES THIS COMPARE WITH THE 1993 DEAL THAT WAS REJECTED. AND SO I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT INFORMATION WHENEVER WE ARE GOING TO MAKE A DECISION ABOUT WHETHER WE ARE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD OR NOT. THEN I WOULD ALSO LIKE A COMPARISON WITH THE BRADLEY DEAL TO SEE -- I MEAN, IS THIS EVEN AS GOOD AS THAT. I KNOW THERE'S FOLKS WHO DON'T THINK THAT WAS EVEN GOOD AT ALL. BUT I THINK THAT IF THAT'S WORTH CONSIDERING, TOO, THAT IT'S NOT EVEN AS GOOD AS THAT, THEN -- THEN IS IT SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD EVEN BE CONSIDERING? I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THOSE TYPES OF EXPLANATIONS OF COMPARISONS DONE BEFORE -- BECAUSE IF -- IF I DON'T GET THAT INFORMATION, AGAIN, I'M NOT GOING TO REALLY MOVE FROM MY POSITION THAT -- THAT IT'S A BAD DEAL AND WE REALLY SHOULDN'T MOVE FORWARD WITH IT. THAT'S WHAT I AM GOING TO PUT ON THE TABLE GET SOME FEEDBACK ON.
>>MAYOR WATSON: ANYTHING ELSE?
>>THOMAS: I GUESS I'LL GET MY FIVE, TWO MINUTES IN.
>>MAYOR WATSON: GO FOR IT.
>>THOMAS: I'M IN THE SAME POSITION ABOUT THE SWAPPING. I FEEL THAT IF WE -- IF PREVIOUS COUNCIL OR NOT, THE PRESENT COUNCIL IS THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE OVERALL PROCESS. I KNOW THAT WE ARE DOING THAT. I AGREE WITH COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER AND I THINK -- I THANK GOD WE ARE OUT HERE IN THE PUBLIC. WE NEED TO BRING THIS OUT, GET IT OUT TO THE PUBLIC. I THINK WE NEED TO KEEP MUELLER OUT OF THIS AND DEAL WITH STRATUS LIKE WE SHOULD DEAL WITH STRATUS. I GO ALONG WITH MAYOR PRO TEM GOODMAN, WE NEED TO PROTECT [INAUDIBLE] AND WE NEED TO MAKE SURE MUELLER IS TAKEN CARE OF, TOO. IT'S AMAZING THEY WANT TO BRING THE SWAP IN. AS MUCH AS WE HAVE, I KNOW THIS IS GOING TO SOUND PRETTY HARSH, BUT I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND SAY IT. AS MUCH TIME AND EFFORT AND MONEY THAT WE HAVE SPENT WITH FIRMS AND ATTORNEYS THAT WE HAVE, WE HAVE CONFIDENCE IN THEM, I THINK WE NEED TO DEAL WITH WHO WE HAVE BEEN DEALING WITH ALL THE WAY UP TO THIS POINT INSTEAD OF BRINGING IN THE SWAP OF THE LAND. THAT'S WHERE I AM TODAY. THANK YOU.
>>MAYOR WATSON: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER? THEN UNLESS --.
>>SLUSHER: I DON'T HAVE THE RECORDS -- THE ARM STILL UP ON THE RECORDS, I JUST WANTS TO ASK A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY, MAKE SURE IT'S CLEAR THAT WE HAVE A DIVISION ON WHETHER OR NOT WE WANT TO LOOK AT MUELLER OR NOT. BUT I THINK WE HAVE A MAJORITY AND I KNOW WE ARE NOT POSTED TO VOTE ON THIS, SO STOP ME CITY ATTORNEY IF I DO ANYTHING INAPPROPRIATE. BUT I WOULD HOPE THAT WE COULD GET DIRECTION TONIGHT AT LEAST FROM THE MAJORITY THAT TO AT LEAST GIVE THE STAFF AND THE ATTORNEYS PERMISSION TO DISCUSS MUELLER WITH STRATUS. I REALIZE THAT'S NOT A UNANIMOUS POSITION. BUT WE CAN -- I THINK THAT WE OUGHT TO TALK ABOUT IT. SO HOW COULD WE GO ABOUT THAT?
>>MAYOR WATSON: WHY DON'T WE PUT AN ITEM ON NEXT WEEK.
>>SLUSHER: OKAY. I WILL PUT AN ITEM ON --.
>>MAYOR WATSON: BASED UPON WHAT PEOPLE HAVE SAID, IT SEEMS THAT YOU COULD COUNT VOTES, BUT THAT WOULDN'T BE APPROPRIATE TO DO IT THAT WAY.
>>SLUSHER: THAT'S FINE. I WILL PUT AN ITEM ON FOR NEXT WEEK. I WOULD JUST ASK THE COUNCILMEMBERS THAT AREN'T WILLING TO CONSIDER THAT TO TRY TO COME UP WITH SOME OTHER ALTERNATIVES. BECAUSE I DON'T THINK ANYONE ON THIS COUNCIL WANTS TO VOTE FOR AN AGREEMENT WITH -- WITH -- IN THE CURRENT CONFIGURATION. NOT EVERYONE HAS SPOKEN UP ON THAT, BUT MY ASSUMPTION IS THAT NOBODY DOES. AND IF WE AREN'T GOING, IF WE DON'T VOTE FOR THAT, WE DON'T CONSIDER SWAPPING SOME DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS OR LAND AT MUELLER, THEN WE ARE BACK TO 1704 AND WHATEVER STRATUS CAN BUILD UNDER THAT. AND I DON'T THINK ANY OF US WANT THAT. SO WE HAVE GOT TO BE CREATIVE ABOUT ALTERNATIVES. I WOULD REALLY -- I'M WILLING TO ENTERTAIN ANY -- LIKE I SAID, I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT THIS STUFF. BUT I WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE HEARING ALTERNATIVES RATHER THAN JUST SHOOTING DOWN IDEAS.
>>MAYOR WATSON: I'M GOING TO ASSUME THAT'S THE END OF THE DISCUSSION. CAN I DO THAT?
>>THOMAS: ONE QUESTION.
>>MAYOR WATSON: COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS?
>>THOMAS: I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. THE ONLY PROBLEM THAT I HAVE IS THAT -- WE HAVE BEEN IN THIS WITH STRATUS WAY BEFORE THE AIRPORT BECAME AVAILABLE, RIGHT?
>>SLUSHER: PROBABLY IT STARTED OUT AROUND -- NOT -- ABOUT THE TIME WE APPROVED MOVING, I THINK. SO --.
>>THOMAS: THANK YOU.
>>MAYOR WATSON: COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH?
>>GRIFFITH: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, THERE ARE THREE THINGS THAT WE CAN THINK ABOUT THIS WEEK. ONE IS GETTING THAT RESEARCH DONE. I KNOW ONE OF OUR CITY NEIGHBORS TO THE SOUTH HAD A SIMILAR CHALLENGE WITH THEIR AQUIFER AND THEY HAD THE KIND OF RESEARCH DONE THAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.
>>SLUSHER: SAN ANTONIO?
>>GRIFFITH: YES. THEY HAD A CONTRACT AND GOT A REPORT AND I KNOW WE NEED MORE DETAIL ON WHAT THEY DID, THEY GOT THE INFORMATION ON WHAT IT WOULD TAKE TO SET UP THEIR PART OF THE AQUIFER AND HAVE DONE MUCH PLANNING AND ORDINANCE WRITING AND REGULATION DEVELOPMENT ON THE BASIS OF THAT. AND I THINK IF WE DON'T DO THAT, THEN WE DON'T KNOW KNOW IF WE ARE DOING TOO MUCH, TOO LITTLE, HOW MUCH LAND DO WE HAVE TO BUY, PUT CONSERVATION EASEMENTS ON IT, IS IT ALL OVER, FORGET IT? STACK IT UP. WE DON'T KNOW WHERE WE ARE. SO CERTAINLY I THINK BEFORE WE ENTER INTO ANY MORE MEGA APPROVALS FOR THOUSANDS OF ACRES, WE NEED TO FIND OUT WHAT IT'S GOING TO TAKE.
>>SLUSHER: WELL, COUNCILMEMBER, I -- I'M NOT NECESSARILY OPPOSED TO DOING THE PLAN, ALTHOUGH I GOT TO HEAR A LOT MORE DETAILS ABOUT IT AND WE HAVE GATHERED A LOT OF INFORMATION. BUT EVEN IF YOU DO THAT, YOU ARE STILL GOING TO -- YOU CAN'T STOP THE WORLD IN THE MEANTIME AND WE ARE STILL GOING TO HAVE FOLKS FILING UNDER 1704, SO I DON'T CONSIDER THAT TO BE AN ALTERNATIVE TO LOOK AS TO HOW WE DEAL WITH THIS SITUATION. AND I -- YOU KNOW, WE HAVE BEEN HERE NOW FOR FOUR YEARS. AND I THINK WE HAVE DONE SOME SOLID THINGS TO PROTECT THE AQUIFER AND THE SPRINGS. I THINK MORE NEEDS TO BE DONE. AND WE HAVE BEEN HAM STRUNG BY STATE LAWS AS I POINTED OUT AT LENGTH EARLIER IN THE EVENING, BUT WE ARE ENFORCING S.O.S., WHICH WAS APPROVED BY TWO THIRD OF THE VOTERS, WHERE THEY ARE GRANDFATHERING RIGHTS, WE ARE NEGOTIATING FOR IMPROVED WATER QUALITY. WE HAD SOME SUCCESS AT THAT. WE BOUGHT 15,000 ACRES WITH OUR PROP 2 ACRES, RUTHERFORD TRACK, GETS 20% OF THE RECHARGE THAT GOES INTO BARTON SPRINGS, WE HAVE OVERTURNED SEVERAL UNCONSTITUTIONAL BILLS THAT THE LEGISLATURE PASSED, BACK CONTROL, GETTING THOUSANDS OF ACRES INTO OUR JURISDICTION. I THINK THAT'S A PRETTY SOLID PLAN THAT WE ARE ACTING ON AND I WOULD SAY THAT WE ARE PRETTY FAR AHEAD OF SAN ANTONIO IN ACTUALLY ACTION RATHER THAN JUST PLANNING
>>GRIFFITH: THAT'S RIGHT. WE CAN DO SO MUCH BETTER WHEN WE HAVE THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION. WHAT WOULD IT TAKE TO SAVE BARTON CREEK AND BARTON SPRINGS AND THE AQUIFER. AND TWO OTHER THINGS WE NEED TO DECIDE AND WE WILL PROBABLY HAVE TO DO RESEARCH ON THIS, CERTAINLY HISTORY, IS WOULD IT BE BETTER TO DO A FIXED MASS APPROVAL OF THOUSANDS OF ACRES OR WOULD IT BE BETTER FOR THE AQUIFER AND THE CREEK AND THE SPRINGS TO LOOK AT EACH PROPOSAL, EACH SUBDIVISION, EACH PROPOSAL AS IT COMES IN AND INSIST THAT IT GO THROUGH THE NORMAL PROCESS. WOULD IT CERTAINLY BE OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS AND ONE OF THE THING THAT WE NEED TO STUDY IS WHETHER THAT WOULD BE THE BEST FOR THE CREEK AND THE SPRINGS AND THE AQUIFER OR DOING THIS MULTI THOUSAND ACRE SITE PLAN ESSENTIALLY.
>>SLUSHER: [INAUDIBLE]. AGAINST IT. THE MULTI THOUSAND ACRES
>>GRIFFITH: OR ANY. NOT ONLY THIS ONE, BUT ANY OTHERS. ALSO ANOTHER THING WE NEED TO LOOK AT IS THE EFFECT OF PUTTING IN A -- IN A CENTRAL SEWER LINE OR NOT PUTTING IN A CENTRAL SEWER LINE.
>>SLUSHER: I AGREE WITH YOU.
>>GRIFFITH: IT'S BEEN MY EXPERIENCE THAT ON A VERY, VERY SMALL SCALE THAT -- THAT YOU CAN DEVELOP WITHOUT THAT. YOU CAN DO COMMERCIAL, YOU CAN DO SOME INDUSTRIAL AND YOU CAN DO RESIDENTIAL, BUT NOT HAVING CENTRAL SEWER IS -- IS A CONSTRAINT. AND THAT'S -- [APPLAUSE] -- THAT'S CERTAINLY A A QUESTION THAT COULD QUESTION THAT COULD CHANGE ENORMOUSLY WHAT KIND OF LOAD WOULD BE ON THAT LAND.
>>SLUSHER: I HAVE TO SAY, ALTHOUGH I THINK BECAUSE I GUESS IT IS GETTING LATE, I THINK YOU ARE STARTING TO REPEAT WHAT I SAID EARLIER. BUT I THINK WE NEED TO DISCUSS ALL OF THOSE THINGS. BUT I STILL SAY RATHER THAN JUST SHOOT DOWN IDEAS, WE NEED TO HAVE SOME ALTERNATIVES BECAUSE ALL OF THOSE -- I AGREE ABOUT THE CENTRAL SEWER BEING A CONSTRAINT. BUT WE ALSO ALL OF THOSE PICTURES I SHOWED TONIGHT OF THAT NON-LOW DENSITY DEVELOPMENT WERE DONE WITHOUT THE CENTRAL SEWER. I WOULD RATHER NOT SEE ANY MORE OF THAT TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT IN THERE. I'M --.
>>MAYOR WATSON: I'M GOING TO GIVE THE MAYOR PRO TEM THE LAST WORD. I SAW HER TURN ON HER DEAL, I AM GOING TO ASK FOR A NOTION TO ADJOURN, I HOPE SOMEBODY WILL JUMP IN AND MAKE THAT MOTION.
>>GOODMAN: I WAS GOING TO SAY MAYOR I LOOK FORWARD TO NEXT WEEK WHERE WE CAN TALK ABOUT HELPING STRATUS TO DO WHAT WE WANT THEM TO DO. WITH THAT I MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN. MOTION MADE BY MAYOR PRO TEM, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. ANY DISCUSSION? MOTION CARRIES, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.