Closed Caption Log, Council Meeting, 12/06/01

Note: Since these log files are derived from the Closed Captions created during the Channel 6 live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. These Closed Caption logs are not official records of Council Meetings and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records or transcripts, please contact the City Clerk at 499-2210.

MAYOR GARCIA: I'M GUS GARCIA, I WANT TO WELCOME YOU TODAY. DR. DAVIDSON LOEHR, PASTOR OF THE FIRST UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST CHURCH IS HERE TO BRING US THE INVOCATION.

WELCOME, SIR.

THANK YOU, SIR.

IT'S HARD TO KNOW WHAT SPIRITS TO INVOKE AT THE INVOCATION OF A COUNCIL, SERVING THE CITY MADE OF PEOPLE FROM EVERY RELIGION OF THE WORLD AND NO RELIGION. WE CANNOT DO IT JUST IN THE NAME OF GOD AND JESUS OR WE WILL EXCLUDE AND INSULT OUR BUDDHISTS, OUR HINDUS, OUR DAHLIST, AND 100 OTHERS. EVEN IF WE EXTENDED THE LIST TO INCLUDE THE NAMES OF 100 DEITIES, WE WOULD STILL EXCLUDE THE MAJORITY OF OUR CITIZENS WHO DO NOT ATTEND REGULAR RELIGIOUS SERVICES ANYWHERE. AND YET WHO ARE AS ETHICAL AND AS MORAL AS THOSE WHO DO. PERHAPS THE ONLY SPIRITS WHOSE PRESENCE WE CAN INVOKE AT THIS COUNCIL ARE THE SACRED IDEALS THAT SERVE THE NEEDS OF OUR MOST VULNERABLE CITIZENS, THOSE WHOSE RIGHTS ARE MOST EASILY COMPROMISED TO MORE POWERFUL AGENDA AND INSTITUTIONS. SO LET US BE CONSERVATIVE AND INVOKE THE PRESENCE OF ONLY TWO SPIRITS THIS MORNING. FIRST WE INVOKE THE SPIRIT OF SERVICE TO THE NEEDS OF THE MANY, AND SECOND WE INVOKE THE SPIRIT OF COURAGE. THE COURAGE TO PLACE HUMAN INTERESTS ABOVE SPECIAL INTERESTS, AND TO DEFEND THE NEEDS OF THE MANY AGAINST THE LESS INCLUSIVE INTERESTS OF THE MORE POWERFUL FEW. LET THESE TWO SPIRITS BE PRESENT AMONG US THIS MORNING AND THE SPIRIT OF SERVICE TO THE MANY AND THE COURAGE TO MAKE IT SO. LET JUST THESE TWO SPIRITS COMMAND OUR ATTENTION AND INSPIRE OUR ACTIONS AND THE GOOD PEOPLE OF THIS GOOD COUNCIL. WE WILL SERVE ALL OF THE CITIZENS OF OUR COMMUNITY IN A MANNER WORTHY OF OUR HIGHEST CALLINGS. LET IT BE SO AND LET US BEGIN.

THANK YOU, DR. AT THIS TIME, TILL CALL TO ORDER THE MEETING OF THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL. WE ARE MEETING AT THE BOARD ROOM AT THE LOWER COLORADO RIVER AUTHORITY, HANCOCK BUILDING, 3700 LAKE AUSTIN BOULEVARD. IT IS THURSDAY, DECEMBER THE 6TH, 2001. AND WE HAVE A QUORUM PRESENT, COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ, COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH, COUNCILMEMBER WYNN AND COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS AND LIKE I INDICATED EARLIER, MY NAME IS GUS GARCIA. THE FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTE FOR THE REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 29TH, 2001. IS THERE A MOTION?

SO MOVE.

MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED SAY NO. MOTION CARRIES.

I WILL READ INTO THE RECORD, IF THE CITY CLERK COULD READ INTO THE RECORD THE CHANGES AND CORRECTIONS FOR THIS MEETING.

GOOD MORNING, COUNCIL. THE ADDITION TO THE CITIZENS COMMUNICATION IS REVEREND JR WILLIAMS, GOING TO SPEAK ABOUT YOUTH, SUMMER JOB READINESS PROGRAM. ITEM NO. 3, THE BRIEFING ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO BRACKENRIDGE HOSPITAL LEASE REGARDING REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES HAS BEEN POSTPONED INDEFINITELY. ITEM NO. 7, THE FIRST SENTENCE OF ?? FIRST LINE OF THAT ITEM SHOULD READ: AMEND ORDINANCE NUMBER 01092763 REIMBURSING OR WAIVING DEVELOPMENT FEES AND PAYMENTS FOR THE GUERRERO MCDONALD AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

47 [INAUDIBLE ? NO MIC]

EXCUSE ME, THAT WAS ITEM 47. ITEM 50, SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE GRANTING AN EXCEPTION FOR THE AMERICAN RETIREMENT CORPORATION HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA. THE AHFC ITEM NO. 3 HAS BEEN AMENDED IN THE ORIGINAL POSTING THERE WAS A BLANK FOR THE DOLLAR AMOUNT, THAT HAS NOW, WE HAVE INSERTED THE $200,000. THE TIME CERTAIN ITEMS, 1:30 P.M., CITIZENS COMMUNICATIONS, AGAIN ADDING THE ADDITIONAL SPEAKER; 2:00 P.M., BOND SALES, WHICH ARE ITEMS 58 AND 59. 3:30 P.M., BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING OF THE AUSTIN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION. 4:00 P.M., ZONING ITEMS Z?1 THROUGH Z3. 5:30 P.M., LIVE MUSIC AND PROCLAMATIONS, 6:00 P.M., PUBLIC HEARINGS, WHICH ARE ITEM 45 AND 46 ?? EXCUSE ME, 65 AND 65. ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN PULLED FOR DISCUSSION, ITEM NO. 9 HAS BEEN PULLED BY MAYOR GARCIA AND COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. ITEM 10 HAS BEEN PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. ITEM 11 PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. ITEM 37 HAS BEEN PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBERS THOMAS AND GRIFFITH. ITEM 43 HAS BEEN PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. THERE ARE SOME ITEMS THAT ARE GOING TO BE TAKEN OUT OF ORDER. ITEMS 12, 48, AND 49 NEED TO BE TAKEN UP AFTER THE 3:30 AHFC MEETING. ITEM 12 MUST BE TAKEN UP AFTER ITEM 43. THE FOLLOWING NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS AND RELATED ITEMS ARE GOING TO BE TAKEN UP AFTER THE 4:30 ZONING ITEMS: NUMBER 60, THE CENTRAL EAST AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN; NUMBER 61, ACTION ON THE SECOND AND THIRD READINGS OF THE ORDINANCE AMENDING THE AUSTIN TOMORROW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; ITEM 62, THE HOLLY NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN; AND ITEM 63, WHICH IS TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING IN REGARD TO THE AUSTIN TOMORROW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. ARE YOU READY FOR ME TO READ THE CONSENT ITEMS?

MAYOR GARCIA: THERE IS ANOTHER ITEM THAT WITH REGARD TO ITEMS 58 AND 59, IS THERE ANY ?? ARE WE STILL GOING TO TAKE THOSE ITEMS UP, CITY MANAGER? THIS HAS TO DO WITH THE ?? WITH THE SALE OF THE BONDS?

GARZA: POSTPONED INDEFINITELY. ITEM 58 AND 59 HAVE BEEN POSTPONED INDEFINITELY. WE WILL HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR. THE MARKET MOVED AWAY FROM US. I GOT THAT WORD FROM BILL NEWMAN YESTERDAY.

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

THANK YOU. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: THE NEXT ITEM IS THE ??

WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO READ THE CONSENT NOW?

MAYOR GARCIA: YES, READING OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. WAIT A SECOND. BEFORE YOU GO INTO THE CONSENT AGENDA, THE PREVIEW OF ITEMS FOR NEXT COUNCIL MEETING, I DISTRIBUTED TO YOU A MEMORANDUM DATED TODAY. THIS IS A ?? A RESOLUTION THAT WILL BE ON NEXT WEEK'S AGENDA THAT HAS TO DO WITH A WORK SESSION THAT WE WANT TO HAVE AFTER WE INSTITUTE THEM IN THE FIRST PART OF THE YEAR DEALING WITH AIR QUALITY AND COUNCILMEMBERS SLUSHER AND ?? I'M SORRY, I'M STARTING TO STAMMER, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT'S I'M NEW TO THIS JOB AND I CAN'T HANDLE IT OR WHAT, BUT COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER AND COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ WILL BE CO?SPONSORING THIS RESOLUTION. THIS WILL BE THE, CITY MANAGER, IN NEXT WEEK'S AGENDA. I ALSO WANT TO ANNOUNCE, NOT AT THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING, BUT AT A COUNCIL MEETING IN THE FUTURE, I WILL HAVE AN ITEM TO FORM THE MAYOR'S COMMITTEE ON K THROUGH 12 EXCELLENCE IN EDUCATION. AND THE APPOINTMENT OF SOME MEMBERS TO THAT COMMITTEE. WHICH I HOPE WILL WORK ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF A BLUEPRINT OF WHAT THIS COMMUNITY EXPECTS OUT OF OUR SCHOOL DISTRICT. THOSE ?? THAT ITEM WILL PROBABLY NOT APPEAR ON THE AGENDA UNTIL THE EARLY PART OF NEXT YEAR. ANY OTHER ANNOUNCEMENTS WITH REGARD TO THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING? CITY MANAGER?

GARZA: WE PROMISE INCLUDING HYDE PARK TO BE ALL ROUTINE ACTUALLY.

MAYOR GARCIA: PROMISES, PROMISES. ANYBODY ELSE? COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

WYNN: MAYOR, THANK YOU. AT THE SWEARING IN CEREMONY, YOU ASKED ME TO CHAIR A SPECIAL MAYOR'S TASK FORCE ON THE ECONOMY. NEXT ?? NEXT COUNCIL MEETING I WILL BE ANNOUNCING AN OUTLINE OF THAT, INCLUDING A SCHEDULE OF THAT. WHAT WE ARE ATTEMPTING TO DO NOW IS ?? IS SCHEDULE A ?? AN EVENING RECEPTION JUST BEFORE THE HOLIDAYS BEGIN. THERE ARE ?? WE KNEW INTUITIVELY, BUT WE DISCOVERED THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ORGANIZATION OUT IN THE COMMUNITY FOCUSED ON THE ECONOMY RIGHT NOW. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ORGANIZATIONS FOCUSED ON GROWING SMALL BUSINESSES IN OUR ECONOMY. OVERLAY EMPOWERMENT ZONES. WE HAVE HUSTON TILLOTSON IS ABOUT TO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SUMMIT. AND SO WE ARE GOING TO PULL TOGETHER ALL OF THE COMMUNITY PARTNERS WHO ARE ALREADY DOING SOME GREAT WORK FOCUSED ON OUR ECONOMY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ALL KNOW WHO IS DOING WHAT AND WHEN. AND THEN WE WILL ROLL?OUT OUR OUTLINE FOR THE SCHEDULE THAT WILL ESSENTIALLY BE A SHORT?LIVED SPRING OF '02 SERIES OF HEARINGS AND PUBLICATIONS ON ?? ON AUSTIN A'S ECONOMY AND FRANKLY OUR ROLE AS A CITY COUNCIL IN THAT. SO WE WILL ?? I WILL OUTLINE THAT NEXT THURSDAY. ALSO, NEXT WEEK, COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER AND MAYOR PRO TEM GOODMAN AND I WILL BE BRINGING FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION TO FORM A SMALL SHORT?LIVED TASK FORCE ON THE ROLE OF MUSIC IN OUR ECONOMY. IF YOU REMEMBER, JUST A FEW WEEKS AGO WE HAD A SIGNIFICANT ECONOMIC ANALYSIS DONE THAT OUTLINES THE $600 MILLION ANNUAL IMPACT THAT THE MUSIC INDUSTRY HAS TO AUSTIN. AND WE THINK IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO HAVE A ?? A GROUP OF FOLKS TAKE THAT REPORT NOW AND ULTIMATELY COME BACK TO THE COUNCIL WITH SOME RECOMMENDATIONS AS TO WHAT, IF ANYTHING, THE COUNCIL CAN DO TO CONTINUE TO ENCOURAGE AND DEVELOP THE MUSIC ASPECT OF OUR ECONOMY. AND THEN LASTLY I WILL BE BRINGING FORTH SOME RECOMMENDATION ON ?? ON A PARTIAL FUNDING OF THE UPCOMING REGIONAL VISIONING PROJECT. THIS ?? IF YOU REMEMBER, THERE'S BEEN SEVERAL PRESS RELEASES AND PUBLICATIONS ABOUT AN ONGOING EFFORT BY FIVE ?? THE FIVE COUNTIES IN THE CENTRAL TEXAS REGION, ALL THE MUNICIPAL PARTNERS, TO COME UP WITH A ?? WITH A LARGER REGIONAL VISION FOR ?? FOR, YOU KNOW, WHAT THIS CENTRAL TEXAS REGION WILL LOOK LIKE IN THE COMING DECADES AND GENERATIONS. SEVERAL MAJOR REGIONAL PLAYERS HAVE PONIED UP A PARTIAL FUNDING, CAPITAL METRO, CAMPO IS CONSIDERING IT, ALL FIVE OF THE COUNTIES ARE. AND I WILL BE BRINGING FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION AS TO WHAT ROLE FINANCIALLY THE CITY SHOULD LIKELY PLAY IN THAT TWO YEAR PROJECT. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, I APPRECIATE THAT COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. I THINK THAT ALL OF US RECEIVED AN E?MAIL FROM OR AT LEAST THOSE OF US WHO SERVE ON CAMPO, AN E?MAIL FROM MR. ALLICK WHO IS HERE TODAY. DO YOU WANT TO COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE? WE WILL HAVE AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA, DECEMBER THE 10TH AT CAMPO DEALING WITH THE REGIONAL VISIONING.

YES, SIR.

WELCOME, MR. MIKE ALLICK FROM CAMPO.

I WILL PUT ON MY CAMPO HAT HERE, ALTHOUGH I AM HERE FOR ANOTHER ITEM. UNDER MY CAMPO HAT, COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, CITY OF AUSTIN REQUESTED $500,000 DOLLARS IN FUNDS FROM CAMPO. I AM RECOMMENDING THAT THE POLICY COMMITTEE APPROVE THAT THIS COMING MONDAY NIGHT. THAT WOULD BE 400 IN FEDERAL FUNDS, 100,000 IN THE 20% MATCH, WHICH I ASSUME WOULD COME FROM CITY OF AUSTIN, CAPITAL METRO OR NON?FEDERAL FUNDS.

THAT'S 400,000 FROM CAMPO, NOT 400.

DID I MISSPEAK?

400,000 IN FEDERAL FUNDS.

THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FROM MR. ALLICK, ANYBODY? THANK YOU, MIKE. ANYBODY ELSE? COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

THANK YOU, MAYOR. GOOD MORNING. I'M GOING TO ?? LAST WEEK I ANNOUNCED I'M CONSIDERING ASKING THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION TO LOOK AT A POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE TO THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE MEASURE THAT IS GOING TO BE ON THE BALLOT BY INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM. I'M GOING TO ?? I'VE ?? THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION DISCUSSED THAT A LITTLE BIT THE OTHER NIGHT, IS MY UNDERSTANDING. THERE'S SOME RELUCTANCE ON THEIR PART TO DRAFT AN ENTIRELY NEW ORDINANCE. SO I'M GOING TO ?? WAIT UNTIL THE FIRST OF THE YEAR AND IN BETWEEN THEN AND NOW TALK TO MY COLLEAGUES AND PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY AND SEE WHAT WE CAN CRAFT AS A ?? AS A WORKING DOCUMENT TO SEND OVER TO THEM TO LOOK AT. SO I WILL HAVE THAT ON AFTER THE FIRST OF THE YE, PROBABLY THE FIRST MEETING.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY, THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. ANYBODY ELSE? OKAY, THAT'S ALL OF THE ITEMS, PREVIEWS. WE WILL NOW GO INTO THE READING OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. AND ANY OF YOU THAT WANT TO SPEAK ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, YOU NEED TO SIGN UP. DO WE HAVE THE CARDS FOR THE CONSENT AGENDA HERE?

THEY SHOULD BE IN THE FRONT OF THE BOX, IF THERE'S ANY SPEAKERS.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. GOT IT.

THE CONSENT AGENDA AS WE KNOW IT NOW ARE ITEMS 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, SECOND AND THIRD READING, 18, SECOND AND THIRD READING, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44 ??

MAYOR GARCIA: 41, 42, 43, 44.

NOT 43, THAT'S BEEN PULLED. 44, 45, 46, 47 AS AMENDED, 50 WAS REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA. 51, 52.

DID WE HAVE ANYTHING ON THE ADDENDUM?

THERE WAS AN ADDENDUM BUT IT'S [INAUDIBLE ? NO MIC]

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. TELL ME AGAIN MS. BROWN, ON ITEMS 15 AND 16.

> THEY ARE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. LET ME GO OVER THE CONSENT AGENDA ONE MORE TIME. ITEMS 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 47, AS AMENDED, 51, 52. AND ITEMS 17 AND 18 ARE BOTH ON SECOND AND THIRD READING. FOR SOME OF YOU THAT MAY BE NEW TO THIS COUNCIL ?? TO THESE COUNCIL MEETINGS, THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE THE ITEMS THAT THE COUNCIL AND THE STAFF HAVE AGREED OR OKAYED FOR CONSIDERATION UNDER THIS TYPE OF PROCESS. SO ?? SO LET ME RIGHT AT THIS TIME RECOGNIZE MR. MICHAEL ALLICK WHO IS HERE ON ITEM NO. 18. MR. ALLICK.

MAYOR, I PUT ON MY OTHER HAT. I DON'T WISH TO SPEAK, I'M JUST HERE TO SUPPORT ITEM 18 AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT'S RIGHT, I'M SORRY, ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. ALLICK ON ITEM NO. 18. OKAY, THANK YOU. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.

WYNN: MOVE APPROVAL, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ. DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

OPPOSED NO. MOTION CARRIES. CITY MANAGER, THAT'S ?? THAT GOES ALL OF THE ACTIONS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. YOU HAD INDICATED THAT YOUR STAFF WAS READY FOR THE EXECUTIVE SESSION?

GARZA: YES, SIR, WE WOULD LIKE TO, ONCE YOU READ IT, TO BE ABLE TO DISCUSS ITEM NO. 7 ON THE EXECUTIVE SESSION, NUMBER 8, SO WE COULD DO THE BRIEF PRESENTATIONS TO FOLLOW, TO GIVE YOU THE BACKGROUND IN THE EXECUTIVE SESSION SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE ARE DOING.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. LET ME ANNOUNCE THEN AT THIS TIME THAT THE COUNCIL WILL GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION UNDER CHAPTER 551 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE TO DISCUSS ?? TO RECEIVE ADVICE FROM LEGAL COUNSEL TO DISCUSS MATTERS OF LAND ACQUISITION, TO DISCUSS PERSONNEL MATTERS, TO DISCUSS ?? EXCUSE ME, OR TAKE ACTION ON A COMPETITIVE MATTER OF THE ELECTRIC UTILITY DEPARTMENT AS PROVIDED FOR UNDER SECTION 551.086 OR FOR OTHER REASONS PERMITTED BY LAW AS SPECIFICALLY LISTED ON THIS AGENDA. IF NECESSARY, THE CITY COUNCIL MAY GO INTO CLOSED SESSION AS PERMIT BY LAW REGARDING ANY ITEM ON THIS AGENDA. WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, CITY MANAGER, IS THAT WE ARE NOT GOING TO TAKE UP ITEM 6?

GARZA: AT THIS POINT, I DON'T ?? WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS 7 AND NUMBER 8. I BELIEVE WE WILL DO 6 LATER.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. SO THE COUNCIL WILL GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS ITEM NO. 7, WHICH IS DELIBERATION REGARDING THE SECURITY DEVICES UNDER SECTION 551.076 AND READS AS FOLLOWS: DISCUSS ISSUES CONCERNING DEPLOYMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SECURITY PERSONNEL AND DEVICES. AND ITEM NO. 8, UNDER PUBLIC POWER UTILITY COMPETITIVE MATTERS, SECTION 551.086, TO DISCUSS LONG?TERM POWER GENERATION ISSUES. THE COUNCIL WILL NOW RECESS AND GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. WE WILL BE BACK AFTER WE COMPLETE THE EXECUTIVE SESSION.

WYNN: MAYOR, EXCUSE ME, FOR THE FOLKS WAITING FOR PULLED ITEMS, DO WE BELIEVE THIS IS A LENGTHY EXECUTIVE SESSION OR ??

GARZA: I ??

MAYOR GARCIA: CITY ATTORNEY?

WYNN: JUST FOR THEIR CONVENIENCE.

GARZA: WITH RESPECT TO THE SECURITY BRIEFING, ABOUT 15 MINUTE, PROVIDED I CAN KEEP PEOPLE TO THE TASK OF JUST GIVING THE DATA AND INFORMATION WE NEED TO GIVE TO THE COUNCIL. WITH RESPECT TO GENERATION, THAT SHOULDN'T AGAIN TAKE US MORE THAN 15 MINUTE. WE OUGHT TO BE DONE BY 11:00. SO THAT'S ABOUT 30 MINUTES.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION. DO YOU THINK THAT WE COULD DISPOSE OF HAD SOME OF THESE ITEMS, LIKE FOR INSTANCE YOURS, COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS' ITEM 37, COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER HAS 10 AND 11 AND COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER AND I HAVE ITEM NO. 9. SO LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION. HOW LONG DO YOU THINK THOSE ITEMS WILL TAKE?

WYNN: I SUSPECT ITEM NO. 43 IS A GOOD 10 TO 15 MINUTE DISCUSSION ITEM. WITH SOME MAP PRESENTATIONS BY MR. LUKENS, ET CETERA. SO ??

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS ON 37?

THOMAS: IF I COULD JUST ASK STAFF SOME QUESTIONS, WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IT ?? SEE IF WE CAN POSTPONE IT FOR A WEEK, HAVE SOME ??

GARZA: THERE'S NO PROBLEM WITH POSTPONING THIS ONE WEEK.

MAYOR GARCIA: I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FROM YOU THAT WE POSTPONE THIS ITEM FOR ONE WEEK.

THOMAS: COULD I FOR THE RECORD JUST ASK THE QUESTIONS THEN, THE STAFF CAN HAVE THE ANSWERS.

GARZA: LET ME ASK MS. BRUBAKER TO MAKE HER WAY TO THE MICROPHONE, BUT GO AHEAD. GO AHEAD.

THOMAS: OKAY. THE FIRST QUESTION IS HAS ?? HAS WMI PLACED ANY ADDITIONAL MONITORING WELLS ON SITE. WHEN WE DID THIS LAST YEAR, AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS YEAR, WE TALKED ABOUT TWO MORE WERE REQUESTED. AND THEN HAS THERE BEEN ANY TESTING ON THE ?? ON THE TRIPLE A [INAUDIBLE] CONTRIBUTORS TO THE WELL, WALNUT CREEK, FROM THE CONTAMINATION FROM THE LANDFILL. THIS ONE IS TO THE CITY MANAGER, TO GIVE US AN OVERVIEW OF THE EVALUATION OF THE SITE INVESTIGATION REPORT AND ALSO THE HUMAN HEALTH RISKS AND VALUATION REPORT ON THE LANDFILL AS ?? AS WELL AS THE MONITOR RESULTS.

GARZA: MR. ?? EITHER SUE OR WILLIE, IF YOU COULD TRY TO ADDRESS SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS. HAVE THERE BEEN ADDITIONAL MONITORING WELLS, DOUG ADDITIONAL MONITORING IN TERMS OF THE SEEPAGE OR LEECHATE INTO THE ADJACENT CREEKS AND STREAMS? I THINK YOU HAD SEVERAL OTHERS, BUT WHY DON'T YOU GO THROUGH THE PROCESS THAT WMI USED THAT WE WORKED WITH THEM ON.

LET ME ANSWER THE FIRST QUESTION, COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS. CURRENTLY THERE ARE NO ADDITIONAL MONITORING WELLS OUT THERE. WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF WORKING WITH WASTE MANAGEMENT ON COMING UP WITH A NEW REVISED MONITORING PLAN. WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THEM FOR SOME TIME. WE ARE IN AGREEMENT AND THEY ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY AND SO NOW WE ARE JUST TRYING TO PUT THAT IN WRITING TO ?? TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS WHERE WE ARE. AND WHERE WE ARE DURING THAT PROCESS. THEY HAVE FILED A MONITORING PLAN WITH THE ?? WITH THE TNRCC, CURRENTLY UTILIZING THAT MONITORING PLAN. WHAT WE ARE WORKING ON IS ENHANCEMENT TO THAT MONITORING PLAN THAT THEY HAVE FILED WITH THE TNRCC.

THOMAS: OKAY. THE THIRD QUESTION WAS TO THE CITY MANAGER. SO ??

GARZA: THE THIRD QUESTION HAD TO DO WITH THE SITE ITSELF? TOM THOMAS RIGHT, I WAS ASKING YOU ABOUT THE SITE INVESTIGATION REPORT AND THE HUMAN HEALTH RISKS EVALUATION REPORT. ON THE LANDFILL.

GARZA: COUNCILMEMBER, I KNOW THAT WE WERE ASKED TO WORK WITH WMI AND THE TNRCC WITH RESPECT TO THIS SITE TO ENSURE THAT IT MET ALL STATE REQUIREMENTS WITH RESPECT TO A LANDFILL. I KNOW THAT I'VE NOT BEEN PRESENTED ANY INFORMATION FROM THE TNRCC OR ANY OTHER STATE AGENCY THAT SAYS THIS LANDFILL IS OPERATING OUTSIDE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RESPECT TO THE REGULATIONS PROVIDED BY THE STATE OF TEXAS OPERATING A LANDFILL. SO THEY HAVE A VALID PERMIT. THE STATE OF TEXAS MONITORS THEM PERIODICALLY AS PART OF THE REGULATIONS FOR THEM TO HAVE THAT PERMIT AND I KNOW THAT FROM MY EXPERIENCE AT TNRCC, WHEN THE LANDFILL IS OUT OF COMPLIANCE, TNRCC FILES THE PROPER NOTICES TO THEM TO BRING THEMSELVES INTO COMPLIANCE OR SUBJECT TO SEVERE FINES IF THEY DON'T DO THAT. SO AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, I HAVE NOT BEEN PRESENTED ANY INFORMATION THAT SHOWS THAT THIS SITE IS OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE REGULATIONS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS.

THOMAS: I THINK ON THE RESOLUTION, THAT QUESTION THAT I JUST ASKED YOU WAS REQUIRED TO COME BACK IN SO MANY DAYS, WE DIDN'T GET IT.

GARZA: THERE WAS A REPORT THAT WE DELIVERED TO THE CITY COUNCIL SOME TIME AGO, I CAN'T REMEMBER WHEN IT WAS, MR. RHOADES PRIMARILY DID THAT. I THOUGHT THAT THAT REPORT THAT HE PRESENTED OR MEMORANDUM, REALLY NOT A REPORT, COMPLIED WITH THE DIRECTION OF THE COUNCIL AT THE TIME THAT YOU PASSED THIS ITEM A YEAR AGO. I CERTAINLY COULD GO BACK AND LOOK AT THAT REPORT, SEE IF WE HAVE MISSED SOME THINGS WITHIN THAT REPORT THAT WE ARE REQUIRED, BUT I THOUGHT WE DID EVERYTHING THAT WAS REQUIRED BY THE RESOLUTION.

THOMAS: OKAY, IF WE CAN ?? GO AHEAD, SIR.

YES, THE RESOLUTION I THINK THAT YOU ARE SPEAKING ABOUT IS ONE THAT WAS PASSED IN MAY. ON JULY 6TH THERE WAS A ?? A CITY MANAGER PRESENTED A REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL CONCERNING THAT RESOLUTION AND ADDRESSING EACH ITEM IN THE RESOLUTION.

THOMAS: RIGHT. NEXT WEEK WHEN WE BRING IT BACK, IF EVERYONE IS OKAY WITH THE POSTPONEMENT FOR A WEEK, I THINK WE NEED TO MAKE IT IN ?? A PUBLIC RECORD THAT THE REPORT THAT WE RECEIVED BECAUSE HE ?? I ?? THAT WAS THE UNDERSTANDING, I THOUGHT WE WAS GOING TO COME BACK AND DO A REPORT.

MAYOR GARCIA: LET ME CALL THE MEETING BACK TO ORDER SO WE CAN HANDLE THIS ONE. YOUR MOTION COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS IS TO POSTPONE FOR ONE WEEK.

THOMAS: YES, SIR.

MAYOR GARCIA: IS THERE A SECOND?

WYNN: SECOND.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS TO POSTPONE ITEM NO. 37 FOR ONE WEEK. AND SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN.

GRIFFITH: WYNN.

GARZA: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE?

GRIFFITH: MAYOR. JUST ONE WORD OF DISCUSSION.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH, I'M SORRY.

GRIFFITH: ARE ODORS PART OF WHAT THE TNRCC REGULATES?

COVER THE DEAL WITH ODOR THAT THEY ARE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN. THERE ARE MONITORING WELLS WITH RESPECT TO THE LEECHATE, MONITORING SYSTEMS THAT THEY NEED TO DO. I'M ASSUMING THAT ALL OF THOSE THINGS ARE BEING DONE BY THE TNRCC. WHERE THEY ARE OUT OF COMPLIANCE OR ISSUES WHERE THEY HAVE NOT DONE SOME OF THOSE THINGS WILL NEED TO BE FIXED. BUT YOU WILL NOT EVER BE ABLE TO ELIMINATE ODORS FROM THE LANDFILL. IT'S INHERENT TO THE SYSTEM. WHEN WE OPERATED THE CITY LANDFILL, I HAPPENED TO SUPERVISE THAT AREA. EVEN WHEN WE DID THE SIX INCHES OF COVER, WERE YOU EVER ABLE TO, EVEN COMPLYING WITH ALL OF THE REGULATIONS, YOU WERE NEVER ABLE TO ELIMINATE THE ODORS FROM THE LANDFILL.

GRIFFITH: I UNDERSTAND THAT WE ASKED THE TNRCC ABOUT THE ODOR SITUATION AND THAT WE HAVEN'T HEARD BACK FROM THEM YET ON THAT. IS THAT CORRECT?

GARZA: I DON'T KNOW ABOUT ?? ABOUT A REQUEST THAT WE HAVE MADE TO THE TNRCC ABOUT ODORS.

GRIFFITH: DID THAT HAPPEN?

GARZA: BUT ?? I DON'T KNOW. WILLIE, HAVE WE MADE A REQUEST FOR THEM TO DEAL WITH ISSUES OF ODORS?

NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE, CITY MANAGER.

GRIFFITH: I BELIEVE THERE ??

GARZA: WE WILL BE HAPPY TO ASK THEM THAT. GIFT THAT WOULD BE GOOD. THE COMMUNITY HAS BEEN TALKING ABOUT THAT MORE THAN USUAL. IF WE COULD LOOK INTO THAT I THINK IT WOULD BE A POSITIVE THING.

GARZA: MAYOR AND COUNCIL WE WILL BE HAPPY TO DO THAT FOR NEXT WEEK WHEN WE PRESENT THIS ITEM BACK.

GRIFFITH: THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF POSTPONING THIS ITEM FOR ONE WEEK SAY AYE PLEASE, OPPOSED NO. MOTION CARRIES. COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER ON ITEM NO. 11, IS THAT A LONG ITEM?

SLUSHER: NO, MAYOR. I THINK WE CAN TAKE CARE OF THAT FAIRLY QUICKLY. SINCE THE SOUTH TEXAS NUCLEAR PROJECT AND THE CITY HAS A LONG HISTORY OF NOT ?? MOST OF IT NOT GOOD, I WANTED TO GET A PRESENTATION ON WHAT ?? WHAT THIS ITEM ENTAILS.

THANK YOU, I'M JOHN GOING, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. THIS ITEM BEFORE YOU TODAY, ESSENTIALLY, IS BROUGHT HERE BECAUSE OF THE ELECTRIC RESTRUCTURING LEGISLATION, THE TWO INVESTOR OWNED UTILITIES THAT OWN PART OF SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT, RELIANT AND CENTRAL ARE REQUIRED TO ?? TO UNBUNDLE INTO GENERATION AND TRANSMISSION COMPANIES. SO ALL THIS ITEM BEFORE YOU TODAY DOES IS TAKE THE EXISTING PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT AND DIVIDE IT INTO A GENERATION PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT AND A TRANSMISSION FACILITIES PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT. THE ?? THE RIGHTS THAT THE CITY OF AUSTIN HAS AS A 16% OWNER IN THE SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT ARE NOT AFFECTED. ITS SIMPLY ?? IT'S SIMPLY DIVIDING THE ASSETS BETWEEN THE GENERATION ASSETS, THE PRIMARY ASSETS AT THE SITE, AND THE TRANSMISSION SWITCH YARD AND TRANSMISSION LINES THAT LEAD OFF THE SITE. MOST OF THE WORK, FRANKLY, HAS BEEN TO TRY TO DELINEATE AND DETERMINE EXACTLY WHERE THAT DEMARCATION IS. WE'VE HAD COMMITTEES OF ENGINEERS LOOKING AT THIS FOR QUITE SOME TIME. AND THE LAWYERS GROUP THAT ACTUALLY REDRAFTED THE AGREEMENTS HAS BEEN OPERATING ON THE INSTRUCTIONS OF NOT TO MAKE ANY SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES, THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE DONE.

SLUSHER: OKAY, SO THERE ARE NO SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES. IT DOESN'T AFFECT THE MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT THAT WAS NEGOTIATED, OH, THREE YEARS AGO, FOUR YEARS AGO?

RIGHT. THERE ARE MINOR REVISIONS TO THAT OPERATING AGREEMENT WITH THE SOUTH TEXAS NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY, BUT THEY ARE I AM PLEA TO COMPORT THAT AGREEMENT INTO THE NEW PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT FOR GENERATION AND TRANSMISSION. NO SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES.

SLUSHER: THANK YOU, MR. GOING, MAYOR, I THINK THIS SOUNDS FINE. I JUST ANY TIME THE NUKE IS INVOLVED, I THINK WE OUGHT TO GIVE IT A REAL CLOSE LOOK. I WOULD MOVE THAT WE APPROVE IT FOR NEGOTIATION AND BRING IT BACK TO COUNCIL TO ?? FOR FINAL APPROVAL ON THE EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACT.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. IS THERE A SECOND? SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH. DISCUSSION? QUESTIONS? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. OPPOSED NO. MOTION CARRIES. YOU WILL BRING THIS ITEM BACK TO APPROVE THE AGREEMENT AS IT ?? AS IT'S GOING TO BE EXECUTED?

OKAY. THE INVESTOR OWNED UTILITIES ARE PRYING TO GET THIS EXECUTED BY JANUARY THE 1ST, WHICH IS THEIR I THINK REQUIRED DATE TO HAVE THEIR ??

GARZA: JOHN. WHY DON'T WE DO THIS. YOU HAVE AUTHORIZATION TO NEGOTIATE. YOU FIND OUT FROM THEM IF WE CAN APPROVE THIS ON THE 10TH OF JANUARY, THE FIRST MEETING IN JANUARY, WE WILL WAIT, IF WE CAN'T WE CAN BRING THIS ITEM BACK WEEKS AND HAVE A MORE FULL DISCUSSION OF IT.

SLUSHER: THAT WILL WORK.

MAYOR GARCIA: THE MOTION COUNCILMEMBER IS TO APPROVE RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING NEGOTIATION, CORRECT, COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

SLUSHER: THAT'S CORRECT, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: QUESTIONS? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE? OPPOSED SAY NO., MOTION CARRIES. WE WILL HAVE THIS MOTION ON THE 13TH OR JANUARY 10TH FOR THE AUTHORIZATION TO EXECUTE. COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, ON ITEM NO. 43.

WYNN: MAYOR, I THINK I'M PREPARED AS OUR THE CITIZENS HERE TO WAIT FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION, I THINK WE ARE GOING TO NEED TO GET MR. LUKENS AND SOME MAPS OUT HERE, WE CAN TAKE THAT UP LATER.

MAYOR GARCIA: I THINK ITEMS 9 APPEARED 10 PROBABLY WOULD BE BETTER TAKEN AFTER THE EXECUTIVE SESSION. CORRECT? OKAY. SO CITY MANAGER, THE QUESTION THAT HAS COME UP HAS TO DO WITH ITEM ?? MAYBE THE CITY ATTORNEY ON THIS ONE, ITEM NO. 66, WHICH IS THE PRIVATE CONSULTATION WITH THE ATTORNEY WITH REGARD TO SECTION 551.071, LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN LIC AND THE CITY OF AUSTIN.

WE WILL TAKE THAT ONE UP LATER.

GARZA: AT THE LUNCH BREAK WHEN YOU HAVE THAT, BECAUSE WE REALLY DO WANT TO COME BACK AND MAKE THESE TWO PRESENTATIONS AFTER THE ?? AFTER THE FIRST TWO PRESENTATIONS HERE ON GENERATION FOR THE UTILITY AND SECURITY MATTERS FOR THE CITY.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY.

GARZA: WE WILL TAKE UP THE LIC AT THE NOON BREAK.

GARZA: OKAY. COUNCIL SESSION IS NOW RECESSED, WE WILL GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AS I ANNOUNCED PREVIOUSLY.

THERE BEING A QUORUM PRESENT, I'M GOING TO GO TO THE 1:30 TIME CERTAIN ITEM. THE FIRST SPEAKER IS MR. GUS PENA. MR. GUS PENA? OKAY. WELL, WE WILL GO TO THE NEXT ONE THEN. JENNIFER GALE.

HI, AUSTIN, CITY MANAGER JESUS GARZA, CITY ATTORNEY SEDORA JEFFERSON, OUR BRAND NEW MAYOR, GUS GARCIA, CONGRATULATIONS.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU.

AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL. I AM AUSTIN'S LOCAL CANDIDATE, JENNIFER GALE. THE NOVEMBER 6TH SPECIAL ELECTION FOR MAYOR IS QUITE A DISAPPOINT. I LOST TO FOUR GENTLEMEN. ONE WHO DIDN'T EVEN CAMPAIGN. ERIC MITCHELL. ANOTHER STILL LEARNING HIS WAY, GREG GORDON. ONE WHO DIDN'T TELL THE TRUTH REPEATEDLY AND A MAN WHO LOOKS PRETTY DISTINGUISHED IN A NEGLIGE. I WOULD LIKE TO THANK CHANNEL 24 AND 42 FOR COVERING THIS ELECTION. CHANNELS 36, 7, KLRD, DID NOT SHOW UP AT ALL. AS YOU BELIEVE, THERE WASN'T ANY COVERAGE ?? AS USUAL, THERE WASN'T ANY COVERAGE BY THE AUSTIN CHRONICLE OR THE AUSTIN AMERICAN?STATESMAN. THE ONLY OPENLY CAMPAIGN FROM THE BEGINNING TO END FOR THE BUSINESS CANDIDATE, THEY ONLY CAMPAIGNED FOR THEM, WHICH IS HOW THE SAME PEOPLE ARE ELECTED IN AUSTIN. IT IS SAD THAT THE PEOPLE OF AUSTIN CONTINUE TO ALLOW KLRD THE LOCAL PAPERS AND KLBJ, ALL OF THE OTHER RADIO STATIONS, PAPERS AND WITH THE EXCEPTION OF K VET 98.1 ON THE F.M. RADIO, TO BE DIGNIFIED IN AUSTIN, ESPECIALLY KLRD, A PUBLIC TELEVISION STATION THAT IS PUBLIC IN NAME ONLY, NOT IN REALITY. SPECIAL THANKS TO NICOA, AQUASI EVANS, HERRERA FOR A FRONT PAGE ARTICLE, TO ERIC GARCIA FOR COVERAGE OF THE STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AND FOR CABLE CHANNEL 10, AUSTIN COMMUNITY ACCESS CENTER FOR THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS AND ANOTHER BRIGHT REPORTER NAMED ERIC ALLEN OF YOUR NEWS NOW, CHANNEL 8. I HAVE ASKED THE CITY COUNCIL TO PUT PRESSURE ON THE MEDIA FOR COVERAGE, FOR COVERING AUSTIN'S CANDIDATES FOR PUBLIC OFFICE. AS A WAY TO SOLVE OUR CAMPAIGN REFORM. BUT WHEN COUNCILMAN DARYL SLUSHER DARYL IS BEGGED REPORTERS AND CITY HALL TO COVER CANDIDATE GARCIA, IGNORING ME SITTING AT THE END OF THE HALL WHERE CANDIDATE GARCIA IS, I DON'T THINK THE CITY COUNCIL IS TRYING AT ALL. THE QUESTION IS HOW CAN I HOLD THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE INSANITY OF THE PEOPLE THAT CONTINUE TO PUT THE SAME PUBLIC OFFICIALS BACK IN OFFICE. THERE SIMPLY ISN'T ANY EXCUSE FOR THE PEOPLE OF AUSTIN'S DECISIONS. OUR AIR IS POLLUTED, TRAFFIC IS CONGESTED, OUR CITIZENS ARE LEAVING AUSTIN, OUR LIVES AND HEALTH ARE ENDANGERED, OUR CHILDREN AREN'T INDICATED WELL ENOUGH TO GO ON TO COLLEGE. IT'S TIME TO FIND ?? THAT IS THE PEOPLE OF AUSTIN'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR THESE PROBLEMS AND NOT SIMPLY THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THIS COUNCIL. WHEN ARE WE AGAIN GOING TO CARE ABOUT AUSTIN? A FOUR YEAR MAYOR, 10 COUNCIL SEATS, THAT GIVES 7 REPRESENTATIVES? THE 1,538 PEOPLE THAT ELECTED ME MAYOR, THANK YOU. YOU ARE THE HOPE FOR TOMORROW. [BUZZER SOUNDING] THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MS. GALE. THE NEXT SPEAKER IS MARK LIND. IS MR. LIND HERE.

YES.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY.

COUNCIL, MY NAME IS MARK LIND, CHAIR OF THE TRAFFIC COMMITTEE OF THE CHERRYWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. LAST YEAR WE PRESENTED A PETITION 48 FEET LONG, HAD 500 SIGNATURES, REPRESENTED ONE THIRD OF ALL OF THE HOUSE HOLDS IN OUR COMMUNITY WHO SUPPORTED AND WERE ASKING FOR TRAFFIC CALMING IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. AT THAT TIME, WE CAME IN SECOND AND WE WERE TOLD THAT THIS YEAR WE WOULD HAVE A GOOD CHANCE OF GETTING ACCEPTED INTO THE PROGRAM. ESPECIALLY BECAUSE WE ARE CURRENTLY TAKING PART IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING PROCESS. EARLIER THIS YEAR, WE WERE TOLD THAT THE TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM WOULDN'T BE FUNDED AT ALL. THEN SEVERAL MONTHS AGO, WE HEARD THAT THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF MONEY THAT HAD BEEN ALLOCATED ?? A BIT OF MONEY ALLOCATED. NOW IT SEEMS EVEN THAT MONEY IS ?? IS IN QUESTION AND MAY BE REALLOCATED BECAUSE THE BUDGET CONSTRAINTSMONEY. I HOPE YOU CAN UNDERSTAND OUR FRUSTRATION. I AM TOLD THAT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD HAS BEEN TRYING TO WORK WITH THE CITY TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT TRAFFIC PROBLEMS IN OUR COMMUNITY FOR SOMEWHERE BETWEEN THE PAST 10 AND 15 YEARS. IN ALL THAT TIME WE HAVEN'T BEEN SUCCESSFUL. WE FEEL LIKE WE ARE KIND OF CHASING A MOVING TARGET HERE. IN THE MEANTIME, TRAFFIC ISSUES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD CONTINUE TO BE A CONCERN FOR OUR RESIDENTS. WE ARE A LITTLE INNER CITY NEIGHBORHOOD BOUNDED BY I?35, AIRPORT BOULEVARD, MANOR ROAD AND EAST 38TH AND A HALF STREET. IN THE FUTURE WE FACE A WIDENING OF I?35, AND A REDEVELOPED ROBERT MUELLER AIRPORT, WHICH PROMISES TO PUT A LOT OF CUT?THROUGH TRAFFIC TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. IN ADDITION, BECAUSE WE ARE CURRENTLY ENGAGED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING PROCESS, WE ARE AWARE THAT THE CITY IS REALLY ENCOURAGING THESE INFILL OPTIONS WHICH ARE GOING TO RESULT IN GREATER DENSITY IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. OBVIOUSLY, WE FEEL LIKE WE ARE WILLING TO BEAR OUR FAIR SHARE OF REDUCING URBAN SPRAWL, BUT WE NEED THE TOOLS THAT TRAFFIC CALMING GIVES US TO BE ABLE TO DEAL WITH INCREASED DENSITY AND INCREASED TRAFFIC IN OUR COMMUNITY. BASICALLY TO INCREASE OUR DENSITY AND NOT GIVE US THE TOOLS WE NEED TO DEAL WITH THE RECIPROCAL AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC THAT'S GOING TO RESULT IS REALLY UNFAIR. OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS VERY PROUD. OVER THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS, WE LIKE TO THINK THAT WE HAVE GAINED A REPUTATION FOR WORKING POSITIVELY WITH CITY AND STATE AGENCIES ON OUR COMMON ISSUES. BUT WE REALLY NEED YOUR HELP TO FUND THIS PROGRAM, WHICH IS VITAL TO OUR COMMUNITY. TRAFFIC ISSUES CONTINUE TO BE THE NUMBER ONE CONCERN OF AREA RESIDENTS. AND, YOU KNOW, I WANTED TO NOTE AT A MEETING SEVERAL MONTHS AGO, TWO OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS MENTIONED THAT TRAFFIC CALMING, ALONG WITH THE CITY INFILL OPTIONS ARE VITAL COMPONENTS TO THE CITY'S SMART GROWTH EFFORT. AGAIN TO HAVE ONE, THE INCREASE DENSITY, WITHOUT ALSO FUNDING TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAMS TO DEAL WITH THE INCREASED TRAFFIC, IS REALLY NOT GOOD PLANNING, NOT FAIR ON OLDER INNER CITY COMMUNITIES LIKE OURS. SO WE ASK YOU TO PLEASE, ONE, PRESERVE THE LIMITED AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT'S AVAILABLE IN THIS YEAR'S BUDGET. WE KNOW THERE ARE BUDGET CONSTRAINTS. IF YOU CAN'T CAN'T DO THAT, PLEASE RESTORE FULL FUNDING TO THIS PROGRAM NEXT YEAR, IT'S IMPORTANT.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MR. LIND.

GOODMAN: MAYOR, RELATIVE TO THAT, COULD I ASK CITY STAFF IN COUNCIL COULD GET SORT OF AN OVERVIEW OF THE STATUS OF THE PROGRAM AND THE FUNDING? BECAUSE DIFFERENT NEIGHBORHOODS SEEM TO BE GETTING DIFFERENT ANSWERS. AND I KNOW IN THE BUDGET ISSUE, THAT HAS COME TO US LATELY AFTER THE PASSAGE OF BUDGET, THERE ARE VARIABLES THAT WE DIDN'T KNOW EXISTED, BUT THERE MAY OR MAY NOT STILL BE A PROGRAM AND IT WOULD BE GOOD TO KNOW IF THERE IS AND WHAT THE AMOUNT OF DOLLARS, THE BALANCE, IF IT'S A BALANCE, IS REMAINING. WHAT ?? WHAT NEIGHBORHOODS HAVE PRIORITIES AND WHAT SCHEDULE, IF ANY, WE HAVE FOR ?? FOR WHAT NEIGHBORHOOD.

WE WILL GET YOU A MEMO ON THAT MAYOR PRO TEM.

GE ?? GIRARD KINNEY.

THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. BRIEFLY I WOULD ADD ONLY TO MARK LIND'S PRESENTATION THAT I AM ONE OF THOSE PAST PRESIDENTS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION TO WHICH HE REFERRED. AND INDEED WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR AN AWFULLY LONG TIME, WE KEEP GETTING THWARTED AT EVERY TURN. THE ONE THWART HE DIDN'T MENTION OR IF HE DID I DIDN'T HEAR IT, WAS OUR EFFORT TO GET 38 AND A HALF DOWNGRADED FROM AN ARTERIAL. WE WERE SORT OF LED BY COUNCIL TO BELIEVE THAT MAYBE ALTHOUGH WE DIDN'T GET THAT, WE MIGHT HAVE SOME OTHER PRIZE HERE, BUT I THINK WHAT I AM REALLY TRYING TO SAY TO YOU IS THAT WE HAVE TARGETED A VERY SMALL PILOT PROJECT. IT'S TAILORED TO A VERY SMALL BUDGET. WE THINK IT WOULD GO AN ENORMOUS WAY TOWARD A ?? GIVING EVERYONE A LOT OF GOOD FEEDBACK ABOUT WHAT THEIR TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM CAN DO. I THINK IT WOULD BE OVERWHELMINGLY SUPPORTED BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHEN WE ARE ABLE TO DO THAT. I WOULD ASK YOU TO FUND THAT. THE OTHER THING THAT I WANT TO DO IS TO SPEAK TO YOU ?? WEAR A DIFFERENT HAT. YOU HAVE A HEARING TONIGHT ON THE SIGNAGE ORDINANCE. WEARING MY SCENIC AUSTIN PRESIDENT'S HAT, I WANT ?? BECAUSE THE AIA GALA IS TONIGHT AND I'M SORRY YOU FOLKS CAN'T BE THERE BECAUSE YOU HAVE A COUNCIL MEETING, BUT I HAVE TO BE THERE, SO I MAY NOT BE ABLE TO SPEAK TO YOU. LET ME JUST SAY QUICKLY, ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE, BUT ALSO SAY TO YOU, PLEASE PASS AN ORDINANCE WHICH WILL ACTUALLY START ELIMINATING, NOT JUST MAKING SMALLER BILLBOARDS. YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO IT. YOUR ?? THE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WHAT KIND OF POINTED THE WAY. YOU NEED TO HAVE A WHEREAS IN YOUR RESOLUTION THAT MAKES IT CLEAR THAT YOU ARE REAFFIRMING YOUR ?? YOUR COMMITMENT TO REMOVING BILLBOARDS IN AUSTIN. AND USE THIS ORDINANCE AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO IT. AND I WILL ?? I WILL GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF TIME BACK. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

MAYOR GARCIA: DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. KINNEY? THANK YOU, GIRARD. JOSE QUINTERO. MR. JOSE QUINTERO? REVEREND JR WILLIAMS. REVEREND WILLIAMS? GUS PENA. COUNCIL, THOSE ARE ALL OF THE SPEAKERS ON THIS CITIZENS COMMUNICATIONS GENERAL. WE HAVE ?? WE HAVE SEVERAL ITEMS THAT ARE STILL REMAINING. WE HAVE A 3:30 TIME CERTAIN FOR THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR THE AUSTIN HOUSING AND FINANCE CORPORATION. AT 2:00 P.M. TIME CERTAIN, HAS BEEN POSTPONED INDEFINITELY. WE HAVE A 4:00 P.M. ZONING, TIME CERTAIN. 5:30 LIVE MUSIC AND PROCLAMATIONS AND 6:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARINGS. WE ALSO HAVE SOME BRIEFINGS THAT THE COUNCIL WILL RECEIVE, ITEMS 2, 4 AND 5. WE HAVE ITEM 9, CONSIDER POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE CALENDAR. ITEM 10, WHICH IS THE DAWSON NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, ITEM 43 WHICH IS THE ANNEXATION, WE HAVE ONE EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEM LIKE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. SO COUNCIL WOULD YOU LIKE TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION, TAKE CARE OF 66, THEN COME BACK? OR DO YOU WANT TO ?? TO HANDLE SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT WE HAVE LEFT ON THE AGENDA?

WYNN: MAYOR, IF I COULD, I KNOW THAT SEVERAL CITIZENS HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR MY ITEM NO. 43, IT'S BEEN PULLED.

MAYOR GARCIA: WHY DON'T WE CALL IT UP AT THIS TIME.

WYNN: THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: I WILL RECOGNIZE YOU, COUNCILMEMBER WYNN.

WYNN: THANK YOU, I'M GOING TO NEED MR. LUKENS OR MR. LLOYD PERHAPS TO ?? I HOPE WE MIGHT HAVE A MAP SHOWING THE ISSUES AT HAND. AND IF I CAN, JUST A QUICK PREFACE. MY ?? MY CONCERNS WITH ?? I HAVE SEVERAL CONCERNS WITH ?? WITH THIS PARTICULAR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH HERE. I FRANKLY DON'T KNOW THAT MY CONCERNS ARE SPECIFICALLY ANNEXATION RELATED. BUT WE DO WANT TO HAVE ?? TO HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ANSWERED. WE DO WANT TO ALLOW FOR A COUPLE OF CITIZENS TO SEE CONCERNS AND ISSUES AND PERHAPS WITH MR. LUKEN, MR. LLOYD'S HELP, I CAN GET COMFORTABLE WITH PERHAPS SOME NON?ANNEXATION ISSUES. IF I CAN, GET AHEAD AND START YOU, MR. LUKENS. MY CONCERN IN ?? WITH THIS PROPERTY THAT'S ENCOMPASSED BY THE OLD PARAGRAPH IS THE ISSUE OF THE PRIVATE EASEMENT THAT HAS BEEN USED FOR YEARS AS THE ACCESS POINT TO THESE TRACTS THAT WE ARE ANNEXING. I KNOW THAT BY ANNEXING WE ARE NOT TECHNICALLY DOING ANYTHING TO TO THAT EASEMENT. BUT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SMALL SUBDIVISION THAT, YOU KNOW, IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THIS ?? THIS ANNEXATION, THESE ANNEXATION TRACTS, I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO GET SOME CLARITY AS TO WHAT HAPPENS TO THESE FOLKS AFTER THEY GET ANNEXED AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW, ESSENTIALLY THEY HAVE SORT OF A VIRTUAL ADDRESS RIGHT NOW ON 1826. HOW WILL OUR EMERGENCY SERVICE PERSONNEL LITERALLY FIND THEIR INDIVIDUAL HOMES ON THIS EASEMENT, YOU KNOW, WHAT ?? YOU KNOW, WHY SHOULD THE EASEMENT EVEN BE THERE IF THERE'S AN ADJACENT CURB AND GUTTER ROAD INCHES AWAY, WHAT HAPPENS WITH THIS PRIVATE EASEMENT AND SEVERAL NEW ROADS THAT HAVE BEEN BUILT ACROSS IT. WHO HAS THE RIGHT?OF?WAY. SOME STOP SIGNS HAVE BEEN PLACED. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER WE DID THAT OR THE HOME BUILDERS HAVE DONE THAT. THOSE TYPE OF ISSUES. I'M RELATIVELY VERSED IN THE ISSUES ABOUT WHEN WE ANNEX SUBDIVISIONS. AND WE HAVE THE ISSUE OF NEW TAPS INTO OUR SEWER AND WATER LINES. I THINK THOSE FRANKLY CAN BE ADDRESSED. WE HAVE SOME GENERAL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES IN PLACE FOR THAT. BUT REALLY MY CONCERN, MY MAIN CONCERNS IS WHAT DO WE DO WITH THIS EASEMENT, HOW DO WE HELP THESE PROPERTY OWNERS DEAL WITH THEIR ?? WHAT I SEE ARE SOME ?? SOME MAJOR CONFLICTS WITH THAT EASEMENT AND THE NEW SUBDIVISION AND THE POTENTIAL CONFLICT AND CONFUSION, AS AN EXAMPLE, WITH OUR EMERGENCY PERSONNEL TRYING TO FIND THEIR HOMES BASED ON THE SITUATION.

SURE. FIRST THINGS FIRST, EMERGENCY SERVICES SITUATION, THIS TRACT IS ALWAYS ?? HAS BEEN RECEIVING, YOU KNOW, EMERGENCY SERVICES OF ONE KIND OR ANOTHER SINCE THE 1960'S ON THIS SEIZE EASEMENT. TYPICALLY WHAT HAPPENS IS THAT ?? THAT THE EMERGENCY SERVICE PERSONNEL FAMILIARIZE THEMSELVES WITH THIS AREA. SO THEY THEMSELVES KNOW WHERE EVERYTHING IS. THERE ARE THREE OCCUPIED HOUSES. I SPOKE WITH THE FOLKS 911 CENTER TO MAKE SURE THEY HAD A 911 ADDRESS. THAT ?? IN ADDITION TO THEIR MAILING ADDRESS. TYPICALLY YOUR MAILING ADDRESS IS A 911 ADDRESS. THIS MAY NOT BE THE CASE IN THIS INSTANCE. I SPOKE WITH THE 911 FOLKS THE OTHER DAY AND THEY IN TURN CALLED THE ?? THE RESIDENTS OF THE ?? THE OWNERS OF THE THREE OCCUPIED UNITS OUT THERE. ONE OF THEM HAD A CELL PHONE NUMBER, SO THEY WILL HAVE TO FIND IT ?? YOU KNOW, THE PHONE BOOK. SO THAT 911 ISSUE IS RESOLVED, IS A NON?ISSUE. GETTING TO THIS PLACE IS NOT GOING TO BE A ?? A PROBLEM. THE EMERGENCY CHIEF SERVICES PERSONNEL KNOW WHERE THESE HOUSES ARE. THIS AREA HAS BEEN RECEIVING ?? HAS RECEIVED, YOU KNOW, BEEN CITY COUNTY E.M.S. NOW ?? CITY E.M.S. NOW FOREVER. ITS EMERGENCY SERVICES HAVE ALWAYS KNOWN WHERE THIS IS. OUR PERSONNEL WILL FAMILIARIZE THEMSELVES WITH THIS AREA. BUT WHEN I SPOKE WITH THE 911 CENTER, THEY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, A REALLY CLEAR, WHENEVER POSSIBLE, A REAL 911 ADDRESS, IN ADDITION TO THE MAILING ADDRESS AND THEY WILL TAKE CARE OF THAT. THEY HAVE ALREADY CONTACTED, I KNOW, TWO OF THOSE THREE PROPERTY OWNERS. SO THAT ISSUE IS ?? IS BASICALLY RESOLVED. SO LET ME JUST POINT OUT THE AREA WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. THIS PRETTY MUCH IS SHADOW RIDGE CROSSING SECTION 12. THESE YELLOW LOTS OVER HERE. AND ?? AND VIRTUALLY THE ?? MOST OF THE EASEMENT, THE ACCESS EASEMENT, IS IN THE CITY LIMITS. SHADOW RIDGE CROSSING, SECTION 12 IS IN THE CITY LIMITS. SO THOSE THINGS THAT DEAL WITH WATERS, DONALLY, WHATNEY AND THE OTHER PROPERTIES, THOSE THINGS ARE ALL OUTSIDE CONTEXT OF ANNEXATION. TOTALLY SUBDIVISION ISSUES BECAUSE SHADOW RIDGE SECTION 12 IS IN THE CITY LIMITS. SO NOW WE GET TO THE EASEMENT. I WILL JUST POINT OUT THE EASEMENT. THE MAIN EASEMENT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT GOES DOWN THIS PROPERTY LINE, GOES ACROSS EACH PROPERTY LINE, THEN ON OUT IN THIS WHITE AS YOU CAN SEE, THE WHITE THAT REALLY SHOWS UP WELL IN THE IMAGERY. THIS IS A PAVED ROAD. 12 MESA DRIVE, I BELIEVE. DARK VALLEY COVE OVER HERE. NOW, WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS SUBDIVIDED, THE ?? THE STAFF REQUIRED THE DEVELOPER TO ?? TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE WAS ACCESS, THERE WAS ACCESS TO ?? TO THE ?? WE WILL CALL IT THE ?? THE BALANCE OF THE TRACT PARCELS. WHICH WERE WATERS, DOWNING AND WHATNEY, NOW HASSLE AND RUDOLPH. 50 FOOT STRIPS OF RIGHT?OF?WAY WERE DEDICATED TO THIS PROPERTY, TO THAT PROPERTY, TO THAT PROPERTY, TO THAT PROPERTY, TO THE THREE OCCUPIED TRACTS, WATERS, FOR INSTANCE, CAN GO DOWN THIS ?? HAS A 50 FOOT STRIP TO DARK VALLEY COVE, WHATNEY AND DONLEY CAN GO DOWN THIS ONE TO DARK VALLEY COVE, ANOTHER STRIP OVER HERE NEAR WHATNEY, BUT PRESUMABLY THEY WOULD SHARE THIS. THE SUBDIVISION MET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF ?? OF OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. AND THE CITY HAS NO OPTION BUT TO ?? BUT TO APPROVE A PLAT THAT MEETS ALL OF OUR REQUIREMENTS. AND THAT'S HAS WE HAVE HERE. ?? WHAT WE HAVE HERE. NOW, ??

WYNN: I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT. BUT WE DON'T REQUIRE VACATION OF PRIVATE EASEMENTS ACROSS THE NEWLY PLATTED OR PROPOSED PLATTED SUBDIVISION?

NO.

WYNN: WE WOULDN'T ?? REQUIRE THE DEVELOPER TO ?? TO DO WHATEVER IS NECESSARY TO ELIMINATE THAT PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENT, THERE'S NO REASON FOR US TO DO THAT?

THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. THAT'S A ?? IT'S A PRIVATE EASEMENT ?? DO YOU WANT TO TALK TO THAT?

YEAH, YEAH, SURE. THE ?? THE EASEMENT ISN'T ?? ISN'T SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE THE DEVELOPER TO ?? TO RELEASE. IF THE EASEMENT OWNERS DON'T WANT TO RELEASE IT. I'M TOLD BY PLANNERS WHO HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THESE KINDS OF SITUATIONS BEFORE THAT ?? THAT THIS IS FAIRLY UNIQUE BECAUSE IT ALMOST ALWAYS IS RELEASED IN EXCHANGE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW ROAD. AND IN THAT ROAD, BEFORE ?? TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO A BALANCE OF THE TRACTS AREA ALONG A PAVED ROAD, WHICH IS WHAT ?? GENERALLY MOST FOLKS WOULD PREFER TO HAVE, RATHER THAN A CRUSHED GRAVEL ROAD, WHICH IS WHAT THAT EASEMENT IS. SO ?? SO EXCUSE ME, THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS, NO, THE CITY DOESN'T REQUIRE THE RELEASE OF THAT EASEMENT. WHEN THEY COME IN AND APPLY FOR A SUBDIVISION. THAT MAY BE SOMETHING THAT ENTERS INTO THE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT WHAT THE PLAN WILL LOOK LIKE AND ?? IT'S PROBABLY, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING THAT THE DEVELOPER WOULD THINK WOULD BE SOMETHING HE WOULD PREFER TO DO. BUT ?? BUT FOR ?? THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF THAT BEING A MATTER OF PRIVATE DISCUSSION, PRIVATE NEGOTIATION.

WYNN: OKAY. BUT THIS CASE, WITH THE FACT THAT THE NEW ROAD INTERSECTS OR CROSSES THAT PRIVATE EASEMENT ON TWO OR THREE LOCATIONS, DO WE ?? WHAT'S THE SORT OF LEGAL ISSUE INSOFAR AS RIGHTS OF WAY AND ?? I MEAN, WHEN ?? WHICH ROUTES SHOULD HAVE THE STOP SIGNS PUT ON IT, ET CETERA?

WELL, I HAD SOME DISCUSSIONS WITH PUBLIC WORKS ?? [AUDIO PROBLEMS, PLEASE STAND BY] MONEY,.

WYNN: THERE'S LITERALLY NOT AN INCH DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS EASEMENT AND THIS PUBLIC STREET. SO YOU CAN HAVE SOMEBODY DRIVING IN THE RIGHT?HAND LANE HEADING ?? HEADING EASTBOUND AT NIGHT AND SOMEBODY IS GOING TO BE DRIVING TO THEIR RIGHT COMING AT THEM, BUT ON THEIR RIGHT?HAND SIDE. WHAT'S THE ?? HOW DO WE ?? DO WE ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN?

WELL, I JUST ?? I CAN TELL YOU, MS. WATERS TOLD ME EARLIER SHE HAD ASKED THAT QUESTION OF GEORGE ZAPALAC. I DON'T WANT TO PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH, BUT GEORGE ZAPALAC, OUR CITY TRANSPORTATION PLANNER WENT AND LOOKED AT IT. PERHAPS IT WOULD BE BETTER IF SHE EXPLAINED WHAT HE HAD TO SAY ABOUT IT. BUT ?? BUT ?? BUT THAT IS, I GUESS THAT'S A TRAFFIC POINT ISSUE OUT OF MY AREA.

NOW, AT SOME POINT, AT SOME POINT, COMMON SENSE COMES INTO PLAY HERE. YOU GOT YOURSELF A PAVED STREET. THESE PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE THE OPTION, 200 FEET DOWN THIS RIGHT?OF?WAY, GET TO A PAVED STREET. YOU KNOW, SO THIS IS NOT THE ONLY WAY FOR THEM TO GET OUT TO 18 ?? TO CAMP BENEFIT MCCULLOUGH ROAD. S THERE'S ?? BEN MCCULLOUGH ROAD. IT'S A SHORT DISTANCE TO GET ON TO A PAVED STREET, PAVED RIGHT?OF?WAY. AT SOME POINT SOMEONE HAS TO THINK TO THEMSELVES, YOU KNOW, THESE THREE PEOPLE HAVE TO THINK FOR THEMSELVES, YOU KNOW, WHY ARE THEY CONTINUING TO USE A RIGHT?OF?WAY THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO USE, WHEN THERE'S A PERFECTLY GOOD ALTERNATIVE AVAILABLE.

WYNN: WELL, IF YOU LOOK AT THE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH THAT IS NOT APPROVED YET, IN FACT ONE IS HEAVILY WOODED.

I DROVE ON THIS YESTERDAY. THERE'S NO PROBLEM GOING ON THIS. THERE'S NO PROBLEM GOING ON THIS. THESE ARE OPEN RIGHTS OF WAY. AND ?? AND THEY HAVE BEEN ?? MRS. WATERS ASKED ME ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OR SAID SHE DISCUSSED THE POSSIBILITY OF GETTING A LICENSE AGREEMENT REGARDING THE DRIVEWAY. AND I'M ASSUMING THAT'S ?? THAT MAY VERY WELL BE A DOABLE THING. BUT THE FACT IS THAT THERE'S A 200 FEET TAKES YOU TO THE ?? TAKES YOU TO THE PAVEMENT. SO WHY ANYBODY WOULD INSIST GOING DOWN THIS, THOUSANDS OF FEET TO GET TO THE ROAD, COULD BE INVOLVED IN POTENTIALLY, YOU KNOW, POTENTIAL SITUATIONS WHEN THERE'S AN ALTERNATIVE. AT SOME POINT YOU SAY, WELL, WHY WOULD THEY INSIST ON DOING THAT? THE FACT IS THAT THERE ARE PROBABLY PLACES IN THIS COUNTY WHERE WE HAVE GOT EASEMENTS THAT GO HITHER AND YON AND MAY CAUSE, YOU KNOW, POTENTIAL PROBLEMS. AT SOME POINT PEOPLE ACT, YOU KNOW, RATIONAL FOLKS, THEY ?? THEY RESOLVE THE PROBLEMS. TO ME IT'S ?? WHEN YOU SAY WHAT HAPPENED, YOU BROUGHT THAT UP, I WOULD THINK WELL WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD SOMEONE WANT TO CREATE THAT PROBLEM BY INSISTING ON USING AN EASEMENT WHEN THERE'S AN ALTERNATIVE. NOW, YOU ARE GOING TO SAY, WELL, GOSH, WOULD DO WE ALLOW A SITUATION TO EXIST WHERE SOMEONE HAD THE OPTION TO ACT IN AN IRRATIONAL MANER. WELL, THEY TURNED IN A PLAT THAT MET ALL OF OUR REQUIREMENT. WE ARE FORCED TO ACCEPT THAT PLAT. OUR PEOPLE ARE ?? PEOPLE IN OUR DEPARTMENT, IN MY DEPARTMENT, WATERSHED PROTECTION, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ARE TOUGH NEGOTIATORS. BUT AT SOME POINT THE DEVELOPER SAYS I HAVE THE RIGHT TO GET THIS PLATTED. THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED HERE. THERE'S NO GETTING AWAY FROM IT. THESE FOLKS HAVE AN EASEMENT, THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO KEEP THEIR EASEMENT. THERE'S NO IMPEDIMENT. THEY MAY CONTINUE TO USE THEIR EASEMENT. THIS FOLKS ?? HAD 100 ACRES OR SO, THEY HAD A RIGHT TO SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY. THEY UNFORTUNATELY WERE UNABLE TO RESOLVE THIS. AND THAT'S ?? THAT'S WHERE WE ARE TODAY. AND BUT THE FACT IS THAT ?? THAT SECTION [INAUDIBLE] IN THE CITY, AND THESE FOLKS HAVE ALL SERVICES AVAILABLE TO THEM, FROM A PUBLIC POLICY STANDPOINT, IT ?? IT DOESN'T ?? YOU SHOULD TRY TO GO AHEAD AND ANNEX THE TERRITORY. IT'S SURROUNDED BY THE CITY. THEY ARE ALL AVAILABLE.

COUNCIL, I WANTED TO MAKE A ?? MAKE A SUGGESTION OR A PROPOSAL THAT MIGHT ADDRESS THE ISSUE THAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. WE CAN ASK THE STAFF TO LOOK AT THE POSSIBILITY OF OPENING SOME KIND OF A RAIL THERE BETWEEN THE ?? BETWEEN THE PUBLIC STREET AND THE EASEMENT. IF THE COUNCIL IS INTERESTED IN DOING THAT. YOU KNOW, ASIDE FROM THE FACT THAT WE DON'T PERCEIVE IT TO BE A TRAFFIC PROBLEM, IF THAT'S ?? IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE US TO LOOK INTO, WE CAN ASK THE TRANSPORTATION STAFF TO INVESTIGATE THAT.

WYNN: I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE USERS OF THAT EASEMENT WOULD PREFER, FRANKLY. I UNDERSTAND THIS IS PRIMARILY A PRIVATE ?? PRIVATE ISSUE. THAT IS AN ISSUE BETWEEN THE HOLDERS OF THAT EASEMENT AND PRESUMABLY THE PERSON WHO SUBDIVIDED THAT LAND. I SUSPECT THAT AUSTIN?BERGSTROM DIVIDER IS NOW ?? THAT SUBDIVIDER IS NOW GONE AND THAT LOT HAS BEEN SOLD TO INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE OR HOMEOWNERS. CAN YOU WALK THROUGH, I GUESS MR. LUKENS, WHEN WE ANNEX EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS AS WE HAVE DONE SEVERAL TIMES, AND THE WHOLE WATER AND SEWER TAP ISSUE COMES INTO PLAY, I KNOW IN THE PAST WE HAVE HAD SOME ?? SOME PERIOD OF TIME WHEREBY, YOU KNOW, EITHER FEES ARE WAIVED OR THERE'S SOME ?? IN FACT ACTS AS SORT OF AN INCENTIVE FOR THOSE NEW CITIZENS TO GO AHEAD AND TAP INTO THE WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM, BASED ON THAT, IS THAT SORT OF STANDARD FARE, OFFERED HERE, DO WE NEED TO MAKE THAT MOTION AND HAVE AS MANY OF THESE FEE WAIVERS, INCENTIVES AND DIFFERENT THINGS INVOLVED WITH THIS ANNEXATION?

THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE PROVIDES FOR A TWO YEAR CRF WAIVER FROM THE TIME SERVICES ARE AVAILABLE, THAT ?? THAT ?? YOU GET YOUR ?? GET YOUR TAP OR YOU GET WHATEVER THE PROPER TERM FOR IT IS. WHEN YOU GET YOUR RIGHT TO CONNECT, THAT'S GOOD FOR TWO MORE YEARS. SO ESSENTIALLY YOU GET FOUR YEARS FROM THE TIME SERVICES ARE AVAILABLE, YOU HAVE TWO YEARS TO BUY IT, THEN TWO YEARS TO USE IT. AND THAT'S ?? THAT'S AUTOMATIC CAPITAL RECOVERY FEE WAIVER. IN THE PAST COUNCIL HAS ?? HAS CREATED, HAS WAIVED CAPITAL RECOVERY FEES FOR AS LONG AS 10 YEARS. IN THIS CASE WE WENT AHEAD WITH THE DEFAULT, WHICH IS THE TWO YEARS AND TWO MORE IN WHICH TO USE IT.

WYNN: HOW ABOUT WHAT I WOULD CALL SUBDIVISION ISSUES? THAT IS I HATE THE TERM, BUT MY PRESUMPTION IS THESE TRACTS ARE GOING TO BE CONSIDERED ILLEGAL TRACTS.

ACTUALLY ??

OR UNPLATTED ??

THERE ARE THREE TRACTS HERE. WATERS, DONLEY AND WHAT THE KNEE. ?? WHAT THENEY. DONLEY HAS RECEIVED LEGAL LOT DETERMINATION, DONLEY IS A LEGAL TRACT. MY UNDERSTANDING IS MRS. WATERS SPOKE WITH WATERSHED PROTECTION AND REVIEW PEOPLE, WAS TOLD THAT ?? IN ALL LIKELIHOOD, THEY HAVE A LEGAL TRACT AS WELL. TWO OF THEM, ONE DEFINITELY HAS A LEGAL TRACT. ONE WAS TOLD THAT IN ALL LIKELIHOOD THEY PROBABLY HAVE A LEGAL TRACT. WHICH LEADS US TO WHATNEY IN THAT SITUATION. IN TERMS OF WAIVING FEES, THE LEGAL TRACT DETERMINATION FEE IS $165. SUBDIVISION FEE, I TEND TO THINK A SUBDIVISION FEE ARE PROBABLY CONSIDERABLY LESS THAN THE ENGINEERING FEES TO GET THE SUBDIVISION, BUT I WOULD THINK THE SUBDIVISION FEE FOR A SMALL TRACT IS PROBABLY A FEW THOUSAND DOLLARS. I DID NOT LOOK THAT UP. I SHOULD HAVE THIS MORNING. I WAS THINKING ABOUT IT THIS MORNING. SO THERE ARE FEES FOR ?? FOR SUBDIVISIONS. TWO OF THESE TRACTS ARE LEGAL TRACTS.

WYNN: SO IF A TRACT IS ?? IS ILLEGAL AND WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH A SUBDIVISION PROCESS TO BECOME LEGAL, DOES THAT MEAN THAT ?? THAT THE FACT THAT THERE ARE EASEMENTS ?? THERE IS NEWLY CREATED EASEMENT ACCESS TO THESE TRACTS TO THIS NEW PAVED OR NEWLY PAVED ROAD, CAN SOMEBODY COME IN WITH ?? WITH AN ILLEGAL TRACT AND ?? AND, YOU KNOW, IMPROVE A DRIVEWAY TO, YOU KNOW, DO, YOU KNOW, A CURB CUT OR WHATEVER IS NEEDED, YOU KNOW, BULLDOZE SOME BRUSH AND TRIES, PUT DOWN SOME ?? SOME GRAVEL OR EVEN POUR SOME CONCRETE. [INAUDIBLE ? NO MIC]

I ?? IS THE QUESTION WHETHER ?? WHETHER IT'S AN ILLEGAL TRACT WOULD PROHIBIT THEM FROM USING RIGHT?OF?WAY TO ACCESS THE TRACT?

IMPROVING IT. IN OTHER WORDS ?? ONE OF THE POINTS EARLIER WAS THAT, YOU KNOW, WHY WOULD SOMEBODY BOTHER TO PUT THEMSELVES IN SORT OF A DANGEROUS ACCESS POINT IF THEY HAVE THIS 50 FOOT FLAG TRACT UP TO A STREET. BUT WHAT IF PRESUMABLY WHAT THEY WANT TO ?? IF THEY WANT TO POUR A NICE CONCRETE DRIVE OR PUT DOWN CALICHE BASED OR DO WHATEVER, BUT IF THEIR TRACT IS ILLEGAL, DO THEY THEN HAVE TO PAY THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN ENGINEERING AND FEES IN ORDER TO THEN GIVE THEMSELVES YOU KNOW USE OF THIS NEWLY CREATED EASEMENT THAT THEN IN THEORY LET ME MATES THIS POTENTIAL TRAFFIC ISSUE?

WELL, I THINK THE ANSWER TO THAT ONE IS THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO USE THE RIGHT?OF?WAY TO ACCESS THEIR TRACT RIGHT NOW. I HAD A DISCUSSION WITH MS. WATERS ABOUT HER INTEREST IN ?? IS THIS WHAT YOU ARE DRIVING AT, HER INTEREST IS IN PAVING A PORTION OF THIS TRACT.

WYNN: JUST GENERALLY, IF THEY WANT TO APPROVE THAT IN ORDER TO PERHAPS ELIMINATE THE POTENTIAL TRAFFIC ISSUES, SAFETY ISSUE, IF THE TRACT IS ILLEGAL, CAN THEY IN FACT IMPROVE THEIR DRIVE?

WELL, I GUESS THE UNDERLYING ISSUE IS THAT FOR A ?? FOR A STREET THAT'S PLATTED AS CITY RIGHT?OF?WAY OR WHAT ?? WHAT WOULD BE PUBLIC RIGHT?OF?WAY, THE CITY WOULD PREFER THAT A STREET BE CONSTRUCTED THAT MEETS STREET CITY ?? CITY STANDARDS. THIS IS MORE EXPENSIVE THAN WHAT MS. WATERS WOULD WANT TO OR NEED TO DO, SHE CAN ADDRESS THAT, TOO, IN ORDER TO JUST HAVE DRIVEWAY ACCESS TO HER PROPERTY THROUGH THIS RIGHT?OF?WAY.

I WAS JUST TOLD THE CITY CONSIDERS THIS A DRIVEWAY, NOT A PUBLIC ?? 10 MINUTES AGO I THINK MR. LUKENS USED THE TERM WE CONSIDER THIS A DRIVEWAY, THEREFORE THEY HAVE TO GET THE STOP SIGN, NOT THE PUBLIC STREET THAT IT CROSSES, SO WE ARE CALLING IT A DRIVEWAY ?? AS OPPOSED TO TRAFFIC ?? NOW THEY WANT TO IMPROVE IT AND DRIVE ON IT, WE ARE CALLING IT A PUBLIC RIGHT?OF?WAY, THEY HAVE TO BUILDING IT TO CITY STREET ??

THERE ARE TWO THINGS IT AFFECTS. ONE THE 30 FEET EASEMENT. WHEN THE EASEMENT CROSSES THE STREET THE RIGHT?OF?WAY GOES TO THE LARGER OF THE TWO TRAVEL WAYS. THE LARGER OF THE TWO TRAVEL WAYS IS THE STREET. SO THE STOP SIGN WOULD GO ON THE EASEMENT BECAUSE THE RIGHT?OF?WAY IS TO THE LARGER OF THE TWO TRAVEL WAYS, WHICH IS THE STREET. THAT'S THAT THING. THAT'S THE RIGHT?OF?WAY. THEN THESE RIGHTS OF WAY. WHAT I MENTIONED ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF WAY WAS THAT IT MIGHT BE POSSIBLE, BECAUSE THIS 200 FOOT, THE RIGHT?OF?WAY WAS SORT OF PROVIDED FOR THEIR ACCESS, IT MIGHT BE POSSIBLE TO WORK OUT A LICENSE AGREEMENT TO WHERE THEY MIGHT BE ?? THESE ARE LOTS OF MIGHTS, SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO TAKE A LOT OF WORK, AGAIN OUTSIDE OF ANNEXATION, BUT THE KIND OF THING THAT WE DO BECAUSE YOU LIKE TO HELP PEOPLE OUT, I GUESS. THAT'S THAT THE ?? IT MIGHT BE POSSIBLE TO DO A LICENSE [INAUDIBLE] AGREEMENT TO THEY CAN DO THAT. I DON'T THINK THEY NEED TO BECOME A LEGAL LOT, BECOME A LEGAL LOT, GO AHEAD AND GET A LICENSE AGREEMENT, TO GO AHEAD AND DO SOME SORT OF DRIVEWAY. THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. THE DRIVEWAY IS BUILT AS PART OF A LICENSE AGREEMENT ON THE PUBLIC RIGHT?OF?WAY AND THEN THERE'S THEIR EASEMENT, WHICH ?? WHICH THEY ARE SAYING FUNCTIONS ALMOST AS IF IT WERE A DRIVEWAY, WHEN IT CROSSES THE STREET AS A MINOR TRAVEL WAY. SO I HOPE THAT WASN'T TOO CONFUSING. THE LEGAL LOT REQUIREMENTS, IF YOU WANT TO CONNECT TO CITY UTILITIES, YOU EITHER NEED TO GO AHEAD AND BECOME A LEGAL LOT OR GET SOME OTHER SORT OF EXEMPTION TO ALLOW THEM TO CONNECT TO CITY UTILITIES. ONLY ONE OF THESE THREE TRACTS THAT HAS A PROBLEM WITH THAT. LIKE I SAID, PROBABLY THE FIRST STEP ON THAT IS TO GO BACK THROUGH LEGAL LOT DETERMINATION STATUS, THEN VISIT WITH SUBDIVISION REVIEW PEOPLE ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF ?? OF WHAT CAN BE DONE TO AT LEAST MAKE THE TRACT LEGAL. THERE'S A LOT OF ?? THAT'S JUST A LOT OF STUFF THAT HAS TO BE DONE OUTSIDE OF THIS DISCUSSION BECAUSE THAT'S AGAIN THE SUBDIVISION ISSUE.

WYNN: I UNDERSTAND IT'S A SEPARATE ISSUE. I TRIED TO PREFACE MY COMMENTS ABOUT THAT. BUT ULTIMATELY FOR A CITIZEN, THEY ?? THEY DON'T GIVE A CARE WHETHER IT'S A SUBDIVISION ISSUE, A TRANSPORTATION ISSUE, ANNEX ISSUE. THEY JUST ??

OF COURSE.

?? THEY FEEL A BURDEN BEING PLACED UPON THEM FOR SOME VARIOUS REASONS. CAN YOU ?? EXPLAIN TO ME ?? I WILL STOP THIS IN A SECOND. CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME WHAT PARAMETERS YOU ARE UNDER AS OUR ANNEXATION DEPARTMENT, WHAT ARE SOME OF THE ?? I KNOW WE HAVE TIME CONSTRAINTS, THERE'S, SORT OF A STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AS TO WHEN WE DO CERTAIN THINGS. WHAT PARAMETERS OR TIME CONSTRAINTS ARE YOU.

LAST ?? THURSDAY IS THE LAST DATE, RENOTIFY SET THE NEW HEARINGS, DO NEW NOTICE, GO THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS AGAIN. NEXT THURSDAY, THE ABSOLUTE LAST DAY. THAT WOULD BE 30 DAIS, FIRST READING SEPTEMBER 27TH, 90 DAIS TO COMPLETE THE ANNEXATION, 90 DAYS FROM SEPTEMBER 27 IS ?? CHRISTMAS? SO NEXT WEEK WOULD BE THE LAST TIME. SO ??

WYNN: YEAH.

WYNN: BASED ON THAT, I APOLOGIZE IF I SPRUNG THIS ON THE MAJORITY OF THE COUNCIL. I WOULD MOVE WE POSTPONE THIS FOR ONE WEEK. HOPEFULLY TO GIVE ?? TO GIVE MYSELF AND STAFF SOME TIME TO GET SOME OF THIS IN WRITING. I KNOW WE HAVE A COUPLE OF LAND OWNERS WHO ?? WHO ?? MY SINCE SEER BELIEF IS THAT THEY ARE ?? SINCERE BELIEF IS THAT THEY ARE NOT PHILOSOPHICALLY OPPOSED TO ANNEXATION, THEY FEEL THEMSELVES IN SOMEWHAT OF A BOX ON WHAT GENERALLY APPEARS TO BE A PRIVATE ?? PRIVATE PARTY ISSUE. BUT TO THE EXTENT THAT ?? IN A WEEK'S TIME, WHETHER IT'S THE LEGAL LOT DETERMINATION, WHETHER IT'S ?? WHETHER IT'S ?? WHETHER WE AND THEY LIKE THE IDEA OF A GUARDRAIL AS PROTECTION ON THIS ?? ON THIS ABUTTING TRAFFIC ISSUE, YOU KNOW, UNDERSTAND ?? THE LIKELIHOOD OF LICENSE AGREEMENTS ON ?? ON PRIVATE RIGHTS OF WAY, ET CETERA. THEN I WOULD FEEL MUCH MORE COMFORTABLE VOTING EITHER WAY FOR THIS. IN A WEEK'S TIME.

SECOND.

MAYOR GARCIA: WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER, WOULD YOU LIKE TO LISTEN TO THEM WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT HE CAN ALSO SPEAK NEXT WEEK?

WYNN: YES, SIR.

MAYOR GARCIA: CAN SOMEBODY ?? COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS THEN ??

THOMAS: MAYOR, IF WE CAN, ALSO WE ARE GOING TO POSTPONE IT. I'M STILL NOT FAMILIAR WITH LOCAL LOTS ALL OF THAT. ANOTHER THING, HAS IT BEEN VERBAL OR WRITTEN AGREEMENT THAT ?? THAT AFTER THE ANNEXATION WILL THE CITY ?? PUT IN A WATER AND WASTEWATER.

I ADDED THAT. THAT'S IN THE ANNEXATION SERVICE PLAN, WE ARE GOING TO ASSUME THAT ?? WE ARE ASSUMING THAT EVERY ONE ?? EACH ONE OF THESE THREE OCCUPIED TRACTS IS LEGAL. WE ARE GOING TO GO BRING WATER AND SEWER TO EACH ONE OF THOSE LOTS. AND ?? AND ACTING UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT THEY ARE LEGAL. THAT WILL BE DONE START WITHIN THE CONSTRUCTION ITSELF STARTS IN ?? IN TWO AND A HALF YEARS, COMPLETED IN FOUR YEARS, TWO YEARS, PUT IT IN FOUR AND A HALF YEARS, ONE OF THE TWO. THAT'S IN THE SERVICE PLAN, IT'S NO QUESTION ABOUT ?? ABOUT MIKE FROM WATER AND WASTEWATER WENT OUT THERE AND VISITED WITH MR. NUWHATNE SHOWED HIM HOW WE WOULD BE EXTENDING THINGS, AGAIN IT'S IN THE SERVICE PLAN.

GRIFFITH: IF THERE'S A MOTION, I WOULD SECOND IT.

MAYOR GARCIA: WE WILL LISTEN TO THE SPEAKER, THEN ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR POSTPONEMENT IF THAT'S THE APPROPRIATE MOTION AT THAT TIME. MR. TOMINA NUWATNE. WELCOME, SIR.

MR. MAYOR. IN REGARDS TO WHAT MR. LUKENS SAID, I HAD BEEN MEETING WITH HIM, AS FAR AS THE RATIONALE OF WHY YOU WOULD USE ONE STREET AND THE OTHER, WHY DON'T WE CLOSE MOPAC AND JUST USE 35. YOU CAN USE ANY STREET THAT YOU WANT TO. IT'S OUR LEGAL RIGHT TO USE THAT STREET. AT DIFFERENT TIMES OF THE DAY, IF YOU USE THE PAVED STREET, IT'S VERY DANGEROUS, ACCORDING TO TEXDOT REPRESENTATIVES, THE STREET SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN BUILT THERE. BECAUSE IT'S UNDER THE CREST OF THE HILL AND YOU CAN GET RUN OVER. WHY THE ?? WHY THE SUBDIVISION WAS PUT IN, WE HAVE TWO LETTERS FROM THE CITY, ONE OF THEM WAS ON THE CITY PLANS THAT THIS SUBDIVISION IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE RELEASED UNTIL THE EASEMENT ISSUE IS RESOLVED. I UNDERSTAND MR. LUKENS, ON THE WATER AND SEWER ISSUES, THAT HE WILL TRY TO GET THOSE WORKED OUT. AS FAR AS ?? AS FAR AS THE OTHER ISSUES, THE RIGHT?OF?WAY THAT HE IS SHOWING ON THE MAP ARE STILL COMPLETELY COVERED WITH TREES, THEY ARE NOT USABLE AT THIS TIME. IT'S GOING TO BE UP TO US TO PAY TO GET THAT DONE. IT'S NOT FAIR. IT'S NOT RIGHT. THE CITY SERVICES WILL HAVE TO BE USING PRIVATE EASEMENTS TO ?? TO SERVICE OUR PROPERTIES, IE WITH THE GARBAGE, WE WILL HAVE TO BE USING PRIVATE EASEMENT. I UNDERSTAND EMERGENCY SERVICES CAN BE USING WHATEVER THEY NEED TO FOR EMERGENCY PURPOSES. BUT THERE'S JUST A LOT OF CONFLICTS THAT WE ARE NOT COMFORTABLE WITH AT THIS TIME. I'M NOT COMPLETELY OPPOSED TO GETTING ?? AGAINST ANNEXATION. IT'S JUST UNTIL WE GET THIS STUFF SETTLED, INSTEAD OF COMPOUNDING THE PROBLEM WITH ANNEX ISSUE, LET'S GO AHEAD AND GET THEM SETTLED NOW, IF IT'S JUST A TIME FACTOR, IF ?? IF WE HAVE TO RESUBMIT THE LETTERS AND CONTACT PEOPLE THAT WERE GOING TO START THE ANNEXATION OVER IN SIX MONTHS OR A YEAR, IT'S JUST PAPER. BUT LET'S GET THE ISSUES RESOLVED NOW BEFORE IT HAS A CHANCE TO COMPOUND ITSELF. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MR. NUWATNE, I THINK WE ARE GOING TO CONSIDER THIS ITEM NEXT WEEK, YOU ARE WELCOME TO COME BACK AND SPEAK TO THE COUNCIL AGAIN. COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

WYNN: I MOVE POSTPONEMENT FOR ONE WEEK'S TIME.

GRIFFITH: SECOND.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH TO POSTPONE FOR ONE WEEK. DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE AYE OPPOSED, NO. MOTION CARRIES. THE CITY MANAGE WILL BE BACK ON THE AGENDA NEXT WEEK. [INAUDIBLE ? NO MIC]

WYNN: THE POTENTIAL ISSUANCE OF A LICENSE AGREEMENT SO THEY CAN IMPROVE TO WHATEVER STANDARDS, ACCESS TO THEIR SITE. THEN DON'T LIMIT IT TO THOSE THREE. THERE MAY BE SEVERAL MORE. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: IT'S 2:15. CITY MANAGER, HOW LONG IS THE EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEM GOING TO TAKE?

GARZA: THAT COULD TAKE US A LITTLE BIT OF TIME BECAUSE THERE MAY BE A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT LIC AND ?? AND THE SPECIFIC ELEMENTS OF IT. YOU HAVE ITEM ?? THE SCHEDULE ITEM, NUMBER 9, MAY BE A PRETTY QUICK DISCUSSION BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND I DON'T HAVE A FEEL FOR HOW LONG THE DAWSON DISCUSSION WILL BE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. WE WILL ?? WE WILL TAKE UP ITEM NO. 9, CONSIDER A POSSIBLE ACTION TO ADOPT THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE FOR THE YEAR 2002. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WANTED TO DO IS SEE IF WE COULD ?? AS ?? HAS THE COUNCIL HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE THE ?? THE CHART THAT WAS DEVELOPED BY OUR OFFICE ON THE ?? ON THE PROPOSED CALENDAR AND ALSO ON ?? ON THE CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN RECOMMENDED? LET ME FIRST ?? TO DO THAT, LET ME FIRST RECOGNIZE COUNCILMEMBER WYNN WHO HAD ONE CHANGE, I THINK COUNCILMEMBER.

WYNN: THANK YOU, MAYOR. ON THE ?? ON THE PROPOSED 2002 SCHEDULE BY COUNCIL COLUMN, I DID WANT TO SUBSTITUTE AND CANCEL THE MAY 9TH, 2002 MEETING AND INSTEAD MEET THE PREVIOUS WEEK, WHICH WOULD BE MAY 2ND, 2002.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT'S WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU WOULD ATTEND THOSE CINCO DE MAYO FUNCTIONS, THAT'S CORRECT?

ABSOLUTELY.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ YOU HAD RECOMMENDED SOME CHANGES. CAN I RECOGNIZE YOU AT THIS TIME?

ALVAREZ: YES, MAYOR. I THINK ?? I THINK ORIGINALLY I HADN'T SUPPORTED THE MAY 2ND DATE BECAUSE THAT WAS ?? THAT WOULD MEAN THAT WE HAD A FIVE MEETINGS IN A ROW. FIVE MEETINGS WITH APRIL FOURTH, MAY THE 2ND. SO ?? YOU KNOW, IF WE COULD ?? MAYBE REMOVE APRIL TO ?? THE 18TH, I THINK IT MIGHT WORK OUT. THAT WAY. WE WOULD HAVE THREE MEETINGS IN APRIL, STILL HAVE THE SAME NUMBER OF MEETINGS IN MAY.

MAYOR GARCIA: SO YOU ARE PROPOSING TO CANCEL APRIL THE 18TH.

ALVAREZ: YES, SIR.

MAYOR GARCIA: WHAT DO YOU PROPOSE TO ADD SO THAT WE HAVE ??

ALVAREZ: WE ARE REMOVING MAY THE 9TH AND REPLACING IT WITH MAY THE 2ND.

GARZA: THE POINT IS HE DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE FIVE MEETINGS IN A ROW, GIVES YOU A BREAK.

MAYOR GARCIA: MAY THE 9TH REPLACES THE ?? I MEAN WE WERE PUTTING IN MAY THE 2ND AND TAKING OUT MAY THE 9TH. IF WE TAKE OUT APRIL THE 18TH, THE QUESTION IS WHEN ARE WE GOING TO REPLACE THAT DATE IN THE ?? IN THE MEETINGS. HOW ARE WE GOING TO REPLACE THAT DATE?

ALVAREZ: I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S NECESSARY TO REPLACE IT. BUT ?? BUT ?? I GUESS WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO IS MAKE SURE ??

MAYOR GARCIA: SO YOU ARE SAYING CANCEL APRIL 18TH, ALL RIGHT, I THINK ?? ALSO IN THIS ?? IN THIS CHART THAT WAS ISSUED, YOU ALSO HAD TALKED ABOUT CANCELING JUNE THE 6TH AND JUNE THE 13TH. AND ADDING SEPTEMBER THE 19TH, ADDING JUNE 20TH, JULY 11TH AND JULY 18TH. AND ?? AND ADDING OCTOBER THE 3RD, CORRECT?

YES, MAYOR, THE ONLY CHANGE TO THAT THAT I WOULD MAKE AFTER TALKING TO SEVERAL COUNCILMEMBERS IS THAT ?? IS THAT WE TAKE JUNE 20TH OFF AND IN TERMS OF THE ?? OF THE PROPOSAL TO ?? SO THAT WE WOULD HAVE ?? THAT FOUR WEEK PERIOD FROM ?? FROM ?? MAY THE 2ND, I GUESS, THROUGH JUNE THE 20TH, WOULD ?? WOULD FREE ?? IN THAT SHORTLY AFTER SCHOOL LET'S OUT. SO IF FOLKS WANTED TO THAT ?? TO HAVE THAT ADDITIONAL WEEK OFF. BASICALLY UNDER THE SCENARIO THERE AT THE RIGHT, WE WOULD ?? WE WOULD REMOVE JUNE 20TH, AS A MEETING DATE.

MAYOR GARCIA: SO YOU WANT TO CANCEL JUNE 6TH, JUNE THE 13TH AND JUNE 20TH. CORRECT?

ALVAREZ: THAT'S RIGHT.

GARZA: 6, 13, 20 ARE OFF.

MAYOR GARCIA: RIGHT. THEN YOU WANT TO ADD WHAT?

ALVAREZ: JULY 11TH, JULY THE 18TH AND OCTOBER THE 3RD.

GARZA: 18TH AND OCTOBER 3RD.

MAYOR GARCIA: JULY 11TH, JULY 18TH AND OCTOBER 3RD. AND ?? AND ?? JUNE THE 20TH, IS CANCELED NOW.

ALVAREZ: THE THREE CHANGES THEN I GUESS IF YOU LOOK AT THIS ?? THE ONE LABELED PROPOSED 2002 BY COUNCIL, THEN YOU WOULD REMOVE JUNE THE 20TH, REPLACE MAY THE 9TH WITH MAY THE 2ND AND CANCEL APRIL THE 18TH.

MAYOR GARCIA: THOSE WOULD BE THE THREE CHANGES. WE WANT TO CANCEL APRIL 18TH. [AUDIO PROBLEMS, PLEASE STAND BY] JULY THE 11TH. JULY 18TH. NO. I'M SORRY. I'M SORRY, GO BACK. YOU WANT TO CANCEL APRIL THE 18TH, SEPTEMBER THE 19TH [INAUDIBLE], NOVEMBER 28TH, THE ?? [INAUDIBLE]

ALVAREZ: REPLACE THOSE WITH THE ONES THAT YOU HAVE ARTICULATED.

SLUSHER: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

SLUSHER: I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND ON YOU SAID ADD IN MAY ??

MAYOR GARCIA: I MISSTATED. LET ME REDO THAT AGAIN. HE WANTS TO CANCEL APRIL THE 18TH, AND HE WANTS TO CANCEL SEPTEMBER THE 19TH AND OCTOBER THE [INAUDIBLE], THOSE ARE THE THREE THAT HE WANTS TO CANCEL.

SLUSHER: THEN ON COUNCILMEMBER WYNN'S, IS MAY 2ND NOW CANCELED OR IS MAY 9TH CANCELED?

MAYOR GARCIA: MAY 9TH.

SLUSHER: NOW, WHAT IS THE RATIONALE FOR THAT, ?? I WAS REMEMBERING IT, TRADITIONALLY WE DON'T MEET THE TWO DAIS BEFORE THE ELECTION. I THINK THERE'S SOME ?? TWO DAIS ?? DAYS BEFORE THE LEAK, THIS WOULD HAVE US MEETING RIGHT BEFORE THE ELECTION.

GOOD POINT. I DIDN'T TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION.

IT'S FUNNY HOW THAT WORKS. [ LAUGHTER ].

WYNN: I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT IT A YEAR AND A HALF AGO. YEAH. 03 I WILL THINK ABOUT IT.

SLUSHER: CAN WE SWITCH THAT BACK?

ALVAREZ: IN THAT CASE WE HAVE A MEETING THREE OR FOUR DAIS AFTER. DAYS AFTER. AFTER THE ELECTION. THEN WITH THE COUNCIL THAT ISN'T ?? WITH THE COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT AREN'T ?? HAVEN'T JUST BEEN ELECTED ?? SORRY.

SLUSHER: BE CAREFUL. I THINK IT'S FINE, WE HAVE DONE ?? WE HAVE DONE THAT BEFORE. I MEAN, NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS, PEOPLE ARE GOING TO SERVE UNTIL JUNE 15TH.

MAYOR GARCIA: THE ELECTION IS THE FOURTH?

SLUSHER: THAT'S RIGHT.

MAYOR GARCIA: WELL, LET ME DO THIS. COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER YOU ?? YOU ALSO PUT YOUR NAME TO A ?? TO THE ?? TO THIS ITEM. IS THERE SOMETHING THAT YOU WANTED TO SAY AT THIS TIME?

SLUSHER: NO. I WOULD JUST ?? I KNEW THAT ?? I KNEW THAT WE WOULD WANT TO DISCUSS IT, SO I PUT MY NAME ON IT. I WOULD PREFER TO PUSH THOSE BACK. I DON'T KNOW IF EVERYONE HAS SOMETHING SPECIFICALLY IN MIND FOR MAY 9TH. I WOULDN'T WANT TO INTERFERE WITH THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

WYNN: I DO OF A PERSONAL NATURE. I WOULDN'T WANT MY PERSONAL PRIORITIES TO TAKE PRESENCE OVER GOOD ?? PRECEDENT OVER GOOD PUBLIC POLICY. AN ELECTION DATE IS AN IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION.

WYNN: OKAY.

MAYOR GARCIA: LET ME DO THIS. LET ME ASK FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CALENDAR AS PRESENTED BY THE CITY MANAGER AND THE AMENDMENTS.

SLUSHER: SO MOVE.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. SECONDED BY [INAUDIBLE].

SLUSHER: I WILL ACCEPT THE AMENDMENTS ??

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ, IF YOU COULD RESTATE YOUR AMENDMENTS.

ALVAREZ: OKAY. LET'S SEE HERE. WE HAVE TO SAY ALL OF THEM HERE. BASICALLY WE ARE CANCELING JUNE THE 6TH, JUNE THE 13TH, JUNE THE 13TH ?? JUNE THE 13TH, JUNE THE 20TH, WE ARE ?? WE ARE CANCELING SEPTEMBER 19TH, OCTOBER 17TH, AUGUST 15TH. AND WE ARE REPLACING THOSE WITH ?? WITH JULY 11TH, JULY 18TH AND OCTOBER THE 3RD.

MAYOR GARCIA: DOES EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND THAT?

SLUSHER: MAYBE BE MAYOR ??

DID YOU GET THAT INFORMATION? MS. BROWN, CAN YOU REPEAT THE AMENDMENT BACK FROM COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ?

YES. IF I UNDERSTAND WHAT HE SAID, HE SAID WE ARE CANCELING THE CALENDAR AS PROPOSED BY THE CITY MANAGER, WE WOULD CANCEL JUNE 6TH, JUNE 13TH, JUNE 20TH, SEPTEMBER 19TH, OCTOBER 17TH, AND AUGUST 15TH. AND WE WOULD ADD JULY 11TH, JULY 18TH, AND OCTOBER 3RD.

ALVAREZ: I BELIEVE MAY THE 9TH I GUESS UNDER THE CITY MANAGER'S PROPOSAL ??

MAYOR GARCIA: MAY THE 9TH COUNCILMEMBER IS BACK ON AS A MEETING BECAUSE MAY THE 2ND WAS RECOMMENDED AS CANCELED BY THE CITY MANAGER BECAUSE OF THE ELECTION.

ALVAREZ: OKAY, THAT IS PREPARED ?? OKAY, THAT'S FINE.

SLUSHER: SHOULD ?? COULD WE THEN READ THE CANCELED DATE, ALL OF THE CANCELED DATES?

JUNE 6TH ??

GARZA: FROM THE BEGINNING. STARTING IN JANUARY.

I DON'T HAVE THAT LIST IN FRONT OF ME. I WAS READING WHAT [INAUDIBLE].

GARZA: IF I COULD ASK SOMEBODY FROM ?? DO YOU HAVE IT JOE OR PAUL?

I GOT IT.

OKAY.

MAYOR GARCIA: I'M GETTING LOST HERE IN THIS PROCESS.

SLUSHER: I WANTED TO READ IT. MS. BROWN IS ABOUT TO STRAIGHTEN THAT OUT.

I'M LOOKING AT A CALENDAR PROPOSED BY THE CITY MANAGER.

GARZA: I'M ASSUMING THAT IS WHAT YOU HAVE.

OKAY. CANCELED DATES JUNE 3RD ?? EXCUSE ME, JANUARY 3RD, JANUARY 24TH, FEBRUARY 21ST, MARCH 15TH, ??

MAYOR GARCIA: CAN WE GET MORE VOLUME FOR THAT MIC, PLEASE.

WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO START OVER. JANUARY 3RD, JANUARY 24TH, FEBRUARY 21ST, MARCH 14TH, MARCH 28TH, MAY ??

SLUSHER: APRIL 18TH.

MAY 2ND.

GARZA: 18TH WAS COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ'S AMENDMENT.

MAYOR GARCIA: YEAH, SHE'S READING ?? [AUDIO PROBLEMS, PLEASE STAND BY] [ONE MOMENT PLEASE FOR CHANGE IN CAPTIONERS].

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND TO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION?

I'LL ACCEPT IT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

SO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION IS NOT NECESSARY. THE AMENDMENT BY COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ TO CANCEL THE JUNE 20TH.

SLUSHER: I HAVE ONE PROVISO ON THAT. COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ READ THE CANCELLED DATES.

ALVAREZ: SURE. IS THAT CUSS TOLL MARY, MAYOR? [LAUGHTER]. . CUSTOMARY. IT WAS JANUARY 23RD, NAN JANUARITH. MARCH THIRDTH, MARCH THE 28TH. MAY THE 22ND. JUNE THE 16TH, JUNE THE 20TH. JULY THE 4TH, JULY THE 25TH, AUGUST THE 15TH, SEPTEMBER THE FIFTH, SEPTEMBER THE 12TH, SEPTEMBER 19TH, OCTOBER 17TH. NOVEMBER 14TH. NOVEMBER 28TH. DECEMBER 19TH AND DECEMBER 26TH, THOSE ARE ALL CANCELLED DATES FOR 2002.

AND THEN JULY 18TH AND THE 11TH, ARE THOSE BACK?

ALVAREZ: THOSE ARE NON?CANCELLED DATES.

SLUSHER: SO THOSE ARE OFF THE CANCELLATION LIST. MAYOR.

SO THOSE MOVE TO THE MEETING DATES.

ALVAREZ: RIGHT. THE MEETING DATES COLUMN IS ?? IS VALID EXCEPT FOR THE JUNE 20TH, WHICH IS MOVED OVER TO THE CANCELLED DATE. SLUSH SLUR AND I THINK THE CHARTER CALLS FOR US TO MEET EVERY WEEK UNLESS THEY'RE CANCELLED, RIGHT?

MS. BROWN, HOW MANY DID WE ADD AND HOW MANY DID WE CANCEL?

IF YOU LOOK AT THE RIGHT?HAND SIDE OF THAT CHART AND YOU MOVE THE JUNE 20TH DATE FROM A MEETING DATE TO A CANCELLED DATE, THAT LIST IS ACCURATE. ONLY ONE CHANGE IS BEING MADE TO THE LIST THAT IS PROPOSED BY COUNCIL.

OKAY. BUT FROM THE ONE THAT WAS PROPOSED BY THE CITY MANAGER, WHICH IS ON THE AGENDA, IS THIS ONE ?? IT'S THE SHEET THAT HAS THE RCA IN THE FRONT AND THE BACK ?? .

WHAT IS THE QUESTION THAT YOU'RE ASKING?

JUST A SECOND. JUNE THE SIXTH AND JUNE THE 13TH, ARE THOSE ??

THOSE ARE CANCELLED.

OKAY. SO WE'RE CANCELLING THREE MORE AND WE'RE ADDING WHAT?

[INAUDIBLE].

THAT'S CORRECT.

MAYOR GARCIA: : SAY THAT AGAIN, CITY MANAGER?

YOU'RE ADDING ?? [INAUDIBLE].

THOSE WERE ALREADY ON THERE.

OKAY.

THOSE WERE ALREADY ON THERE. MY QUESTION IS CAN WE OPERATE WITH THREE LESS COUNCIL MEETINGS THAN WE HAD IN THE ORIGINAL?

YES, YOU MAY. WE'LL HAVE TO LOAD UP THE ONES THAT WE ?? JUST MAKE SURE THAT WE'VE GOT THE ITEMS COVERED. SCHEDULED ACCORDINGLY.

FROM THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL THAT YOU MADE, JUNE THE SIXTH, JUNE THE 13TH AND JUNE THE 20TH HAVE BEEN MOVED FROM MEETING DATES TO CANCEL DATES.

YES.

ALVAREZ: MAYOR? I GUESS I WOULD NOTE IF YOU LOOKED AT THIS YEAR'S CANCELLED DATES AND COMPARED IT TO THE PROPOSED FOR 2002, IT'S ACTUALLY THE SAME NUMBER, 21, I THINK. BUT UNDER THE MANAGER'S PROPOSAL I GUESS I WOULD HAVE MET TWO OR THREE TIMES.

21 COUNCIL DATES?

ALVAREZ: YES.

AND COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE THAT WE ADD WORK SESSIONS ON WEDNESDAY FROM 1:30 TO 5:30. EVERY DATE THAT WE MEET THAT WE HAVE A MEETING DATE, WE WILL HAVE A WORK SESSION THE DAY BEFORE FROM 1:30 TO 5:30 AND THEN WE WOULD START THE MEETING OF THE COUNCIL ?? SOMEBODY WANTED TO DO IT IN THE MORNING, WHICH WOULD BE OKAY, ALSO, BUT WE WOULD HAVE A WORK SESSION THE DAY BEFORE AND THEN THE COUNCIL MEETING WOULD START AT 1:30 ON THURSDAYS. I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER THAT AS AN AMENDMENT.

SLUSHER: COULD WE DO THOSE IN THE MORNING OR MAYBE THE COUNCIL MIGHT WANT TO DISCUSS THAT? BUT ?? THAT'S FOUR HOURS, SO WE START THEM AT 9:00?

NINE TO ONE.

SLUSHER: DOES THAT WORK, MAYOR, FOR YOU?

SURE.

SLUSHER: I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT HAND SIGNAL.

ACTUALLY, I PERSONALLY WOULD ?? I'M NOT GOING TO DISCUSS MY PERSONAL HABITS, BUT I WOULD AGREE WITH COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS ON THAT. I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE FOUR HOURS WOULD THROW IT TO 2:00 O'CLOCK.

MAYOR GARCIA: NO, IT WOULD.

SLUSHER: IT DOES MAKE SENSE.

THOMAS: I GO ALONG WITH THE NINE IF I'M OUT NUMBERED.

HE'S OKAY WITH NINE.

THOMAS: THAT MEANS I'M OUTNUMBERED.

NINE TO ONE.

GOODMAN: MAYOR? SINCE I WILL HAVE TO DO SOME SIGNIFICANT JUGGLING WITH A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN STANDARDIZED WEDNESDAYS IS THE ONLY TIME I HAD TIME FOR THEM, LATER ON PERHAPS WE CAN SEE WHETHER THIS WORKS WITH OUR SCHEDULES AND CHANGE THE TIMES IF IT'S NOT WORKING FOR MOST OF US BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW THAT I'LL BE ABLE TO DO THIS SMOOTHLY, BUT CAN WE ALSO CONSIDER BEGINNING THIS IN A TWO?HOUR TIME FRAME?

THE WORK SESSION?

GOODMAN: YES. MAINLY BECAUSE IT'S SORT OF LIKE WATER RUNNING DOWNHILL. IF YOU IS HAVE FOUR HOURS, YOU WILL DEFINITELY BE THERE. BUT IF WE DO IT FOR TWO ??

SHOULD WE DO 10 TO 12?

OR NINE TO 11.

NINE TO 11. OKAY.

SLUSHER: I WAS GOING TO THEN THROW COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS'S IDEA ON THE TABLE, 10 TO 12 AND THAT WOULD GIVE US A LUNCH HOUR AND WE WOULD GO BACK TO OUR OFFICES. I THINK A LOT OF US MEET WITH FOLKS AND PREPARE FOR THE NEXT DAY'S MEETING ON WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON. NOT THAT WE DON'T PREPARE FOR IT ALL WEEK, BUT IN PARTICULAR ON WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON.

SO YOU'RE ACCEPTING THE AMENDMENT TO MEET ON WEDNESDAY'S FROM NINE TO 11?

SLUSHER: 10 TO 12. ALSO ACCEPTING COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS' FRIENDLY AMENDMENT THAT HE SIGNALED TO ME. AND MAYOR, I WOULD JUST POINT OUT THAT I THINK IT WILL WORK OUT, BUT SOMETIMES ONCE A MONTH I'LL HAVE TO MISS THOSE WORK SESSIONS TO ATTEND CAPCO.

OKAY. ARE WE READY? ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS?

MAYOR, YOU JUST WOULD SUGGEST ON THURSDAY RATHER THAN BEGINNING AT 130 THAT WE COULD START ON THE NOON SO YOU COULD START WITH YOUR EXECUTE ACTIVE SESSION, DO YOUR LUNCH AND THE EXECUTE ACTIVE SESSION AND THEN DO THE CITIZEN COMMUNICATION RIGHT BEFORE.

SURE. SO WE WOULD HAVE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION FROM 12 TO 1:30.

SLUSHER: IS THAT A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, CITY MANAGER?

YOU HAVE TO ACCEPT THAT IF YOU DON'T, HE WILL HAVE TO MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION.

SLUSHER: I WILL ACCEPT IT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH.

GRIFFITH: ABSOLUTELY.

ANYBODY KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING? EVERYBODY READY TO VOTE?

THAT WOULD TAKE EFFECT AT THE FIRST MEETING IN JANUARY?

RIGHT. SO THE FIRST MEETING IN JANUARY WOULD BE JANUARY THE NINTH. OKAY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. OPPOSED NO. THE MOTION CARRIES. OKAY. COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER ON ITEM NO. 10.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. THIS IS A PLAN THAT'S BEEN IN THE WORK FOR ABOUT FOUR YEARS, I THINK WE'LL BE ABLE TO VOTE ON IT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER AND PUT THIS PLAN IN PLACE. THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF CONTROVERSY. I THINK A LOT OF ?? FRANKLY, A LOT OF MISINFORMATION THAT'S GONE ON ABOUT THIS, SO I WANTED TO GET A FEW THINGS ON THE TABLE BEFORE WE VOTE. I WANT TO THANK EVERYONE THAT PARTICIPATED IN THIS, ESPECIALLY MEMBERS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING TEAM THAT HAVE PERCENT VEERED THROUGH ?? AS I HAVE POINTED OUT, A VERY LENGTHY ORDEAL. AND I'M HOPING WE WILL PASS SOMETHING TODAY THAT WILL REALLY BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE CITY. THERE'S A COUPLE OF ISSUES I WANTED TO MAKE CLEAR TO FOLKS SINCE WE ARE GOING TO PASS THIS TODAY. I'VE TALKED ABOUT THESE AT PREVIOUS MEETINGS, BUT I WANTED TO BRING IT UP AGAIN. THAT IS THAT THERE WAS A FLYER AND SOME OTHER INFORMATION THAT WENT OUT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND CAUSED A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT BE AGAINST THE PLAN BECAUSE IT SAID THAT UNDER THIS PLAN THE STREET ?? THAT IT WILL HAVE STREETS SO NARROW, FIRE TRUCKS AND AMBULANCES ARE NOT GUARANTEED ACCESS. THAT'S JUST PATENTLY UNTRUE. NO STREETS ARE GOING TO BE NARROWED AS A RESULT OF THIS PLAN. EVEN IF THEY WERE GOING TO BE NARROWED, WHICH THEY'RE NOT, THE CITY WILL NOT ALLOW STREETS TO BE BUILT WHERE PEOPLE WOULD BE LIVING OR WORKING WITH A FIRE TRUCK OR AMBULANCE COULDN'T GET THROUGH. THAT'S JUST WRONG, AND I REALLY REGRET THAT THAT KIND OF INFORMATION BECAME THE SUBJECT OF PUBLIC DISCOURSE, AND I CERTAINLY HOPE THAT THAT KIND OF INFORMATION OR MISINFORMATION DOESN'T HAVE ANY IMPACT ON THE COUNCIL'S VOTE. ALSO, INCREASED RUNOFF WILL FLOOD BOULDIN CREEK. ONCE AGAIN, THIS IS WRONG. THE CITY HAS REGULATIONS THAT PREVENT MORE FLOODING, PREVENT DEVELOPMENTS FROM BEING APPROVED THAT WILL CAUSE PEOPLE'S HOUSES DOWNSTREAM OR JUST INCREASE THE POTENTIAL FOR FLOODING. SUE THOSE ARE NOT TRUE. ANOTHER CRITICISM OF THE PLAN HAS BEEN THAT IT WILL OVERRUN THE DALTON NEIGHBORHOOD WITH APARTMENTS. WELL, ONCE AGAIN, THAT'S NOT TRUE. DAWSON NEIGHBORHOOD. AND WOULD YOU GET UP AND TALK ABOUT THE CASES THAT INVOLVE APARTMENTS? I THINK THERE ARE SIX PROPERTIES OR FOUR PROPERTIES, MAYBE SIX ADDRESSES THAT HAVE APARTMENTS. LET'S GO THROUGH THOSE. TRACT 7, WOULD YOU SHOW US WHERE THAT IS. THAT'S ON SOUTH FIRST STREET. MAYBE YOU COULD GRAB THAT MICROPHONE THERE.

TRACT 7 IS AT ALPINE AND SOUTH FIRST. THERE'S ACTUALLY, I BELIEVE, THREE ADDRESSES THERE, BUT IT AN EXISTING COMPLEX, AND THE ZONING CHANGE IS THERE TO ADDRESS HAVING THE LAND USE AND THE ZONING MATCH. IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AND THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO REZONE IT TO MF?3?NP.

SLUSHER: SO THE APARTMENT COMPLEX IS ALREADY THERE. WHAT IT'S DOING IS MAKING ZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING USE.

THAT'S CORRECT.

SLUSHER: SO THAT DOESN'T CAUSE ANY MORE APARTMENTS TO BE BUILT. NOT THAT THAT WOULD NECESSARILY BE A BAD THING, BUT WE'VE BEEN HEARING THE CRITICISM THAT'S CAUSING A GREAT INFLUX OF APARTMENTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THAT'S TRUE. BASICALLY IT MAKES THE LAND USE AND ZONING CONSISTENT. IT MAKES THOSE APARTMENTS THEM LEGAL AS THE USES THEY ?? IT MAKES THEM EITHER TO REPAIR OR RETAIN THE UNITS THAT ARE ALREADY THERE, BUT IT'S NOT ADDING NEW UNITS.

SLUSHER: THAT'S THE APARTMENTS AT ALPINE AND SOUTH FIRST. THEN DOWN THE STREET ON ALPINE, TRACT 8, TELL US ABOUT THAT ONE.

TRACT 8 RIGHT NOW IS BASICALLY A TWO?FAMILY USE. IT'S ZONED MF?4, WHICH IS A HIGHER DENSITY MULTI?FAMILY THAN THE SURROUNDINGS PROPERTIES, WHICH IS ZONED MF?2. AND MF?2 WOULD BE MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE USE OF THE TWO?FAMILY STRUCTURE. WE TALKED WITH THE OWNER. THE OWNER WAS COMFORTABLE WITH THE DOWN ZONING PROVIDED HIS EXISTING STRUCTURES ARE FINE. AND IN GENERAL TO ADDRESS COMPATIBILITY TO MAKE THESE ?? THE DENSITY OF MULTI?FAMILY MORE COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING USE AS WELL AS THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.

SLUSHER: SO IT GOING TO GO FROM ONE ?? ONCE AGAIN, THE USE IS ALREADY IN PLACE, BUT THEN THE ZONING IS GOING TO GO FROM ONE KIND OF APARTMENT USE TO ANOTHER KIND OF APARTMENT USE THAT'S GOING FROM A HIGHER DENSITY APARTMENT USE TO A LOWER DENSITY APARTMENT USE?

THAT'S CORRECT.

SLUSHER: OKAY. AND THEN THERE'S TRACT 29, FROM ?? OKAY. 29 IS ?? LET SEE. THAT'S ZONED ??

IT HAS A CONGRESS ADDRESS, BUT IT'S NOT VERY MUCH THAT ACTUALLY FRONTS CONGRESS, BUT IT DOES HAVE A CONGRESS ADDRESS. IT'S JUST NORTH OF CUMBERLAND. AND THAT'S AN EXISTING APARTMENT COMPLEX AS WELL. AND THAT CHANGES TO ADDRESS THE CONSISTENCY.

SLUSHER: SO THAT'S ALREADY THERE TOO.

THAT'S CORRECT. USUAL.

SLUSHER: SO WE'RE CHANGING ZONING TO MAKE IT COMPATIBILITY OR CONSISTENT WITH WHAT'S ALREADY THERE.

THAT'S CORRECT.

WHAT IS IT?

SLUSHER: AN APARTMENT COMPLEX.

IT'S ZONED GENERAL RETAIL RIGHT NOW.

AND WE'RE CHANGING IT TO MF.

SLUSHER: AND GENERAL RETAIL IS A HIGHER INTENSITY ZONING CATEGORY.

THAT'S TRUE.

SLUSHER: OKAY. AND THEN TRACT ?? TRACT 16 GOES FROM ?? AND THAT TRACT 16 IS ??

THAT'S OFF OF LESSON LANE. IT'S CURRENTLY A DRIVEWAY FOR THE WAREHOUSE JUST NORTH OF THAT, BUT IT'S ZONED MF ?? MULTI?FAMILY 3 ODDLY ENOUGH EVEN THOUGH IT'S AN UNDEVELOPED PIECES OF PROPERTY, IT'S A DRIVEWAY AND IT'S SURROUNDED BY BOTH SUE SIDES BY SINGLE?FAMILY UNITS, SO THE RECOMMENDATION WAS TO GO SINGLE?FAMILY. SO IN THE FUTURE IF THAT TRACT IS DEVELOPED, IT WOULD BE SINGLE?FAMILY USE, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES.

SLUSHER: OKAY. SO THAT ONE'S GOING FROM MULTI?FAMILY TO SINGLE?FAMILY.

YES.

SLUSHER: SO WE HAVE TWO THAT ARE BEING ZONED MULTI?FAMILY BECAUSE THEY'RE ALREADY MULTI?FAMILY. WE HAVE ONE THAT IS GOING FROM MULTI?FAMILY TO SINGLE?FAMILY. AND LET'S SEE, WHAT AM I LEAVING OUT?

THEN THERE'S THE MULTI?FAMILY, THE REDUCING THE DENSITY OF TRACT 8.

SLUSHER: SO THREE OF THEM ARE ALREADY MULTI?FAMILY AND ONE OF THEM IS GOING FROM MULTI?FAMILY TO SINGLE?FAMILY. IT'S A DRIVEWAY. SO IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE, ANYTHING THAT'S BEING ZONED TO MULTI?FAMILY, ANY OTHER PROPERTIES HERE?

NO NEW MULTI?FAMILY ZONING PROPOSED.

SLUSHER: SO IT'S JUST TOTALLY INCORRECT TO SAY THAT THIS PLAN IS CAUSING A HUGE INFLUX OF APARTMENTS.

THAT'S TRUE.

SLUSHER: AND ONCE AGAIN, I WOULD SAY THAT I DON'T THINK INCREASING THE APARTMENTS WOULD NECESSARILY BE A BAD IDEA. I'M NOT SAYING APARTMENTS ARE BAD, BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT PEOPLE ARE GOING AROUND SAYING THAT THE DAWSON NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN IS GOING TO TURN THE NEIGHBORHOOD INTO NOTHING BUT APARTMENTS OR CAUSE THIS HUGE INCREASE IN APARTMENTS, THAT IS JUST PATENTLY UNTRUE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF APARTMENTS AT ALL. IS THAT CORRECT?

THAT'S TRUE BECAUSE THE USE IS ALREADY THERE THAT ARE APARTMENTS.

SLUSHER: ALL RIGHT. MAYOR, I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION, THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING TEAM HAS ASKED THAT WE GO THROUGH THIS PIECE BY PIECE, SO THAT'S WHAT I'M GOING DO.

LET ME JUST SAY THAT WE HAVE SIX SPEAKERS. USUALLY ON THIRD READING THE RULES SAY WE DON'T ACCEPT SPEAKERS UNLESS THE COUNCIL WANTS TO MOVE TO SUSPEND THE RULES. LET ME FIRST ASK IF THE COUNCIL IS WILLING TO SUSPEND THE RULES. I THINK Y'ALL HAVE HEARD ENOUGH ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, HAVEN'T YOU?

SLUSHER: WE'VE HEARD A LOT QUITE A BIT. I MEAN, I DON'T ?? I DON'T OBJECT TO IT. I'LL HEAR WHAT THE REST OF THE COUNCIL HAS TO SAY ON IT.

I WOULD NEED A MOTION FROM THE COUNCIL TO SUSPEND THE RULES TO HEAR FROM THE SIX SPEAKERS. IF THERE'S NO MOTION, WHAT I'M GOING DO IS I'M GOING TO READ INTO THE RECORD THE NAMES OF THE INDIVIDUALS AND THEIR DESIGNATED PREFERENCES. MS. ADELLE SHAW, WHO LIVES IN 84 HUNDRED JONES TOWN IS AGAINST IT. AND I'M NOT SURE THAT THIS PROPERTY ?? IS THIS PROPERTY IN THE DAWSON NEIGHBORHOOD AREA? 8400 JONESTOWN.

THAT'S WHERE I LIVE ?? [INAUDIBLE].

ALL RIGHT. HE'S AGAINST THE PLAN. JOSE ALERJA WANTS TO DONATE TIME TO KELLY SMOOT, AND HE'S AGAINST. MS. ALLEJO ALSO WANTS TO DONATE HER TIME. SHE'S AGAINST. AND MARGARITA ALLEJO ALSO WANTED TO DONATE TIME AND SHE'S AGAINST. KELLY SMOOT IS AGAINST AND HE WISHES TO SPEAK, AND BECAUSE THERE IS NO MOTION TO SUSPEND THE RULES, I'LL READ WHAT HE SAYS. I AM FOR BEVERLY GRIFFITH'S COMPROMISE. AND THEN CYNTHIA MEDLIN IS REGISTERED IN FAVOR OF.

GOODMAN: MAYOR, I THINK AT THIS POINT WHAT I WOULD PREFER AND THE REASON I DIDN'T MAKE THE MOTION IS BECAUSE ALL THE FOLKS HAVE DEFINITELY COMMUNICATED WITH US MANY TIMES NOW, THAT I'M GLAD THEY'RE HERE AND THEY ARE DEFINITELY A RESOURCE THAT WE COULD ASK QUESTIONS OF LATER, BUT WE HAVEN'T HAD TIME TIME TO TALK AS COUNCILMEMBERS TO EACH OTHER, AND I WOULD PREFER THAT WE HAVE TIME THAT WAY.

MR. SMOOT, ARE YOU HERE, MS. SMOOT? IF YOU COULD STAY HERE AS THE COUNCIL DISCUSSES THIS ISSUE, AND IF THEY NEED TO ASK QUESTIONS, I WILL CALL ON YOU BECAUSE YOU'RE THE ONE THAT RECEIVED THE TIME TO MAKE A PRESENTATION.

SLUSHER: MAKE A MOTION?

SURE.

SLUSHER: SO EVERYONE HAS THE PAPER IN FRONT OF YOU, NUMBER 10? OKAY. I WOULD MOVE WHAT'S LABELED AS MOTION NUMBER ONE ON THERE, TO REZONE TRACT 20 TO P PUBLIC USE. THIS IS A CITY OF AUSTIN OWNED DETENTION POND. AND LET ME ASK THE CITY ATTORNEY. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT AS WE VOTE ON THESE SEPARATELY, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THAT CONSTRUCTS THE PLAN AS WE GO ALONG. I'M GOING TO BASE IT ON WHAT PASSED ON SECOND READING, BUT THAT CONSTRUCTS THE PLAN AS WE GO ALONG. SO WHAT PASSES WILL BE PART OF THE PLAN. WHAT DOESN'T PASS WILL NOT BE PART OF THE PLAN. AND SO THAT'S THE FIRST QUESTION. THEN THE SECOND QUESTION IS MY UNDERSTANDING IS WE DON'T HAVE TO COME BACK AND THEN VOTE ON THE WHOLE THING ON A SEPARATE VOTE, IT'S JUST WHAT PASSES AS WE GO THROUGH THIS IS THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN.

THAT IS CORRECT.

SLUSHER: OKAY.

SO YOUR MOTION IS ON ITEM NUMBER ONE, THE TRACT 20?

SLUSHER: THAT'S CORRECT.

IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION. SECONDED BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM. DISCUSSION? THIS IS ONE THAT REQUIRES SUPER MAJORITY OF SIX BECAUSE THERE IS A PETITION ON IT. DISCUSSION?

GOODMAN: MAYOR, I'M NOT SURE IF COUNCIL WANTS TO DO THIS, BUT IT OCCURS TO ME THAT EVEN THOUGH IT IS TAKING MORE TIME THAT WE'RE NOT REALLY EXPLAINING WHAT WE'RE DOING EITHER. P PUBLIC MAY BE ALONG THE WAY IF COUNCILMEMBERS HAVE NO OBJECTION, STAFF CAN TALK ABOUT WHAT EXACTLY THE ZONING MEANS, A THUMBNAIL SKETCH ON THE TABLE AND WHAT EXACTLY P PUBLIC IS, BECAUSE I THINK THAT MAY BE THE FIRST TIME I'VE EVER SEEN A PETITION ON A CHANGE TO P PUBLIC.

THE P PUBLIC ZONING IS TO ADDRESS THE FACT THAT IT'S A CITY OWNED FACILITY, IN THIS CASE IT'S A DETENTION POND AND GREEN SPACE. AND IT'S OUR STAFF'S ASSESSMENT THAT THE REASON THERE IS THE PETITION ON THAT IS BECAUSE FOLKS THAT WERE WITHIN 200 FEET OF THAT PROPERTY THAT SIGNED THE PETITION AGAINST THE NPCD AS A WHOLE HAD THE AFFECT OF CREATING A VALID PETITION AGAINST THE PROPOSED CHANGE FOR THAT PROPERTY.

OKAY. FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? IF NOT, THE VOTE ON THE MOTION WOULD BE REAL REQUIRE A VOTE OF SIX. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. OPPOSED NO. MOTION CARRIES. THANKS TO YOU, COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

SLUSHER: THANK YOU, MAYOR. NEXT I WOULD MOVE WHAT'S LISTED IN MOTION 2 THERE, WHICH IS TRACT FROM LR TO MF?3 MP. THAT'S ONE OF THE ONES ?? ALL THESE ARE GOING TO BE THE APARTMENT?RELATED USES THAT WE TALKED ABOUT BEFORE THAT ARE GOING FROM ?? DOWN TO LOWER USES, OR IN ONE CASE GOING TO SINGLE?FAMILY. TRACT 8 FROM MF?4 TO MF?2 MP. TRACT 16 FROM MF?3 TO SF?3 MP AND TRACT 29 FROM GR TO MF?3 MP.

AND NP IS.

SLUSHER: NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN.

OKAY. A MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. THIS ITEM REQUIRES A VOTE OF ONLY A MAJORITY OF THE COUNCIL. IS THERE A SECOND? SECONDED BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM. DISCUSSION?

GOODMAN: AND NOTING, MAYOR, THAT THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT SUSAN JUST WENT THROUGH.

SURE. DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. OPPOSED NO. MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF SEVEN TO ZERO.

SLUSHER: OKAY. MAYOR, NOW I'M GOING TO ADDRESS WHAT'S LISTED ?? BACK TO ME?

BACK TO YOU. BE.

SLUSHER: ON NUMBER 3 AND 34 ON THIS LIST. I'M GOING TO PROPOSE THE SECONDARY APARTMENTS, WHICH IS GARAGE APARTMENT, ALSO CALLED GRANNY FLATS AND A NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE BUILDING, WHICH WOULD BE ALONG THE ARTERIAL. I'M GOING TO LEAVE OUT AS COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ PROPOSED A FEW WEEKS AGO IN THE HOPES OF GETTING A COMPROMISE WITH THE FOLKS BEFORE, I'M GOING TO LEAVE OUT THE COTTAGE LOTS AND URBAN HOMES. I THINK ON THE SECONDARY APARTMENTS, THE GARAGE APARTMENTS, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT DEFINITELY ?? THAT DEFINITELY WILL CONTRIBUTE TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING. IT WILL GIVE FOLKS A CHANCE TO MAKE FAMILY MEMBERS LIVE IN THE BACK, A SON OR DAUGHTER OR SOMETHING OR TO JUST RENT OUT THE APARTMENT AND MAKE A LITTLE BIT OF MONEY. THAT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO KEEP THEIR HOMES THERE, HELP THEM PAY FOR THEIR HOME THERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND HAVE SOMEONE LIVING THERE THAT'S AFFORDABLE AND IT WILL BE ON ?? THE LANDLORD IN MOST CASES WILL BE RIGHT UP FRONT. SO I THINK THAT'S A VERY GOOD USE. I'D BE WILLING TO COTTAGE LOT AND URBAN HOMES, I WAS WILLING TO ENTERTAIN THAT. I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING TEAM WAS WILLING TO PUT THAT IN, BUT I THINK IN THE HOPES OF GETTING IT THROUGH THE COUNCIL, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CUT THAT OUT. AND THOSE HAVEN'T NECESSARILY PROVEN TO BE AFFORDABLE HOMES. IT'S A POSSIBILITY, BUT THAT HASN'T NECESSARILY BEEN THE CASE WHERE WE'VE SEEN THEM GOING UP. SO I WOULD MOVE JUST TO DO NUMBER 3, TO PASS NUMBER 3 ON HERE TO ADD SECONDARY APARTMENTS AND NEIGHBORHOOD AND MIXED USE BUILDINGS INTO THE PLAN. AND, COUNCIL, MAKE SURE WE'VE GOT THAT LEGAL ILY CORRECT AND EVERYTHING.

THAT'S CORRECT.

GOODMAN: AND I'D SECOND, MAYOR, BUT I'D ALSO LICKLIKE TO COMMENT ON THAT ONE.

MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. SECONDED BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM. I'LL RECOGNIZE THE MAYOR PRO TEM FOR COMMENT.

GOODMAN: ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT CAUSED NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING TO BE ON CRITICAL IN FIRST PLACE WAS THE DEVELOPMENT AL PRESSURES AND THE UNWANTED CONSEQUENCES OF THOSE PRESSURES WHICH MEANT GENTRIFICATION FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD WHERE FOLKS WHO LIVED IN A NEIGHBORHOOD, LONG TIME RESIDENTS, WERE SOMETIMES EITHER PUSHED OUT OR EASED OUT BY TAX INCREASES, ASSUMED TAX APPRAISAL AND VALUE. THAT WE REALLY WERE BEYOND THE MEANS OF SOME OF THE FOLKS WHO WOULD LIVE IN A GIVEN AREA. AND THE WAY THAT WAS DISCOVERED FOR SOME NEIGHBORHOODS TO BE ABLE TO WITHSTAND THAT PRESSURE OF DEVELOPMENT ?? AND, OF COURSE, WE HAVE ALSO THE WORD INFILL THAT WE USE FOR TRYING TO ENHANCE THE TAX BASE THAT EXISTS WITHIN THE CITY WITHOUT BURDENING FURTHER EXISTING TAXPAYERS, WAS THE POSSIBILITY OF ADDING TO THE DENSITY OF AN AREA WITHOUT HAVING TO HAVE THE VERY SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN CHARACTER THAT THE DEVELOPMENT OF MULTI?FAMILY COMPLEXES CAN HAVE. AND IN THIS CASE, INCLUDING THE COTTAGE LOTS AND URBAN HOMES, IT WAS A WAY TO CONTINUE TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE THE NATURE AND CHARACTER OF A NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE THOSE WOULD VIRTUALLY HAVE TO SIT INTO THE EXISTING STRUCTURES OF A NEIGHBORHOOD AND AS A SIDE LINE THERE YOU WILL NOTICE SOME OF THE REDEVELOPMENT OVER WHAT HAS COME RECENTLY IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, I SUPPOSE IN TIME WILL SORT OF AGE AND MERGE, BUT AT THIS MOMENT THEY'RE KIND OF GREEN THUMB LOOKING OR SORE THUMB, WHICHEVER WAY THAT ONE GOES. SO I DO SUPPORT THE MECHANISM THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING TEAM LOOKED TO IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE FOLKS WHO LIVE IN THE AREA NOW, TO PROTECT THEM THEM IN FUTURE FROM AT LEAST THE POTENTIAL PROTECTION IN THE FUTURE FROM DEVELOPMENTAL PRESSURES AND GENTRIFICATION, RESULTS OF THOSE PRESSURES, AND I'M SORRY THAT THIS WHOLE SUBJECT HAS BECOME AN EMOTIONAL ONE AS OPPOSED TO THE OPPORTUNITIES THAT IT PROVIDES A NEIGHBORHOOD BUT COULD ONLY HAPPEN IF PEOPLE ARE THERE TO TALK ABOUT IT AT THE TIME OF PLANNING. AND SINCE WE'VE CHOSE NOT DO THAT, WE'RE IN A SITUATION NOW WHERE SOME OF THE BEST MECHANISMS TO PROTECT A NEIGHBORHOOD ARE BEING OPPOSED AND POLE ARREST EYES ASIAN IS ENDUING. SO THAT'S THE ONLY REASON THAT I'M NOT GOING TO OFFER AN ADDITIONAL MOTION ON THE COTTAGE LOT AND URBAN HOMES.

FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION ON WHAT IS LISTED AS MOTION NUMBER APPROXIMATE ON THE SECONDARY APARTMENTS AND NEIGHBORHOODS, MIXED USE? THIS REQUIRES A SUPER MAJORITY OF SIX. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. OPPOSED SAY. MOTION CARRIES BY A VOTE OF SEVEN TO ZERO. COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

SLUSHER: OKAY, MAYOR. NEXT ON THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY, LISTED AS MOTION NUMBER 5 HERE, A VOTE ON PROHIBITED AND CONDITIONAL USES AS FOLLOWS FOR TRACTS 2, 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, 14 AND 22 THROUGH 32. I GUESS I SHOULD NOTE THAT THE PARENTHETICAL ON TRACT TWO IS 2715 SOUTH FIRST. TRACT 6 INCLUDES 513, 515, 520 LIGHT SI. TRACT 12, 2712 WATERFORD AND 14 IS 3801 AND 3805 WATTFORD.

IT HAS A LEGAL DESCRIPTION, BUT DOESN'T HAVE A LEGAL ADDRESS, BUT IT IS A SEPARATE ADDRESS, A THIRD ADDRESS.

SLUSHER: SO I WOULD INCLUDE THAT AS WELL. AND THIS USED TO BE LONGER WHEN IT FIRST CAME TO US. WE WORKED THROUGH THEM AND TRIED NOT TO AFFECT THE EXISTING BUSINESSES. BUT AT THE SAME TIME TRYING TO PRESERVE THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND GIVE THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE BUSINESSES A SAY IN HOW THE NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPS. AND I FEEL PRETTY GOOD ABOUT WAIT WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO BALANCE THAT. SO THIS WOULD PROHIBIT PAWN SHOPS. WHAT'S BEHIND THAT I THINK THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNERS THERE, THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL NEW PAWN SHOPS GOING IN AT THE TIME THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN STARTED AND THEY FELT LIKE THAT WAS ENOUGH FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND I THINK THEY HAVE A PLAN THERE, SO I'M SUPPORTING THAT PROHIBITION. AND THEN THE FOLLOWING USES WILL BE CONDITIONAL, ADULT ORIENTED BUSINESSES, GENERAL LIMITED ?? GENERAL AND LIMITED WAREHOUSING DISTRIBUTION, BASIC INDUSTRY, MAINTENANCE AND SERVICE FACILITIES, ELECTRONIC PROTOTYPE ASSEMBLY, DRIVE?IN SERVICEDS AND SERVICE STATIONS. AND MS. THOMPSON, WOULD YOU EXPLAIN THE OVERLAY AND THAT IT DOESN'T PROHIBIT ?? IT PROHIBITS PAWN SHOPS, BUT WHAT THE CONDITIONAL USES DO IS AT A CERTAIN POINT OF GROWTH OR SIZE IT TRIGGERS A PROVISION TO WHERE THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS TO GO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO GET A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. COULD YOU EXPLAIN THAT?

IF THERE'S AN EXISTING USE THAT THEN BECOMES CONDITIONAL THROUGH THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY, THAT BUSINESS CAN EXPAND UP TO 20% ANNUALLY WITHOUT HAVE HAVING TO GET A SITE PLAN APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. BUT IF THEY EXPAND BEYOND THAT. THEY WILL NEED CONDITIONAL APPROVAL. LIKEWISE IF THERE'S A NEW USE COMING IN THAT'S CONDITIONAL, THE SITE PLAN WOULD HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

SLUSHER: AND THEN WHERE WE LISTED ALL THE TRACTS THAT HAVE THE SORT OF ZONING THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO DO THESE KIND OF USES AND THEN IT SAYS, WELL, NO, THOSE WOULD BE CONDITIONAL, BUT WE DIDN'T LIST OTHER TRACTS, WHAT ABOUT IF SOME COUNCIL IN THE FUTURE WERE TO APPROVE SOME ZONING CHANGE THAT WAS NOT CONSISTENT ?? AND MAYBE PEOPLE AGREED THAT TO GO FORWARD, BUT IT MADE A NEW CATEGORY, A NEW LOT WHERE YOU CAN DO THESE USES ON IT, WOULD THAT THEN BECOME THE SUBJECT OF THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY AS WELL?

IT COULD. IF THERE'S A SITUATION WHERE SOMEONE COMES IN AND THEY HAVE A RESIDENTIALLY ZONED LOT AND THEY WANT COMMERCIAL ZONING, SO THEY'RE ASKING FOR A NEW CHANGE, STAFF WOULD REVIEW THAT FOR THE PLAN TO SEE IF IT'S CONSISTENT. WE WOULD LOOK AT THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY THAT EXISTS ALREADY AND IN MOST CASES WE RECOMMEND THE SAME CONDITIONAL OVERLAY THAT EXISTS ON PROPERTIES ADJACENT OR NEARBY TO IT.

SLUSHER: FIRST THAT WOULD BE UNUSUAL TO APPROVE SOME ZONING THAT'S NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. IF THAT WERE TO HAPPEN, THEN IT WOULD BE HIGHLY LIKELY WE WOULD GET THAT CONDITIONAL USE AS WELL. OKAY. SO MAYOR, I WOULD MOVE APPROVAL OF THAT AND THEN I'LL COME BACK TO THE ONES WITH VALID PETITIONS IN A SECOND.

THERE'S A MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER S THERE A SECOND? SECONDED BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM. THIS PARTICULAR ITEM REQUIRES A VOTE OF ONLY FOUR COUNCILMEMBERS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. OPPOSED NO. MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF SEVEN TO ZERO. COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

SLUSHER: SO MAYOR, ONCE AGAIN I WOULD MOVE THE PROHIBITION OF PAWN SHOPS AND MAKE THE FOLLOWING BUSINESSES CONDITIONAL. ADULT?ORIENTED BUSINESSES, MAINTENANCE AND SERVICE FACILITIES, ELECTRONIC PROTOTYPE ASSEMBLY, DRIVE?IN SERVICES AND SERVICE STATIONS. AND ON THE DRIVE?IN SERVICES AND SERVICE STATIONS, I WOULD EXEMPT THE TWO EASTERN CORNERS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ALONG CONGRESS AVENUE, THE CONGRESS AND OLTORF, THE H.E.B. THERE AND THE TEXACO AT BEN WHITE AND CONGRESS. THOSE ARE THE BUSIEST INTERSECTIONS,ED WIDEST INTERSECTIONS IN THE PLANNING AREA. AND I THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO ALLOW THOSE SERVICES THERE AND I THINK MOST OF THE PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THE PLANNING ARE IN FAVOR OF THAT. THEN I WOULD READ THESE TRACT.

OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION? DO YOU WANT TO READ INTO THE RECORD WHAT TRACTS ARE INVOLVED IN.

SLUSHER: I'LL DO THAT, MAYOR. ALL RIGHT. MAYOR, THEY WOULD BE TRACT 1, TRACT 2, TRACT 3. I WOULD LIKE TO INCLUDE IN TRACT 3 BOTH 2901 AND 2907 RATHER THAN AS EXEMPTED AS LIST UNDERSTAND 17. SO 1, 12, 3, 6, TRACT 14, 15, 18. THERE ARE TWO ADDRESSES LISTS FOR 18. 21 THE SAME THING. ON THIS PAGE, ON THE YELLOW PAGE THAT WAS PASSED OUT TO COUNCIL, TRACT 21, TRACT 1. AND THIS IS ?? THIS IS A LITTLE CONFUSING. LET ME JUST READ THE ADDRESSES. I'M GOING TO START OVER. 2607 SOUTH FIRST, THAT'S TRACT 1 AND ALSO TRACT 1, 2617 SOUTH FIRST AND 2613. TRACT 2, 2701, 2707 AND 2709 SOUTH FIRST. TRACT 3, 2901 AND 2107 SOUTH FIRST. TRACT 6, 516 LIGHT SI. TRACT 14, 3842 SOUTH CONGRESS, ALSO TRACT 14, TRACT 15, 203 LESSON LANE. TRACT 18, 121 PICKLE, ALSO TRACT 18, 3632 SOUTH CONGRESS. TRACT 21, 31ST HUNDRED SOUTH CONGRESS. TRACT 1 ?? .

CAN I INTERRUPT FOR JUST A MINUTE. DID YOU WANT TO ASK SOMETHING, COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH?

GRIFFITH: BEFORE WE GO ANY FURTHER, CAN WE TALK ABOUT TRACT 3? THAT'S THE 2907 SOUTH FIRST STREET. DID YOU JUST MOVE THAT FROM ITEM 7 SOMEWHERE? DID I JUST HEAR THAT ONE MOVED?

SLUSHER: YES, I DID. I WANTED TO INCLUDE THAT IN THE OVERLAY. THAT'S CORRECT. I WANTED TO ?? I ONLY WANT TO EXEMPT THE USES AT CONGRESS AND OLTORF AND CONGRESS AT BEN WHITE, NOT TO PICK ONE OUT ALONG SOUTH FIRST AND TAKE IT OUT. I DON'T ?? I JUST DON'T AGREE WITH THAT.

GRIFFITH: COULD WE VOTE ON THAT ONE SEPARATELY INSTEAD OF MAKING IT PART OF THE ONE WHERE WORKING ON NOW?

SLUSHER: I GUESS YOU COULD MAKE A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THAT EFFECT, COUNCILMEMBER, BUT MY MOTION INCLUDES THAT.

GRIFFITH: AND ?? AND YOU WOULD NOT WANT TO BREAK IT OUT?

SLUSHER: NO, I WOULDN'T.

GRIFFITH: OR VOTE ON IT SEPARATELY?

SLUSHER: NO.

GRIFFITH: THE ONLY BUSINESS THAT I KNOW OF ON SOUTH FIRST THAT HAS HAD A PROBLEM WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY IS THIS ONE. NO OTHER ONE HAS RAISED ANY OBJECTION TO IT. AND IF GETTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND THAT SEEMS LIKE TO ME THE ONLY ONE WE REALLY NEED TO TAKE IN ON SOUTH FIRST.

SLUSHER: WELL, COUNCILMEMBER, I DISAGREE ON THAT BECAUSE THERE ARE OTHER GAS STATIONS ALONG THERE THAT DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE OVERLAY, AND I THINK WE SHOULD BE CONSISTENT FOR ALL OF THEM. I'M EXEMPTING THESE OTHER TWO CORNERS BECAUSE THEY'RE SUCH BUSY CORNERS. MAYOR, COULD I ??

CONTINUE.

SLUSHER: I WANT TO ASK YOUR INDULGENCE ON SOMETHING. IT'S JUST BEEN BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION THAT THE LIST THAT STAFF GAVE US INCLUDED THAT WHERE WE WERE ON THE PREVIOUS MOTION ?? AND COUNCILMEMBER, WE CAN COME BACK TO THAT IN JUST A MINUTE. BUT IT SHOULD HAVE READ 22 TO 30 AND 32. INADVERTENTLY THE STAFF GAVE ME A LIST THAT HAD THOSE TWO CORNERS THAT I'M TALKING ABOUT AND THAT IT DOESN'T EXEMPT THEM AND INCLUDED THEM IN THE OVERLAY, AND THAT WASN'T MY INTENTION. SOILED MOVE TO RECONSIDER THE PREVIOUS ?? SO I WOULD MOVE TO RECONSIDER THE PREVIOUS MOTION?

MOTION TO RECONSIDER MOTION FIVE. SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYINGY. SLUSH AND MAYOR, I WOULD REDO THE MOTION ON TRACT 2, 2715 SOUTH FIRST, TRACTS HAD, 5, 6, 11, 12, WHICH IS 3907 WATHERFORD. 14, WHICH IS. AND TRACTS 22 TO 30 AND 32; IS THAT CORRECT? IS THAT CORRECT?

22 TO 30 AND 32?

SLUSHER: RIGHT. BEFORE IT HAD READ 22 TO 32 AND THAT WAS CORRECT.

ALL RIGHT. IS THAT YOUR MOTION?

SLUSHER: YES.

IS THERE A SECOND?

SECONDED BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM? DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYINGY. OPPOSED MOW. THE MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF SEVEN TO ZERO. COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

SLUSHER: COUNCILMEMBER, WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO ON ?? BY INCLUDING THE SERVICE STATIONS IN THE OVERLAY, AND I THOUGHT ABOUT THIS LONG AND HARD. I TALKED TO A LOT OF PEOPLE ABOUT IT. I TALKED TO THE OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY AND HIS REPRESENTATIVE AS WELL, BUT THE SOUTH CONGRESS, ESPECIALLY THOSE TWO CORNERS, IS REALLY A LARGER STREET AND THOSE TWO CORNERS IN PARTICULAR HAVE ?? ONE OF THEM IS A MAJOR HIGHWAY, CONGRESS AT BEN WHITE. AND THE OTHER ONE IS PROBABLY THE MAIN CORNER IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, HAS A LARGE GROCERY STORE THERE ALREADY. AND SO I THINK ?? I DON'T SEE WHERE A SERVICE STATION WOULD HAVE TO BE A CONDITIONAL USE. AND ONE OF THEM IS ALREADY A SERVICE STATION. WHEREAS OVER ON SOUTH FIRST STREET, THAT'S MORE OF A NEIGHBORHOOD ARTERIAL AND I DON'T WANT TO SEE A GAS STATION COME IN WITH THE REALLY GLARING, BRIGHT LIGHTS THAT COULD REALLY CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND IF SOMEBODY DOES WANT TO COME IN THERE AND PROPOSE THAT, I WANT THE PEOPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO HAVE A SAY ON IT THROUGH THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROCESS. THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH. AND I DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE TO TAKE ONE USE OUT THAT HAS MANAGED A GET A REPRESENTATIVE OUT TO COME TALK TO US AND TAKE THAT PROPERTY OUT AND EXEMPT THEM. I DON'T SEE THE RATIONALE FOR DOING THAT WHEN YOU HAVE OTHER STATIONS THAT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO IT. AND I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE THAT THEY ALL BE SUBJECT TO IT.

GRIFFITH: THE RATIONALE IS THERE'S ONLY ONE OPERATION THAT OBJECTS TO HAVING TO GET IT.

SLUSHER: WELL, BUT THAT DOESN'T REALLY ?? I GUESS WE SHOULD JUST VOTE BECAUSE THAT DOESN'T DO IT FOR ME. I THINK YOU SHOULD HAVE THE REGULATION OR YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE THE REGULATION. IT SHOULDN'T BE BECAUSE WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO IS GIVE THE PEOPLE A SAY IN HOW THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S DEVELOPED AND IT GIVES THE NEIGHBORHOOD A VOICE IN THAT, NOT TO JUST SAY OKAY, WELL, YOU OBJECT, SO WE'LL LEAVE YOU OUT. THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE WHO OBJECTED TO VARIOUS THINGS, WE OBJECTED TO WHAT THEY SAY AND WE PULLED THAT OUT, THAT MAKES SENSE. I DON'T THINK THAT ONE MAKES SENSE. TO JUST TAKE ONE SERVICE STATION AND WHERE YOU'RE REALLY GIVING THEM A MORE ?? YOU'RE LETTING THEM OUT OF SOMETHING THAT THEIR COMPETITORS ARE GOING TO BE SUBJECT TO. AND I THINK IT'S NOT REALLY AN ONEROUS REGULATION, IT JUST CAUSES THEM TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS AND PLANNING PROCESS AND HAVE A LOOK AT THE PLAN BEFORE IT STARTS GETTING BUILT.

WHERE ARE WE, COUNCILMEMBER?

SLUSHER: WELL, I DON'T KNOW IF I EVER FINISHED READING MY LIST, MAYOR.

WHY DON'T YOU GO AHEAD AND CONTINUE WITH THE READING OF THE LIST.

YOU LEFT OFF AT NUMBER 6.

SLUSHER: Y'ALL DON'T WANT ME TO START OVER? I THINK I BETTER START OVER BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN SEVERAL THINGS HAPPEN SINCE I BROKE OFF FROM READING IT. OKAY. TRACT 1, 2607 SOUTH FIRST, 21ST 13 SOUTH FIRST AND 2617 SOUTH FIRST. THAT'S TRACT 1. TRACT 2, 2701, 2707 AND 2709 SOUTH FIRST. TRACT 3, 2901 SOUTH FIRST, 2907 SOUTH FIRST. TRACT 6, 516 LIGHT SI. TRACT 12, 1306 CONGRESS. ISN'T THAT THE ONE WE JUST ?? WE'RE EXEMPTING? IT'S ON THIS LIST, THIS TEXAS CO?AT 3900?

I BELIEVE THERE'S A VALID PETITION FOR FOLKS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THAT TRACT.

SLUSHER: OKAY. BUT WE'RE EXEMPTING THOSE FROM THE DRIVE?IN SERVICES AS PREVIOUSLY STATED IN THE SERVICE STATION.

YOU READ INTO THE RECORD THAT NUMBER 12 WOULD BE ACCEPTED.

SLUSHER: SO THEY'RE EXEMPTED FROM THE OTHER TWO USES. THAT'S WHY THIS IS ON HERE, RIGHT?

RIGHT. IT'S ON THIS PARTICULAR SET OF MOTIONS BECAUSE THERE'S A VALID PETITION FOR FOLKS WITHIN 200 FEET OF IT. BUT WE DO HAVE THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY LISTED IN SUCH A WAY THAT TRACT 12 IS EXEMPT FROM THOSE TWO USES.

SLUSHER: OKAY. TRACT 12 IS 13 OF AND 1300. TRACT 14, ZERO CONGRESS. TRACT 15, TO 3 ??

IS THERE ANOTHER ONE?

SLUSHER: THAT'S RIGHT, THANK YOU, MAYOR. THEN TRACT 15, 203 LESSON LANE. 3808 SOUTH CONGRESS. TRACT 17, 110 LESSON LANE. 3716 SOUTH CONGRESS. TRACT 18, 121 PICKLE, 3632 SOUTH CONGRESS, 3630 SOUTH CONGRESS. TRACT 21, 36 HUNDRED SOUTH CONGRESS, 3612 SOUTH CONGRESS. I THINK THAT'S GOT THEM ALL.

IS THERE A SECOND? SECONDED BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM.

GOODMAN: CAN I SAY SOMETHING?

DISCUSSION, MAYOR PRO TEM?

GOODMAN: I ALSO LOOKED AT ALL THE DIFFERENT PROPERTIES BECAUSE THIS IS A HUGE LIST, AND WHAT I HAVE ALWAYS SEEN AS THE GOAL IN THOSE ISSUES IS LOOKING AT WHAT MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES MAY BE CAUSING THE PROPERTY OWNER OR THE USE IN A POSITION WHERE WE DIDN'T WANT TO INCLUDE IT IN A MOVE LIKE THIS. I'M HOPING THAT WHAT I THINK HAS HAPPENED OVER THE YEARS IS TRULY THE CASE. IN EARLY YEARS IT USED TO BE A VERY POLITICAL THING OR COULD BE VERY POLITICAL IN HOW COMMISSION AND COUNCIL RECOMMENDED AND ACTED ON ZONINGS. IN THE LAST SIX YEARS OR SO IT'S BEEN MUCH MORE OF A PLANNING EFFORT. AND I KNOW SOME PEOPLE WILL NEVER SEE THAT, ESPECIALLY IF THEY DISAGREE ON WHAT THE RESULTS FINALLY IS OF A RECOMMENDATION OR A MOTION ON THAT. BUT IN THE EFFORT TO PLAN WELL, I LOOKED AT THE ONE ADDRESS ON SOUTH FIRST THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE EXEMPTED. AND AS COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER SAID, IT WAS DIFFICULT TO FIND WHAT WAS DIFFERENT ABOUT THAT ONE THAT WOULDN'T APPLY TO ALL, AND THE OTHERS DIDN'T HAVE THAT. SO MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES I THINK IS VERY IMPORTANT. YOU DON'T WANT TO MAKE EVERYBODY A SQUARE PEG IN A SQUARE HOLE. IF IT'S A RUINED PEG, IT NEED TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF EDGES SHAVED OFF SO THAT IT CAN LIVE COMPATIBLY NEXT TO EVERYTHING ELSE, BUT I COULDN'T FIND IT IN THIS CASE, SO I WANTED THE PROPERTY OWNER, MANAGER AND PROPERTY OWNER'S REP TO KNOW THAT THIS IS NOT AN EASY TASK. LOOKING AT ALL THOSE PROPERTIES AND IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE TAKE LIGHTLY EITHER. AND THE REASON I'M SECONDING COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER'S MOTION IS I COULDN'T FIND THE SPECIAL MITIGATION FOR THAT ONE THAT I COULD NOT ALSO FIND FOR ALL THE OTHERS.

MAYOR?

COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH?

GRIFFITH: WELL, LET ME TRY THIS. AN AMENDMENT TO TAKE OUT TRACT 3, WHICH IS 2907 SOUTH FIRST STREET SINCE THEY'RE THE ONLY ONES THAT HAD ANY PROBLEMS WITH DOING THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY.

OKAY. LET ME SEE IF COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER CONSIDERS THAT TO BE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT?

SLUSHER: NO.

OKAY. DO YOU WANT TO DO IT IN THE FORM OF A SUBSTITUTE MOTION?

GRIFFITH: YES, I WOULD MOVE THAT.

OKAY. SUBSTITUTE MOTION, TO EXEMPT 2907 SOUTH FIRST. IS THERE A SECOND? THERE BEING NO SECOND, THE MOTION DIES. MOVING BACK TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION. FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. OPPOSED?

GRIFFITH: NO.

THAT MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF SIX TO ONE.

SLUSHER: THAT'S ALL I HAVE, MAYOR.

I THOUGHT THERE WAS ONE MORE.

SLUSHER: THAT'S THE ONE WE JUST ?? THAT DIDN'T GET A SECOND. RIGHT?

IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE DONE.

OKAY. [APPLAUSE].

THAT'S THE FIRST TIME I HEARD APPLAUSE HERE. MS. GORDON.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL, I JUST WANTED TO THANK THE STAFF. I KNOW THIS WAS A VERY DIFFICULT PROCESS WORKING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOODS AND TRYING TO GET CONSENSUS AND I THINK THEY DID AN EXCELLENT JOB, TO SO I WANTED TO COMMEND THE STAFF. AND THANK YOU TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD PARTNERS. [APPLAUSE].

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, EVERYBODY. NOW WE'RE DOWN TO THANK EVERYBODY FOR BEING HERE FOR ALL THE WORK THAT YOU DID, PEOPLE FROM THE NEIGHBORHOODS. WE HAVE THREE BRIEFINGS THAT WERE ITEMS 2, 4 AND 5, A BRIEFING ON THE PROPOSED LIMITS ON THE BRACKENRIDGE HOSPITAL LEASE REGARDING REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES HAS PULLED OFF THE AGENDA. THE FIRST ONE IS A BRIEFING ON ECONOMIC INDICATORS AND BUDGET FORECAST.

MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS, LET ME GIVE A VERY BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO THIS ISSUE. THIS IS OUR COMMITMENT TO YOU THAT WE WOULD UPDATE ?? .

JUST A SECOND. IF YOU PLEASE WOULD TAKE YOUR CONVERSATIONS OUTSIDE SO THAT WE CAN HAVE THE PRESENTATION. THANK YOU VERY.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL, SINCE THE FIRST QUARTER OF 2001 WE'VE MADE EVERY EFFORT TO KEEP YOU APPRISED OF THE SLOWDOWN AND THE INCERTAINTY IN THE ECONOMY. THIS IS ESPECIALLY CRITICAL DURING THE BUDGET PROCESS FOR THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR. MOST RECENTLY I PROVIDED YOU AN UPDATE ON THE TAX PICTURE IN MY MEMORANDUM OF OCTOBER THE 26TH. COMBINED WITH THE LOSS THAT WE SAW IN SALES TAX FOR SEPTEMBER, WE'RE ALSO EXPERIENCING A FLATTENING OF SALES TAX DURING THE CURRENT YEAR. IT'S IMPERATIVE TO ?? THAT WE APPROACH TO MEET YOUR CURRENT NEEDS AS WELL AS THE LONG?TERM NEEDS OF THIS CITY AND TO ACHIEVE THAT GOAL WE MUST BE FOCUS ODD BASIC CITY SERVICES, PUBLIC HEALTH, MAINTENANCE OF OUR PARKS, PROTECTION. INFRASTRUCTURE AND OTHER BASIC COMMON SERVICES. ASSESSING THE STATE OF THE ECONOMY AS WELL AS THE ECONOMY AT THE LOCAL LEVEL IS A VERY DIFFICULT TASK NATIONALLY AND EQUALLY DIFFICULT TASK AT THE LOCAL LEVEL. WHILE THERE IS BEEN VARYING DEGREES OF OPINION ON THE STATE OF THE ECONOMY, I THINK THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO QUESTION THATTER IN A SLOWDOWN AND HAVE BEEN DECLARED THAT WE'VE BEEN IN A RECESSION SINCE MARCH OF LAST YEAR. IN FACT, TODAY'S PAPER RECOGNIZED THAT CONTINUED SLOWDOWN THAT IS QUOTED IN THE BUSINESS SECTION OF THE PAPER THAT THE SLOW DOWN WILL CONTINUE UNTIL THE MIDDLE OF NEXT YEAR AND PROBABLY AUSTIN'S RECOVERY IS GOING TO BE LONGER THAN THE STATE OF TEXAS. SO WHAT HAVE WE DONE? WE'VE PROVIDED YOU AN UPDATE ON OUR RESOURCES. WE'LL OWE LINE SOME OF THE INTERIM ACTIONS THAT ARE PUT IN PLACE FOR THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR AND WE'LL IDENTIFY THE LONG?TERM ISSUES THAT IMPACT THE BUDGET FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND TRY TO IDENTIFY HOW WE WORK THOSE THROUGH IN FUTURE BUDGETS. THE OBJECTIVES AND ACTIONS ARE REALLY THREE THINGS. ONE IS TO CONTINUE BASIC CITY SERVICES, MAINTAIN FISCAL INTEGRITY AND MAINTAIN THE FLEXIBILITY AND DECISION MAKING AVOIDING THE HARSH DISRUPTION TO SERVICES OR ACTIONS WE NEED TO TAKE THAT MIGHT INTERRUPT OUR WORKFORCES AS WELL AS THE SERVICES WE PROVIDE. I WOULD LIKE TO TURN IT OVER TO JOHN STEVENS AND RUDY GARZA. YOU EARLIER THIS WEEK RECEIVED A MEMO FROM RUDY WHERE HE ROW PROMOTED HIMSELF TO CITY MANAGER. I HAVE NOT YET DECIDED TO LEAVE THIS JOB, SO I WILL TURN IT OVER TO RUDE.

ALL YOU GARZA'S ARE THE SAME.

THANK YOU, I'M JOHN STEVENS DIRECTOR OF ??

CAN WE GET MORE VOLUME ON THAT MIC?

I'M JOHN STEVENS, DIRECTOR OF THE FINANCIAL SERVICES. RUDY GARZA, THE CITY'S BUDGET OFFICER WILL PRESENT SOME NATIONAL, STATE AND LOCAL ECONOMIC DATA AND PRESENT A PICTURE OF OUR FUTURE REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES AND TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE ACTIONS THAT WE ARE TAKING AND PLAN TO TAKE TO KEEP OUR BUDGET IN BALANCE. AT THAT POINT I'LL THEN RECAP AND DISCUSS A SHORT?TERM FINANCING OPTION THAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE TO US TO DEAL WITH OUR INCREASED HOMELAND SECURITY COSTS AND OUR POTENTIAL SHORTFALL IN SALES TAX REVENUE.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL, WE PROVIDED YOU A COPY OF THE PRESENTATION AND WE'LL ALSO BE GOING THROUGH THE SLIDE PRESENTATION. THERE ARE SEVERAL INDICATORS AND MANY SOURCES OF INFORMATION FOR PREDICTING THE ECONOMY AND MONITORING THE ECONOMY. WE'VE SELECTED SOME OF THE COMMON NATIONAL INDICATORS AND WE'VE ALSO SELECTED IN KEY LOCAL INDICATORS TO PRESENT TODAY. WE START OFF WITH CONSUMER CONFIDENCE. CONSUMER CONFIDENCE IS A LEADING INDICATOR FOR THE BUSINESS CYCLE. RISING CONSUMER CONFIDENCE GENERALLY SHOWS A SIGN OF POTENTIAL HIGHER SPENDING IN THE ECONOMY WHILE A DROP IN CONFIDENCE TRADITIONALLY INDICATES A DECLINE IN THE ECONOMY. AS YOU SEE HERE ON THE GRAPH, CONSUMER CONFIDENCE WAS AT A FIVE?YEAR HIGH IN 1999?2000. BEGINNING IN OCTOBER OF 2000, CONSUMER CONFIDENCE BEGAN TO DECLINE AND ECONOMIC SLOWDOWN FOLLOWED. MOST RECENTLY IN OCTOBER OF THIS YEAR CONSUMER CONFIDENCE WAS AT ALL TIME LOW. NOW WE HAVE EXPERIENCED FIVE STRAIGHT MONTHS OF DECLINE. THE GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT, ALSO KNOWN AS GDP IS AN IMPORTANT INDICATOR OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITY AS IT IS A MEASURE OF PRODUCTIVITY GROWTH. ON THIS CHART THE BAR GRAPHS REPRESENT THE YEAR 2000 RESULTS AND THE LINE GRAPH REPRESENTS FISCAL YEAR 2001. WITH THE GROWTH IN GDP OF SLIGHTLY OVER EIGHT PERCENT, THE FIRST QUARTER REACHED A PEEK PEAK DURING A FOUR?YEAR PERIOD OF REGULAR GROWTH. THE ECONOMIC SLOWDOWN IS APPARENT TO THE GDP AS EVERY QUARTER OF THE YEAR 2001 IS BELOW THE FISCAL YEAR 2000 GROWTH AND EVERY QUARTER IN FISCAL YEAR 2001 CONTINUE TO DECLINE. TWO EXECUTIVE QUARTERS OF NEGATIVE GROWTH TYPICALLY IMPLIES A RECESSION. WHILE THE SECOND QUARTER OF 01 WAS NOT NEGATIVE, BUT VIRTUALLY OWN APPROXIMATE PERCENT GROWTH, BUT THE SECOND QUARTER WAS A NEGATIVE, WHICH IS A REVISION FROM THE PREVIOUS GROWTH OF .4% NEGATIVE. THE NEGATIVE GROWTH IS THE POOREST GROWTH WE'VE SEEN SINCE THE FIRST QUARTER OF 1991. THE GROSS STATE PRODUCT, ALSO KNOWN AS GSP IS EQUIVALENT OF GDP. IN RECENT TIMES THE TEXAS GSP HAS EXPERIENCED HIGHER GROWTH THAN GDP, BUTS SEE HERE IN THE CHART THAT THE TEXAS ECONOMY IS ALSO DECLINING. JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THE STRAIGHT LINE IS THE TRANS LINE, WHILE THE JAGGED LINE LISTS THE RESULTS OF GSP. UNEMPLOYMENT IS THE LAGGING INDICATOR OF WHERE THE ECONOMY HAS BEEN. WHILE THE STRONG LOCAL ECONOMY KEPT THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE INCREEDBLY LOW AND ALSO BELOW THE STATE AND NATIONAL AVERAGES, THE ECONOMIC SLOWDOWN AND RECENT LAYOFFS HAVE INCREASED THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE FROM 1.6% IN DECEMBER OF 2000 TO 4.6% IN DECEMBER OF 2001. AND ALSO IN THIS CHART THE BAR GRAPH REPRESENTS FISCAL YEAR 2000 RESULTS, WHILE THE LINE GRAPH REPRESENTS FISCAL YEAR 2001. ON THE LOCAL LEVEL, SALES TAX REVENUES IS AN INDICATOR OF THE LOCAL ECONOMIC ACTIVITY AND IS ALSO 29% OF THE TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES. WHILE WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO MAINTAIN THE HIGHER BASE OF SALES TAX REVENUES REACHED DURING FISCAL YEAR 2000, WE'VE NOT BEEN ABLE TO MAINTAIN THE STRONG GROWTH RATE AS IN PREVIOUS YEARS. FISCAL YEAR 2000 REFLECTS A FIVE?YEAR HIGH IN REVENUE GROWTH AT 14.3% WHILE FISCAL YEAR 2000 REVENUES REFLECT A FIVE?YEAR LOW AT .9% GROWTH. WATER UTILITY RESIDENTIAL CONNECTIONS GENERALLY REPRESENT SALES OF NEW HOMES AND INDICATOR OF NEW HOME DEVELOPMENT. FISCAL YEAR '98, '99 AND 2000 REFLECT TREMENDOUS GROWTH IN RESIDENTIAL CONNECTIONS. WHILE THE ECONOMIC SLOWDOWN WAS EVIDENT IN FISCAL YEAR 2001 WITH A DECLINE OF 35% IN CONNECTIONS AS COMPARED TO FISCAL YEAR 2000. BUILDING PERMITS ARE A FURTHER INDICATOR OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND ALSO REFLECT THE ECONOMIC SLOWDOWN WITH THE DECLINE OF NEGATIVE 29% IN UNITS PERMITTED DURING FISCAL YEAR 2001. THE ECONOMIC BOOM WAS ALSO EVIDENCED BY THE STEEP INCREASES IN RENTAL RATES AS WELL AS THE INCREASES IN OCCUPANCY RATES. OCCUPANCY RATES IN 2000 REACHED 95%. THE SLOWDOWN IN THE ECONOMY HAS REDUCED DEMAND AND AFTER 10 YEARS OF CONTINUED RENTAL RATE INCREASES, THESE RATES ARE BEGINNING TO DECLINE AS WELL AS THE OCCUPANCY RATES BEGIN TO DECLINE. THE PREVIOUS CHART ON SALES TAX REPRESENT AN ANNUAL GROWTH. THIS CHART IS TRACKING A QUARTERLY COMPARISON OF SALES TAX AND HOTEL TAX. THE RED STICKER LINE REPRESENTS HOTEL TAX AND THE THIN BLACK LINE REPRESENTS SALES TAX. AN ANALYSIS OF THE REVENUES SHOW THE ECONOMIC ACTIVITY REFLECT UNDERSTAND SALES TAX GROWTH IS ALSO REFLECTED BY THE HOTEL TAX GROWTH. THE CHART SHOWS THAT DEBT KLEIN IN THE ECONOMY IS REFLECTED BY SIMILAR DECLINES IN BOTH OF THESE TAXES. A FINAL INDICATOR WE'RE SHOWING YOU TODAY IS THE AIRPORT CARGO. AIRPORT CARGO TRACKS FREIGHT SHIPPED INTO AND OUT OF THE AIRPORT AND INDICATES A FRIEND IN LOCAL BUSINESS ACTIVITY. A STRAIGHT BLACK LINE SHOWS A TRENDED THE JAGGED LINE SHOWS THE RESULTS. ONLY THE TREND HAS BEEN INCREASING IN THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS, SINCE MARCH 2001, TOTAL CARGO HAS DECREASED APPROXIMATELY 46% FROM 40 MILLION POUNDS IN MARCH TO 21 MILLION PONDS IN NOVEMBER, SHOWING A STEADY DECLINE. ALTHOUGH IT IS DIFFICULT TO PREDICT, MOST ECONOMISTS ARE PREDICTING A SLOW RECOVERY WILL BEGIN IN THE SECOND QUARTER OF 2002. THE DIFFICULTY IS THE LEVEL OF UNCERTAINTY. WE HEAR MIXED SIGNALS AT TIMES WITH VARIOUS INDICATORS. MANY BUSINESSES ARE STILL DOWNSIZING ALL LAYOFFS CONTINUE. JUST IN THE PAST SEVERAL DAYS HERE IN AUSTIN, WE HAVE HAD TWO COMPANIES ANNOUNCE FURTHER LAYOFFS. ADDITIONALLY, AS THE CITY MANAGER ALLUDED TO EARLIER, AN ECONOMIST VERY FAMILIAR WITH OUR AREA EXPECTS THAT THE NATIONAL AND STATE COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ TO RECOVER OUT OF THE RECESSION IN THE MIDDLE OF NEXT YEAR, WHILE THE LOCAL ECONOMY WILL TAKE SEVERAL MONTHS AFTER. [ONE MOMENT, PLEASE, WHILE CAPTIONERS CHANGE]

... THE REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE RESULT WHERE REQUIREMENTS EXCEED AVAILABLE RESOURCES, WHILE WE HAVE DONE A GOOD JOB IN MANAGING OUR RESOURCES IN PRIOR YEARS, IMMEDIATE RESPONSIBLE ACTION IS NECESSARY TO ADDRESS THE FUTURE FINANCIAL [INAUDIBLE] TO CLOSE THE GAP. FURTHERMORE, AS WE CONTINUE TO FOCUS ON PROVISIONS TO PROVIDE BASIC SERVICES, IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THE CONTINUED COMMITMENT TO PUBLIC SAFETY AS EVIDENCED IN THIS CHART. IN THE FIVE YEAR PERIOD FROM 1997 TO 2001, PUBLIC SAFETY EXPENDITURES ACCOUNTED FOR BETWEEN 81 AND 86% OF TOTAL GENERAL FUND PROPERTY TAX AND SALES TAX REVENUES. IN THE CURRENT BUDGET, PUBLIC SAFETY ACCOUNTS FOR 89% OF THESE REVENUES. WE EXPECT PUBLIC SAFETY WILL REQUIRE 100% OF TOTAL TAX REVENUES IN FISCAL YEAR 2003. GIVEN THIS, WE NEED TO WORK ON BOTH SIDES OF THE GENERAL FUND EQUATION. REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES AND TAKE STEPS TO ENSURE WE CAN PROVIDE BASIC CITY SERVICES WHILE MAINTAINING FISCAL INTEGRITY. WHAT HAVE WE DONE TO DATE? ALTHOUGH WE ARE STILL FACED WITH MANY DIFFICULT CHALLENGES, THE PROCESS TO BEGIN TO ADDRESS THESE CHALLENGES ACTUALLY BEGAN BACK IN JANUARY OF THIS YEAR AS THE CITY MANAGER DIRECTED DEPARTMENT OF SAVINGS PLANS AND COST SAVINGS MEASURES TO BEAR THEIR FUND BALANCES AND PREPARE THE FISCAL YEAR 2000 BUDGET WITH THE ?? 2002 BUDGET WITH A TWO?YEAR FOCUS. DUE TO THESE EARLY ACTIONS BY THE CITY MANAGER, WE WERE ABLE TO MANAGE THE BUDGET AND CONTINUE TO RECEIVE A STRONG VOTE OF CONFIDENCE FROM THE RATING AGENCIES. MANY OF THE CURRENT YEAR INTERIM [INAUDIBLE] CURRENT YEAR 2001. THE INTERIM ACTIONS WERE NECESSARY THEN AND NOW AS WE CONTINUE TO ASSESS THE ECONOMY AND THE FINANCIAL OUTLOOK. SOME OF THE [INAUDIBLE] ARE WE HAVE RENEWED THE HIRE AND REVIEW PROCESS, WHICH REQUIRES A BUSINESS CASE BE COMPLETED FOR ALL VACANT POSITIONS PRIOR TO BEING FILLED. RESTRICT ALL CAPITAL EXPENDITURES BASED ON DEPARTMENTAL PRIORITIES AND EVIDENTIATIONS ?? EVALUATIONS OF CRITICAL NEEDS. DEFERRAL OF NON?CRITICAL CASH FUNDED C.I.P. AND ALSO REQUESTED THAT DEPARTMENTS PREPARE A 5% AND 12 AND A HALF PERCENT SAVINGS PLANS. ACTIONS WITH THE MORE LONG?TERM STRATEGIC IMPACT ARE A DEFINITION OF CORE SERVICE LEVELS. THIS EXERCISE WILL ENSURE THAT BASIC CITY SERVICES ARE NOT COMPROMISED. THE ADMINISTRATIVE COST REVIEW TO IDENTIFY COST SAVINGS AND STREAMLINING OPPORTUNITIES, A FOCUS ON KEY PERFORMANCE MEASURES THROUGH OUR MANAGEMENT FOR RESULTS PROGRAM, TO IDENTIFY THOSE MEASURES, CRITICAL AND DECISION MAKING FOR ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND FINAL NEAL REVENUE OPPORTUNITIES AND FEE ASSESSMENT INITIATIVES. THIS WILL IDENTIFY OPPORTUNITIES FOR NEW REVENUES AND ASSIST IN DETERMINING EQUITABLE FEES WHICH REPRESENT THE CITY'S COSTS FOR PROVIDING VARIOUS SERVICES AND PROGRAMS. OF COURSE THE PLANNING PROCESS WILL CONTINUE TO BE REVIEWED AND ADJUSTED AS NEEDED, BUT THE KEY OBJECTIVES TO ANY RECOMMENDED ACTION WILL REMAIN THE SAME. [AUDIO PROBLEMS, PLEASE STAND BY]

MAINTAIN FLEXIBILITY AND DECISION MAKING, AVOID DISRUPTION TO BOTH CITIZENS AND EMPLOYEES. AND MR. STEVENS WILL WRAP UP.

I THINK THE MESSAGE IS THAT ALTHOUGH THERE ARE MIXED SIGNALS FROM THE ECONOMY NOW, THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT OUR ECONOMY HAS SLOWED CONSIDERABLY AND THAT OUR GROWTH IN REVENUES OVER THE NEXT FEW YEARS WILL BE SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER THAN IT HAS IN RECENT YEARS. WE HAVE A WIDENING GAP BETWEEN OUR ESTIMATED REVENUES AND OUR ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES OVER THE NEXT FEW YEARS. WHICH HAS BEEN EXACERBATED BY OUR HOMELAND SECURITY ISSUES AND THE POTENTIAL LOSS OF SALES TAX REVENUE. AS RUDY SAID, WE HAVE TAKEN A NUMBER OF CURRENT YEAR ACTIONS AND ARE PUTTING IN PLACE SOME LONG?TERM ACTIONS TO DEAL WITH THESE PROBLEMS. BUT ANOTHER CURRENT YEAR ACTION THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND FOR COUNCIL'S CONSIDERATION IS THE ISSUANCE OF A TAX ANTICIPATION NOTE. THIS ?? THIS TAX ANTICIPATION NOTE CAN BE USED AS A SHORT?TERM VEHICLE TO FINANCE UNANTICIPATED EXPENDITURES OR REVENUE SHORTFALLS. WE HAVE BEEN EVALUATING THE FEASIBILITY OF ISSUING A TAX ANTICIPATION NOTE IN THE AMOUNT OF APPROXIMATELY 8 MILLION. THIS WOULD COME INTO THE CITY AS A PROPERTY TAX REVENUE. THE NOTE WOULD BE REPAID IN FULL IN FISCAL YEAR '03, THE NOTE WOULD BE ISSUED IN THIS FISCAL YEAR AND REPAID IN THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR. AND WOULD BE REPAID THROUGH AN ADDITIONAL 1.6 CENTS OR 1.66 CENTS ON THE FISCAL YEAR 2003 TAX RATE. THIS WOULD BE OVER AND ABOVE THE ADDITIONAL CENT THAT WE WOULD NEED TO ADD IN ADDITION FOR THE '98 BOND ELECTION. WE THINK THAT BY ?? BY DOING THIS, BY ISSUING THIS TAX ANTICIPATION NOTE TO COVER THE INCREASED HOMELAND SECURITY COSTS, THAT YOU HAVE SEEN TODAY, AND OUR POTENTIAL REVENUE SHORTFALLS, THAT THIS WOULD BETTER POSITION THE CITY FOR FUTURE YEARS, TO DEAL WITH THE GAP THAT WE HAVE. AND WE WILL BRING SOME INFORMATION, MORE INFORMATION TO COUNCIL IN A PROPOSED ACTION ITEM FOR COUNCIL IN JANUARY TO DEAL WITH THIS. COUNCIL, THAT CONCLUDES OUR PRESENTATION. WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE AT THIS POINT.

GOODMAN: WHILE THE MAYOR IS GONE, LET ME ASK YOU, JOHN, ONE QUESTION. EVEN THOUGH THAT PROPOSAL WOULD ASSUME, IF NOTHING CHANGES, THAT THE TAX RATE WOULD GO UP, IN ORDER TO PAY BACK THAT MONEY, IF THE ECONOMIC CLIMATE CHANGED TO A MORE POSITIVE ONE, WOULD THERE BE OTHER MECHANISMS FOR PAYING THAT MONEY BACK ASIDE FROM ANY KIND OF TAX INCREASE?

IF THE ECONOMY WERE TO TURN AROUND SUBSTANTIALLY AND WE WERE ABLE TO ACHIEVE OR OBTAIN SOME ADDITIONAL REVENUE THAT WE DO NOT FORSEE RIGHT NOW, WHAT WE COULD DO IS ?? SIMPLY USE SOME OF THAT MONEY, IF IN FACT IT TURNS OUT THAT WE DON'T NEED THAT MONEY TO COVER OUR INCREASED HOMELAND SECURITY COSTS AND OUR POTENTIAL TAX LOSSES, WE COULD USE THE PROCEEDS FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THAT TAX ANTICIPATION NOTE AS A REPAYMENT FOR THE NOTE IN THE FOLLOWING FISCAL YEAR AND NOT HAVE TO INCREASE THE TAX RATE BY THE 1.66 CENTS.

GOODMAN: IS IT POSSIBLE TO GET SUCH A LOAN WITHOUT ABSOLUTELY CITING THE TAX INCREASE AS THE SOURCE OF PAYMENT?

NO, I'M AFRAID IT WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE. COUNCIL WOULD HAVE TO COMMIT TO ADDING THAT 1.66 CENTS TO THE ?? THIS WOULD BE ADDED TO OUR DEBT SERVICE TAX RATE AND IN FISCAL YEAR 03 IF COUNCIL APPROVED THE ACTION.

UNLESS NOT NEEDED, THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE IT. DID YOU FACTOR IN ANY ECONOMIC PROJECTIONS BY SOME OF THE MANY, MANY FISCAL EXPERTS THAT ARE TRYING TO GAUGE WHEN THE CYCLE WILL MOVE UPWARD AGAIN?

WE DID NOT FACTOR THOSE SPECIFICALLY. I MEAN, WE LOOK AT EVERYTHING THAT'S GOING ON AT THE ECONOMY. I THINK FOR US THE QUESTION AT THIS POINT IS THE TIPPED UNCERTAINTY AND THE FACT THAT OUR SEPTEMBER SALES TAX, ALTHOUGH WE EXPECTED A DECLINE IN SALES TAX, WE KNEW THAT IT WOULD ACTUALLY BE NEGATIVE, WE DID NOT ANTICIPATE THAT IT WOULD BE AS NEGATIVE AS IT WAS. AS RUDY MENTIONED, I THINK THE PERRYMAN FORECAST, HIS 2002 FORECAST THAT CAME OUT TODAY, IS POINTING OUT THAT ALTHOUGH THE ECONOMY IN AUSTIN IS ?? IS CLEARLY GOING TO DO BETTER IN THE FUTURE YEARS, THAT THAT RECOVERY MAY IN FACT BE DELAYED. ONE OF THE PROBLEMS THAT HE POINTS OUT IN THAT ARTICLE IS WITH ALL OF THE ?? WITH THE HIGH TECHNOLOGY SECTOR HERE IN AUSTIN, THAT IS TIED TO THE FORTUNES OF THE GLOBAL ECONOMY AND THE PROBLEM IS THAT ?? ONE OF THE PROBLEMS WITH THIS RECESSION IS THAT IT IN FACT IS A WORLDWIDE, A GLOBAL RECESSION. IT NOT JUST THE UNITED STATES THAT'S IN RECESSION AT THIS POINT. IT'S ALSO JAPAN, EUROPE AND LATIN AMERICA.

GOODMAN: WERE THERE ANY PROJECTIONS OR ?? I DON'T KNOW, DATA GATHERING RELATIVE TO OUR WORKFORCE SITUATION AND CURRENT PROPERTY TAXPAYER'S AND THE ?? AND THE ABILITIES OR NON?ABILITY OF THE FUTURE FOR THOSE SAME TAXPAYERS TO COME UP WITH THAT EXTRA MONEY?

WE HAVE CALCULATED WHAT THE EFFECT OF THE ADDITIONAL TAX RATE, THE 1.66 CENTS TAX RATE WOULD BE ON THE AVERAGE AUSTIN HOME OWNER IF ?? IF ?? THE AVERAGE PRICE OF A ?? OF A HOMESTEADED RESIDENCE HERE IN AUSTIN, FOR THIS YEAR, FOR TAX PURPOSES, IS $152,541. WE CALCULATE THAT THIS ADDITIONAL 1.66 CENTS NEXT YEAR WOULD ADD APPROXIMATELY $2 A MONTH, A TOTAL OF ABOUT $25 A YEAR TO THE TAX BILL.

GOODMAN: OKAY, THANK YOU.

SLUSHER: I HAD SOME QUESTIONS MAYOR PRO TEM.

GOODMAN: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER.

SLUSHER: CAN YOU CALCULATE YET WHAT WOULD BE THE PEVETO RATE, THE ROLLBACK RATE FOR 2003?

I ?? I'M NOT SURE RIGHT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. RUDY, DO YOU HAVE THAT INFORMATION? WE CAN CERTAINLY GET THAT INFORMATION TO YOU. THIS ?? THIS ?? SINCE THE 1.66 CENTS WOULD BE ADDED ON THE DEBT SERVICE SIDE, IT DOES NOT AFFECT THE ROLLBACK CALCULATION IN 2003. FROM.

SLUSHER: OKAY. IT DOESN'T AFFECT ?? ON THE DEBT SERVICE SIDE BECAUSE ??

BECAUSE IT'S ?? YES, BECAUSE IT IS REPAYMENT OF THE ?? OF A DEBT INSTRUMENT, SHORT?TERM DEBT INSTRUMENT THAT WE WOULD ISSUE THIS FISCAL YEAR. IT'S NOT ADDED TO THE OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE SIDE.

SLUSHER: SO THAT 8 MILLION WOULD ?? THAT WOULD USE UP ALL ?? THE 8 MILLION WOULD BE ALL OF THE 1.3 AND THAT WOULD ?? YOU ARE ANTICIPATING THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE SPENT IN THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR AND THEN PAID BACK WITH REVENUES FROM THE NEXT YEAR?

YES. IT WOULD BE SPENT FROM THE PROCEEDS. OF THE NOTE TO BE ISSUED THIS FISCAL YEAR AND THEN REPAID FROM PROPERTY TAX REVENUES ON THE DEBT SERVICE PROPERTY TAX REVENUES IN THE NEXT YEAR.

SLUSHER: OKAY, BUT ?? SO ARE THOSE PRIMARILY ONE?TIME EXPENDITURES, OR IS IT GOING TO BE ONGOING EXPENDITURES, WHICH WE WOULD THEN HAVE TO FIND SOME WAY TO FIND IN '03 AS WELL?

I THINK IT'S A MIXTURE OF BOTH. SOME OF THOSE WOULD BE ONE?TIME EXPENDITURES FOR EQUIPMENT, THINGS LIKE THAT. OTHERS WOULD BE ONGOING EXPENDITURES THAT WE WOULD NEED TO FIND A WAY TO DEAL WITH. ALONG WITH OTHER OTHER ?? OUR OTHER INCREASES IN PUBLIC SAFETY EXPENDITURES.

SLUSHER: OKAY. I'M GOING TO NEED TO SEE A PLAN FOR OUR ?? OUR PLAN FOR DEALING WITH BOTH OF THOSE, WHEN YOU BRING THE PROPOSAL FORWARD IN JANUARY. ACTUALLY, OF COURSE, I WOULD LIKE TO DO IT BEFORE THEN.

JUST TO CLARIFY. SOME OF THOSE RECURRING COSTS ARE INCLUDED IN OUR PROJECTIONS. HENCE ADDING TO PUBLIC SAFETY ACCOUNTING FOR 100% OF OUR TOTAL TAX REVENUES. SO WE HAVE ACCOUNTED FOR THAT IN THE SLIDES THAT YOU HAVE SEEN HERE TODAY.

SLUSHER: ONE THING I THINK THAT MIGHT BE POSSIBLY MISLEADING TO SOME FOLKS, MIGHT JUST BE TUNING IN HERE, WHEN YOU SAY ALL OF THE TAX REVENUES, BECAUSE WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, PROPERTY TAX, SALES TAX, WE STILL HAVE A QUARTER OF THE GENERAL FUND IS ?? I MEAN ?? YEAH, A QUARTER OF THE GENERAL FUND IS THE GENERAL FUND TRANSFERS FROM THE UTILITYS. SO IT'S NOT LIKE ALL OF THE MONEY HAS TO GO TO PUBLIC ??

NO, IT'S NOT. THIS IS THE PROPERTY TAX AND SALES TAX REVENUES AND AS YOU SAY, WE RECEIVE SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF OUR REVENUE FROM THE GENERAL ?? FROM THE ?? FROM AUSTIN ENERGY AS WELL.

SLUSHER: THEN OTHER FEES AS WELL.

THAT'S RIGHT.

SLUSHER: OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT I MEAN THIS IS REAL SOBERING STATISTICS AND PRESENTATION AND IT NOT REALLY A SURPRISE TO US AT THIS POINT. BUT THAT AS WE GO ALONG HERE, OBVIOUSLY THE PUBLIC SAFETY NEEDS ARE PARAMOUNT AND OUR HOME SECURITY IS PARAMOUNT. BUT AS WE FACE THE FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES, I THINK WE NEED TO KEEP IN MIND THAT WE CONTINUE TO ?? TO ADDRESS OUR WAY OF LIFE AND OUR SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS HERE IN AUSTIN. I WANT TO ?? EVERYTHING MIGHT HAVE TO BE CUT BACK A LITTLE BIT OR NOT GET AS MUCH UNTIL WE GET THROUGH THIS PERIOD. BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE MAINTAIN A BALANCE WITH PUBLIC SAFETY BEING FOREMOST, BUT THAT WE ALSO CONTINUE TO EMPHASIZE OUR SOCIAL EQUITY PROGRAMS, OUR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, AND OUR CULTURAL PROGRAMS LIKE OUR MUSIC AND ARTS PROGRAMS.

GOODMAN: IF I CAN ADD ON TO THAT, I THINK ACTUALLY THAT'S A PRETTY STRATEGIC INVESTMENT, TOO, BECAUSE WE HAVE SO MUCH THAT RELIES ON THE WELL?BEING OF A CERTAIN INDUSTRY AND RELATED ACCESSORY INDUSTRIES THAT WE REALLY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY WITH THIS KIND OF ECONOMIC CLIMATE TO PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT WAS ALWAYS THE TRUE BACKBONE OF AN ECLECTIC CITY LIKE AUSTIN AND THE DIFFERENT BUSINESSES THAT MAKE US VIABLE AND CONTINUE TO MAKE US ATTRACTIVE FOR WHATEVER OTHER CORPORATIVE ACTIVITIES WE MAY PLAN TO HOST OR BENEFIT FROM IN THE FUTURE. LET ME ADD, THIS IS MY LAST QUESTION, WHICH I FORGOT TO ASK EARLIER. IN THE TRENDS ON SALES TAX, DEPENDING ON WHO I READ, AND WHAT KIND OF STUDYS OR DATA GATHERING THEY ARE REFERRING TO, I'M NOT GETTING A REALLY CLEAR PICTURE ABOUT EITHER HOW OUR SALES TAX IS DOING IN STRAIGHT NUMBERS AND TRANSLATED TO PERCENTAGES, BUT ALSO I'M NOT REALLY GETTING A CLEAR PICTURE, I DON'T THINK, IN ?? IN TRYING TO COMPARE OURS AND TO OUR NEIGHBORS. WHAT THEIR TRENDS ARE.

GARZA: WE CAN GET THAT TO YOU.

GOODMAN: THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

GARZA: IN REAL TERMS, LAST YEAR ?? AND IN FISCAL YEAR 2000, WE CLOSED OUT WITH 122 MILLION DOLLARS PLUS OR MINUS FOR SALES TAX. FISCAL YEAR 01, THE BOOKS WE JUST CLOSED OUT, IT INCREASED .9% TO A TOTAL OF 123 MILLION. WE HAD PROJECTED TO GROW THE SALES TAX AT 2% THIS YEAR. SO THE DELTA BETWEEN WHERE YOU ARE, WHERE WE ENDED UP AT 123 AND WHY WE ARE WANTING TO BE, WHICH IS ROUGHLY 127, 127 I THINK IS THE NUMBER, YOU ARE AT ABOUT FOUR AND A HALF MILLION OFF THAT PACE. SO IF WE GROW AT ZERO, YOU HAVE A ?? YOU HAVE A GAP, AN INCOME GAP OF ABOUT 4.5 MILLION DOLLARS THAT WE WILL HAVE TO MAKE UP.

GOODMAN: OKAY.

GARZA: BUT LET ME ?? BUT ?? THIS IS THE CHARGE THAT I HAVE GIVEN THE DEPARTMENT. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT WE ARE ASKING, AS WE GO THROUGH THIS EVALUATION PROCESS OF ALL OF THE PROGRAMS THAT ARE BEING EVALUATED RIGHT NOW, THE 5%, 12.5%, WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THERE WAS NO DISRUPTION TO CITY SERVICES. THAT WAS THE FIRST THING THAT WE DID, WHETHER IT'S PARKS AND RECREATION, LIBRARY, POLICE, FIRE, E.M.S., HEALTH, SO ON. AND SO WHAT THAT LEAVES YOU IS THE THINGS THAT WE DON'T DO WITH OUR OWN WORKFORCE AS THINGS TO LOOK AT FIRST. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU WILL CUT THOSE THINGS, BUT YOU WILL LOOK AT THOSE FIRST TO SEE IS THAT A BASIC SERVICE OR IS THAT NOT A BASIC SERVICE FOR A CITY. WHAT I DON'T WANT TO DO, I WOULD NOT WANT TO DO, WOULD NOT WANT TO RECOMMEND, IS THAT WE CUT BACK BASIC CITY SERVICES, WHERE WE HAVE TO LAY PEOPLE OFF, AND A THEN YET KEEP EXPENDITURES ON THE BOOKS AND THAT IN THE LAST ANALYSIS AREN'T BASIC TO THE RUNNING OF THE GOVERNMENT. THAT IS THE CHARGE THAT I HAVE GIVEN TO THE FINANCE AND BUDGET OFFICE TO LOOK AT, SO THAT WE CAN MINIMIZE THE DISRUPTION TO THE WORKFORCE AND TO THE DELIVERY OF SERVICES TO THE CITIZENS. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT I WAS ON THE SAME PAGE AS THE CITY COUNCIL.

GOODMAN: COUNCILMEMBER?

SLUSHER: YEAH, I DON'T SEE HOW ANYBODY COULD ?? COULD DISAGREE WITH THAT. I'M NOT ?? BUT WHAT SPARKED THAT TO WHERE YOU FELT LIKE YOU NEEDED TO POINT THAT OUT?

GARZA: WELL, WE SPEND MONEY ON CONTRACTUALS THAT WE DO NOT DO WITH OUR WORKFORCE. AND IT'S SOMETIMES, IF YOU ADD IT UP, IT COULD BE A SIGNIFICANT SUM OF MONEY. AND WHEN YOU ARE LOOKING AT TRYING TO REDUCE YOUR BUDGET IN REAL TERMS, IF YOU ARE TRYING TO DO TWO THINGS HERE, TRYING TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO GROW YOUR REVENUES TO A DEGREE THAT THAT'S GOING TO BE VERY ?? UNDERSTANDING THAT'S GOING TO BE VERY DIFFICULT. THEN YOU ARE HAVING TO CONTROL THE EXPENDITURES, WE GREW EXPENDITURES AT 4.7%, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO GO BELOW THAT NUMBER THIS YEAR IN ORDER NOT TO BE OUT OF BALANCE. WE ARE ABOUT 95% IN SOME DEPARTMENTS PERSONNEL. BUT THERE ARE SOME MAJOR CONTRACTUAL ISSUES WE HAVE. I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT ALL OF THOSE ARE, BUT ?? BUT WHAT ?? WHAT ?? I GUESS MY FIRST OBLIGATION IS TO ALL OF THE BASIC SERVICES THAT WE PROVIDE WITHIN THE UNIT OF GOVERNMENT THAT WE ?? IN TERMS OF OUR BASIC ORGANIZATION, AND HOLD THOSE AS THE HIGHEST PRIORITY, LOOKING AT WHAT THEN IS LEFT OVER IN TERMS OF WHAT SAVINGS WE CAN GARNER. WE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO GARNER ANY SAVINGS FROM THAT, WHEN MEANS THAT YOU HAVE TO CUT EVERYTHING. I DON'T KNOW, I'M JUST SAYING YOU HAVE CONTRACTUALS OUT THERE THAT YOU DO ON A DOCTORATEUL ?? CONTRACTUAL BASIS, I WANT TO SAY THESE MAY NOT BE AS HIGH OF A PRIORITY AS BASIC SERVICES.

SLUSHER: WELL, I GUESS WE ?? WE HAVE TO WE HAVE TO SEE SOME SPECIFICS THERE FIRST. I MEAN, I JUST TOTALLY AGREE WITH THAT AS A ?? AS A GENERAL STATEMENT. AND I ?? I DON'T REALLY THINK THAT'S INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT I SAID EARLIER. I THINK WE NEED TO TRY TO HOLD ON TO WHAT MAKES AUSTIN, AUSTIN AS WE GO THROUGH THESE DIFFICULT TIMES. I THINK WE CAN DO THAT. WE HAVE GOT SOME VERY TOUGH CHOICES TO MAKE. I THINK EVERYBODY REALIZES THAT, EVERYBODY ON THE COUNCIL, ANYWAY. SO ANYWAY I GUESS WE WILL BE WORKING THROUGH THESE IN THE WEEKS TO COME. BUT I ALSO WANT TO SAY I THINK THE MANAGER, BOTH IN THE PAST LAST SAY SIX MONTHS OF THE ?? OF THE PRECEDING FISCAL YEAR AND SO FAR THIS FISCAL YEAR, HAS BEEN ABLE TO HANDLE THE DECLINING ECONOMIC TIMES WITH NO MAJOR SERVICE CUTS IN CITY SERVICES AND NO LAYOFFS. AND I THINK THAT ?? TO ME THOSE ARE THE PRIORITIES, TO KEEP THAT APPROACH GOING. AND NOTWITHSTANDING THE OTHER THINGS THAT I HAVE SAID AS WELL.

GOODMAN: DO OTHER COUNCILMEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? QUESTIONS FOR MR. STEVENS? THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU,.

GARZA: MAYOR PRO TEM, I MIGHT OFFER AN AMENDMENT. WE ARE WILLING TO DO THE BRIEFING ON HOLLY, BUT WE ARE ?? I GUESS THE AUSTIN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION, ALMOST 25 MINUTE LATE. BECAUSE OF WHAT ?? BECAUSE OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT THE COUNCIL NEEDS WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUE ON HOLLY, IS IT AGREEABLE TO THE COUNCIL THAT WE HOLD OFF THAT DISCUSSION UNTIL WE BRING BACK ALL OF THE DATA THAT WAS REQUESTED EARLIER TODAY OR DID YOU GUYS WANT TO HAVE THAT BRIEFING ANYWAY? I GUESS VERONICA IS CHECKING WITH ?? WITH COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ. BUT YOU MAY WANT TO ?? TO GO INTO THE AUSTIN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION PIECE RIGHT NOW. I KNOW THAT MR. HILGERS IS HERE READY TO GO.

GOODMAN: I THINK THAT I WOULD DEFINITELY NOT MIND GOING INTO AHFC. BUT RELATIVE TO THE QUESTIONS ON HOLLY, I THINK THAT I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT INFORMATION. IF WE CAN'T HAVE IT TODAY, THEN AT THE VERY LATEST MAYBE THE 13TH.

GARZA: WE ?? YES, WE COULD MAKE A PRESENTATION NEXT WEEK. WE COULD. WE COULD ROLL THIS PRESENTATION, WE WERE GOING TO DO HERE JUST A FEW MINUTES AGO. IN JUST A FEW MINUTES, WE COULD ROLL THAT INTO NEXT WEEK AND SAVE YOU THAT TIME, BUT REALLY THAT'S UP TO THE COUNCIL IF TERMS ?? IN TERMS OF WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO PROCEED ALONG THAT LINE.

GOODMAN: OKAY. LET ME ASK LEGAL, IS THIS THE POINT THEN WHERE WE WOULD HAVE A MOTION TO RECESS OR IS THAT ?? DOES IT NEED A MOTION? OKAY, IF THERE'S A MOTION TO RECESS THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING.

SLUSHER: SO MOVE.

GRIFFITH: SECOND.

GOODMAN: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE.

AYE.

GOODMAN: AND BRING TO ORDER THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING OF AUSTIN AUSTIN ?? OF AUSTIN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION, WHICH I GUESS I CAN DO SIMPLY BY BEING VICE?PRESIDENT, RIGHT. MR. HILGERS, THANK YOU.

GOOD AFTERNOON, BOARD MEMBERS, MY NAME IS PAUL HILGERS. I'M THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER AND DIRECTOR OF AUSTIN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION. YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY SEVERAL ITEMS OF ITEMS. NUMBER ONE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE PREVIOUS BOARD MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 29TH, 2001.

SLUSHER: SO MOVE.

GOODMAN: SECOND. DISCUSSION? EVERY READ THEM? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE.

AYE.

THANK YOU. ITEMS AHFC2 AND 3 ARE RELATED TO THE APPROVAL TO ISSUE UP TO 11.5 MILLION DOLLARS OF PRIVATE ACTIVITY VOLUME CAP MULTI FAMILY NON?RECOURSE BONDS TO FINANCE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE RIVERSIDE MEADOW APARTMENTS AT 2205 RIVERSIDE DRIVE. THIS PROJECT WILL BE OWNED AND OPERATED BY A SINGLE PURPOSE TEXAS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP SPONSORED BY REAL?TEX DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS. TO RECAP FOR YOU, BOND ITEMS ARE GENERALLY BROUGHT TO YOU IN THREE PHASES. INDUCEMENT RESOLUTIONS TO INITIATE THE FINANCIAL STRUCTURING OF THE PROJECT, A PUBLIC HEARING AS REQUIRED BY THE TAX EQUITY AND FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT AND FINAL APPROVAL OF THE BOND ISSUANCE. THE AUSTIN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION APPROVED THE FIRST OF THESE THREE REQUIREMENTS, THE INDUCEMENT RESOLUTION, FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THE BONDS ON OCTOBER 7TH IN THE YEAR 2000. WHEN THE PROJECT PARTICIPATED IN THE OCTOBER 2000 MULTI?FAMILY BOND LOTTERY AT THE STATE. BUT THE PROJECT DIDN'T FINALLY RECEIVE ITS BOND ALLOCATION FROM THE LOTTERY UNTIL AUGUST OF 2001. SO TODAY'S ITEMS FOR THIS PROJECT COVER THE SECOND AND THIRD PHASES FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION FOR THE PROJECT. ITEM AHFC?2 IS A PUBLIC HEARING AS REQUIRED BY TEFRA ?? REQUIRED BY TEFRA. BEFORE THE VOTES ?? BOARD VOTES, IT MUST HAVE THIS PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE IT APPROVES THE BOND ISSUE. ITEM NO. AHFC?3 REQUESTS THE FINAL APPROVAL OF THE ISSUANCE OF THE BONDS. TODAY'S ACTION ON BOTH ITEMS IS NECESSARY SINCE THE BOND AUTHORITY FOR THIS PROJECT WILL EXPIRE ON DECEMBER 20TH OF 2001. THE REPRESENTATIVES OF REAL?TEX DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ARE HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. BUT AT THIS POINT IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO TAKE UP AHFC ISSUE NUMBER 2.

GOODMAN: THANK YOU, MR. HILGERS. IF THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL, I'M NOT SURE IF ANYONE SIGNED UP OR NOT. BUT ?? LET ME JUST ASK THE AUDIENCE TODAY, HAS ANYONE SIGNED UP TO BE ABLE TO SPEAK ON THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM AHFC?2. WHICH IS THE ISSUANCE OF UP TO 11.5 MILLION OF PRIVATE ACTIVITY VOLUME CAP NON?RECOURSE BONDS. FOR RIVERSIDE MEADOWS. IS ANYONE AT ALL INTERESTED IN SPEAKING ON THIS ITEM? AHFC ITEM NO. 2. THE BONDS. IF SO, AS I SEE NOBODY IS HERE, THEN WE CAN HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

SO MOVE.

SECOND.

GOODMAN: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE.

AYE.

GOODMAN: OPPOSED? THE MAYOR TEMPORARILY ?? I MEAN THE PRESIDENT TEMPORARILY ABSENT.

THANK YOU. I ??

GOODMAN: I ??

A LITTLE BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON ITEM NO. 3, WHICH IS A LITTLE MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THIS SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT. THE RIVERSIDE MEADOW'S APARTMENTS INVOLVES THE NEW CONSTRUCTION OF 240 UNITS, 60 ARE ONE BEDROOM ONE BATH, 56 ARE TWO BEDROOM, TWO BATH, 76 ARE TWO BEDROOM, TWO BATH AND 56 ARE THREE BEDROOM, TWO BATH UNITS. THE RENTS WILL RANGE FROM $502 TO $690 A MONTH. 100% OF THE FAMILY OF THE UNITS WILL BE RESERVED FOR FAMILIES MAKING LESS THAN 60% OF MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME, THAT'S ?? THAT'S AN INCOME LEVEL OF $38,800 FOR A FAMILY OF FOUR AND RENTED AT RATES CHARGED WITH FAMILIES WITH INCOMES AT 50% OF MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME. IN OTHER WORDS THOSE FAMILIES WOULDN'T BE PAYING MORE THAN 30% OF THEIR INCOME FOR THIS HOUSING. REAL?TEX DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE PARTNER THAT WE HAVE WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT. IT'S AN AUSTIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY THAT SPECIALIZES IN MULTI?FAMILY HOUSING. THE ?? THEY HAVE SPECIALED IN THE ACQUISITION, DEVELOPMENT, MANAGEMENT OF ALL FORMS OF REAL ESTATE IN TEXAS. BEFORE REAL DAX TEX THEY WERE EMPLOYED WITH A MULTI?FAMILY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY IN 1997 WHEN HE WAS ?? WHERE HE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES OF OVER 2500 UNITS OF MULTI?FAMILY HOUSING DURING THE PAST FOUR YEARS. THE TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATED IS $18,328,660 FOR A TOTAL COST PER UNIT, OF 73,906. SO WITH THAT, WE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THIS PROJECT BE BROUGHT TO APPROVAL.

GOODMAN: ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? IS A ?? THERE IS A MOTION?

MOVE APPROVAL.

GOODMAN: I WILL SECOND. FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE.

AYE.

OPPOSED? WITH THE PRESIDENT TEMPORARILY ABSENT. IF THAT ?? IF THAT'S ALL OF THE ITEMS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YES, MA'AM.

GOODMAN: THANK YOU, SIR. WE CAN ADJOURN THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF AUSTIN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION.

SLUSHER: SO MOVE.

GOODMAN: SECOND. SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER GRIFFITH. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE.

AYE.

GOODMAN: OKAY. THEN WE ARE RECONVENING, IS THAT THE RIGHT WORD? THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL. TO GO BACK TO OUR ?? WELL, LET ME ASK, WHAT BRIEFING.

SHOULD WE GO TO URBAN WATERSHED THEN? URBAN WATERSHED PROTECTION? IF YOU WOULD. THANK YOU.

GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR PRO TEM, COUNCIL, I'M JOE PANTALION WITH THE URBAN WATERSHED PROTECTION REVIEW DEPARTMENT. WITH ME ARE GEORGE OSWALD, MANAGE OF OUR FLOOD AND EROSION CONTROL, AND LES TOLL, MANAGER OF OUR URBAN WATER QUALITY RETROFIT PROGRAM. A FEW WEEKS AGO COUNCIL REQUESTED A PRESENTATION ON THE DOWNTOWN WATERSHED AND FEE WAIVERS, THAT'S WHAT WE ARE GOING TO BE PRESENTING TO YOU. IF WE CAN GET THE LIGHTS, PLEASE. THANK YOU. OKAY. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT WATERSHED PROTECT, WE ARE REALLY TALKING ABOUT ?? ABOUT FLOODING EROSION AND WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA. THE DOWNTOWN AREA COVERS THE LOWER PORTIONS OF THE WALLER CREEK AND SHOAL CREEK WATERSHEDS AND AN AREA BETWEEN THE TWO WATER SLEDS THAT DRAINS ?? WATERSHEDS THAT DRAINS DIRECTLY TO TOWN LAKE. I'M GOING TO START OFF TALKING ABOUT FLOODING. VERY TIMELY GIVEN THE STORM THAT OCCURRED ON NOVEMBER 15TH. IF I CAN JUST BRIEFLY TALK ABOUT THAT STORM. DEPENDING ON WHAT PART OF TOWN YOU LIVED IN, YOU SAW ANYWHERE FROM 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITYS DOWN TO MAYBE A TWO TO FIVE YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY. ON SOME OF OUR RAIN GAUGES WE SAW RAINFALL INTENSITY OF FIVE INCHES OF RAINFALL IN ONE HOUR. MORE THAN 8 INCHES OF RAIN IN SIX HOURS. AND THESE WELL EXCEED THE 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY. HOWEVER, THOSE WERE NOT THE AVERAGE CONDITIONS AND ?? IN ANY GIVEN WATERSHED OR ACROSS THE CITY. SPECIFIC TO DOWNTOWN, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT SHOAL CREEK AND WALLER CREEK, THE ?? THE GAUGE AT 12TH STREET ON SHOAL CREEK REGISTERED ABOUT A 10 YEAR RETURN INTERVAL, WHICH MEANS THAT WE DON'T EXPECT THAT TYPE OF DEPTH OF FLOW IN THE CREEK EXCEPT FOR MAYBE ONCE EVERY 10 YEARS OR 10% CHANCE OF THAT HAPPENING IN ANY ONE YEAR. AS PREDICTED IN OUR MASTER PLAN, THAT WAS ADOPTED BY COUNCIL BACK IN JUNE, WE DID HAVE FLOODING PROBLEMS DOWNTOWN. PARTICULARLY ALONG SHOAL CREEK. THE LAMAR BOULEVARD AREA AND 9TH AND 10TH STREET. 20 BEES WERE FLOODED BY THREE OR FOUR ?? BUSINESSES WERE FLOODED BY THREE OR FOUR FEET OF WATER. LOOKING OVER TO WALLER CREEK, WALLER CREEK ITSELF, SOMETHING LESS THAN A 10 YEAR STORM OVER THERE. WE DIDN'T HAVE GAUGE INFORMATION FOR STREAM FLOWS, AS YOU CAN TELL FROM THE SLIDE, WE HAVE DEBRIS IN THE VERY UPPER AREAS OF THE CREEK BANK, STUCK IN THE RAILINGS RIGHT THERE ALONG THE PEDESTRIAN PATH. THERE WERE SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS ALONG BOTH SHOAL CREEK AND WALLER CREEK DURING THE STORM. THE CITY HAS MADE SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENTS OVER THE LAST 20 YEARS FOR FLOOD CONTROL THROUGHOUT THE CITY, INCLUDING THE SHOAL CREEK AND WALLER CREEK WATERSHEDS. THESE INCLUDE LARGE DETENTION PONDS IN THE UPPER PARTS OF THE WATERSHED AND CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS TO WIDEN THE CREEK. OUR CURRENT PROPOSALS TO ADDRESS THE FLOODING IN THE LOWER PART OF DOWNTOWN INCLUDE DIVERSION TUNNELS TO REDUCE THE 100 YEAR FLOODING IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA. NOW, THESE TUNNELS ARE VERY EXPENSIVE. 46 MILLION AND 06 MILLION DOLLARS. ?? 60 MILLION DOLLARS. ALSO LOOKING YOU ON OF THE CREEK AND LOOKING AT OUR STORM DRAINS, THE MAJORITY OF OUR STORM DRAINS DOWNTOWN ARE MORE THAN 50 YEARS OLD AND UNDERSIZED. WE ARE EXPECTING AN ADDITIONAL $90 MILLION WORTH OF NEED THERE OVER THE NEXT 40 YEARS TO REPLACE THOSE. TALKING ABOUT EROSION. WE DO HAVE ?? EROSION PROBLEMS AGAIN IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA. WHEN YOU LOOK AT JUST THE EVENTS OF NOVEMBER 15TH, THE HEAVY RAINFALL, WE HAD TWO NEW PROBLEMS OCCUR. PARTICULARLY JUST UPSTREAM OF THE FIFTH STREET BRIDGE ON SHOAL CREEK WHERE PART OF A PARKING LOT THAT BELONGED TO THE OLD MIGUEL'S IMPORT BUSINESS WATCHED INTO THE CREEK. WALLER CREEK, PART OF A YARD AND FENCE HAS FALLEN INTO THE CREEK. OUR CURRENT STRATEGY FOR EROSION CONTROL ALONG OUR URBAN CREEKS IS STREAM STABILIZATION. THERE'S A GOOD EXAMPLE ON THE BOTTOM LEFT CORNER OF THE SLIDE THAT SHOWS ONE OF OUR RECENT PROJECTS THAT WE COMPLETED BETWEEN FIFTH STREET AND WEST AVENUE ALONG SHOAL CREEK. AS YOU CAN SEE IT HELD UP QUITE WELL AGAINST THE RAGING FLOOD WATERS. BECAUSE DOWNTOWN IS 100%, HAS IMPERVIOUS COVER LEVELS THAT EXCEED THE 50%, 70% RANGE, IT'S NOT SURPRISING TO SEE REDUCED BASE FLOWS IN THE INCREASE, INCREASED POLLUTANT LOADS, HABITAT DEGRADATION AND GENERAL IMPACTED CREEKS IN REGARDS TO BIOLOGY AS WELL. AN AGGRESSIVE RETROFIT IS NEEDED TO HOPEFULLY REALIZE IMPROVEMENT IN OUR CREEKS. THEY ALSO HAVE A DIRECT IMPACT ON THE WATER QUALITY OF TOWN LAKE WHICH IS THE RECIPIENT OF SEDIMENT AND OTHER POLLUTANTS. I THINK THERE'S A VERY GOOD PHOTO OF THAT ON THIS SLIDE THAT SHOWS SEDIMENT BEING DISCHARGED FROM SHOAL CREEK TO TOWN LAKE. SHOAL CREEK IS PROBABLY THE HIGHEST NEED AREA FOR CURRENT EROSION OF THE URBAN WATERSHEDS. IN PREVIOUS PRESENTATIONS I THINK WE HAVE ALSO TALKED ABOUT WALNUT CREEK BEING A SUBURBAN WATER SAID WHERE WE ARE EXPECTING A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF FUTURE EROSION. THE REQUEST BY COUNCIL TO TALK ABOUT ?? [BUZZER SOUNDING] ?? WE DID PUT INFORMATION TOGETHER ON FEE WAIVER. AS I MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY, DOWNTOWN IS COMPLETELY DEVELOPED. ALMOST DEVELOPED. REALLY WHEN THERE'S ANY DEVELOPMENT IN DOWNTOWN, WHAT WE REALLY ARE LOOKING AT IS REDEVELOPMENT, THE REPLACEMENT OF IMPERVIOUS COVER. THESE PROJECTS USUALLY GO THROUGH THE SITE PLAN PROCESS, THEY ARE REVIEWED FOR DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES TO LOOK AT FLOODING EROSION, WATER QUALITY ISSUES, AND AS ?? AS THESE PROJECTS MOVE THROUGH THE PROCESS, WE DO SEE OPPORTUNITIES SOMETIMES FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS. SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DID WITH THE CSC PROJECT, ABLE TO UPGRADE STORM DRAINS ADJACENT TO THAT PROJECT. IN SUMMARY, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT FEE WAIVERS, IN THE URBAN WATERSHED'S ORDINANCE, THAT WAS PASSED BY CITY COUNCIL IN 1991, A REQUIREMENT FOR WATER QUALITY STRUCTURAL CONTROLS WAS INCLUDED IN THE ORDINANCE. ALSO INCLUDED IN THE ORDINANCE WAS A FEW IN LIEU OF PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPERS TO BE ABLE TO PAY A FEW INSTEAD OF BUILDING ON SITE WATER QUALITY CONTROLS. THE FEES GENERATE ON AN ANNUAL BASIS ABOUT 1.25 MILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR ON AVERAGE. PER THE UWO, FOR REDEVELOPMENT, WHETHER THAT'S REDEVELOPMENT IN DOWNTOWN OR REDEVELOPMENT ANYWHERE IN THE URBAN WATERSHEDS, THE CITY PAYS 75% OF THE YOU FEE AND THE DEVELOPER'S PORTION IS 25%. SO WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THESE FEE WAIVERS FOR DOWNTOWN PROJECTS, WHAT WE ARE REALLY LOOKING AT IS A WAIVER OF THE 25% MATCH FOR SOME OF THE LARGE DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS. OVER THE LAST THREE OR FOUR YEARS, THESE WAIVERS HAVE TOTALED ABOUT 100,000 TO $200,000 PER YEAR ON AVERAGE. WHEN COUNCIL CONSIDERS THESE FEE WAIVERS IN THE FUTURE, OBVIOUSLY WE NEED TO COMPARE AND LOOK AT THE BENEFITS OF THESE FEE WAIVERS AGAINST THE COSTS OF THE I GUESS THE LOST REVENUE POTENTIAL. AND THOSE BENEFITS BEING THAT ?? THAT DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT, STEERING DEVELOPMENT AWAY FROM SENSITIVE AREAS AND OBVIOUSLY WE PREFER DEVELOPMENT TO OCCUR, REDEVELOPMENT TO OCCUR DOWNTOWN AS OPPOSED TO OUR SUBURBAN FRINGE WHERE NEW PROBLEMS WOULD BE CREATED. OBVIOUSLY IT DOES SLOW THE EXPANSION OF OUR UTILITY SERVICE AREA. IT DECREASES LONG?TERM INFRASTRUCTURE MAINTENANCE COSTS, THERE ARE OTHER NON?WATERSHED BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH TRANSPORTATION AND OTHER UTILITIES, CLEAN AIR, DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES. I KNOW THAT YOU MAY HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE NOVEMBER 15TH STORM. OR ANY WATERSHED PROTECTION ISSUES IN GENERAL. LIKE I SAID GEORGE OSWALD AND LES TOLL ARE HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THAT CONCLUDES OUR PRESENTATION.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, QUESTIONS? ON ANY OF THESE ISSUES? COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

WYNN: BRIEF QUESTION FOR MR. OSWALD, I KNOW THAT YOU HAVE YOUR ONGOING MASTER PLAN TO NEEDED PROJECTS FOR FLOOD CONTROL AND ?? AND SLOPE FAILURES, ALL OF THE DIFFERENT THINGS THAT WE DEAL WITH. DID THE FLOOD OF THIS THANKSGIVING CHANGE THAT. DID YOU ALL JUST LOOK AT ?? AT SORT OF YOUR PRIORITIES AND THINK ?? MOVE SOME PROJECTS UP ON THE LIST, MOVE SOME DOWN, ET CETERA?

BASICALLY, THE ?? LET ME RUN THROUGH WHERE THE MAJOR FLOODING OCCURS, SPEAK TO HOW THOSE AREAS PLAY INTO THE MASTER PLAN. WE HAVE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT LOWER SHOAL CREEK. THAT WAS IDENTIFIED AS A HIGH PRIORITY NEED. AND THE MASTER PLAN. OTHER MAJOR AREAS ARE LOWER ONION CREEK, WE HAD WATER IN OVER 350 HOMES IN THAT AREA. ONION CREEK WASN'T INCLUDED IN THE MASTER PLAN, BUT WE HAVE A SEPARATE INITIATIVE FOR THAT WATERSHED TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WORKING JOINTLY WITH THE CORPORATION OF ENGINEERS, TRAVIS COUNTY AND LCRA, CONDUCTING AN ENGINEERING STUDY TO ASSESS BOTH BUYOUTS AND STRUCTURAL SOLUTIONS FOR THAT AREA. OTHER AREAS, MIDDLE WILLIAMSON CREEK THAT WAS HEAVILY IMPACTED, THAT WAS IDENTIFIED IN THE MASTER PLAN, SOLUTIONS WERE IDENTIFIED IN THE MASTER PLAN FOR THAT AREA. SO THOSE ARE THE ?? THE MAJOR IMPACTED AREAS AND THEY ?? THE ?? WE DO HAVE IDENTIFIED SOLUTIONS IN THE MASTER PLAN. WHERE WE ARE LIMITED IN OO ?? IS IN THE AMOUNT OF FUNDING TO MOVE FORWARD. WE ARE MOVING FORWARD, IF WE WANT TO IMPLEMENT SOLUTIONS MORE QUICKLY THAN PROPOSED, WE WOULD HAVE TO ACCELERATE THE FUNDING OF THE PROJECTS.

THAT'S ALL, MAYOR.

ANYBODY ELSE, ANY QUESTIONS?

SLUSHER: SO WHAT KIND OF INCREASE IN THE DRAINAGE FEE WOULD BE LOOKING AT TO SEE ?? WELL, ONE TO TAKE CARE OF ALL OF THESE PROBLEMS AND, TWO, IF WE COULD ACCELERATE BEYOND WHAT WE ARE ALREADY TALKING ABOUT. I'M NOT NECESSARILY RECOMMENDING THAT. WE JUST HAD A BRIEFING ON THE FINANCIAL ?? THE REVENUES SLOWING CONSIDERABLY. BUT I WOULD JUST LIKE TO KNOW WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT BECAUSE WHEN PEOPLE SEE ?? OKAY, WE KNOW WHERE THE PROBLEMS ARE, BUT THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT IT IS. WE CAN'T AFFORD TO FIX THEM. SO WHAT WOULD THAT TAKE?

CURRENTLY, WE HAVE A PROPOSAL, A FIVE YEAR PROPOSAL TO INCREASE THE DRAINAGE FEE TO PICK UP ABOUT AN ADDITIONAL $20 MILLION A YEAR TO SUPPORT CRITICAL FUNDING NEEDS AND WE MAY NEED TO RE?EVALUATE THE ADEQUACY OF THAT WITH RESPECT TO THE TIME FRAME FOR IMPLEMENTING THE PROJECTS. BUT THAT'S THE PRIMARY ?? THAT AND ADDITIONAL BOND ISSUES WOULD BE THE TWO PRIMARY VEHICLES FOR US TO ?? TO ACCELERATE THE NEED.

SLUSHER: OKAY. SO THE 20 MILLION ??

YES, SIR.

SLUSHER: ?? A. , HOW MUCH OF AN INCREASE ?? TELL US WHAT THE FEE IS NOW, WHAT IT WOULD HAVE TO BE TO RAISE THAT 20 MILLION.

I BELIEVE THE FEE IS SOMEWHERE AROUND $5.21. THAT GENERATE JUST OVER $20 MILLION. AND IT'S ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE WOULD BE DOING IS DOUBLING THE FEE OVER A FOUR OR FIVE YEAR PERIOD. NOW, PART OF THOSE INCREASES ARE ALSO ASSOCIATED WITH THE COST OF SERVICE IMPLEMENTATION THAT WE ARE CURRENTLY UNDERWAY WITH FOR THE COMMERCIAL CUSTOMERS TO GET THE CUSTOMER CLASSES AND EQUITY THERE.

SLUSHER: OKAY. AND THEN SO THAT ?? THAT DOUBLING IT, THAT'S AN INCREASE OF $5.21 PER MONTH, $60 A YEAR OR 61, I GUESS. SO WHAT ?? WHAT ?? WHAT'S THE TOTAL AMOUNT IN THE MASTER PLAN?

THE MASTER PLAN IDENTIFIED OVER $800 MILLION WORTH OF NEED. BEING A MASTER PLAN IT REALLY WAS TO SET A GENERAL LEVEL OF FUNDING ON AN ANNUAL BASIS. BECAUSE IT WAS A 40 YEAR MASTER PLAN, WE IDENTIFIED ABOUT $20 MILLION WORTH OF NEED ON AN ANNUAL BASIS. I DO WANT TO CLARIFY, THOUGH, THAT THAT $20 MILLION PER YEAR, THAT $800 MILLION NEED ACROSS 40 YEARS, THE MAJORITY OF THAT IS TO ADDRESS EXISTING PROBLEMS. NOT TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEMS IN 40 YEARS THAT WE EXPECT TO HAVE. I WOULD SAY PROBABLY 60 TO 70% OF THAT $800 MILLION IS TO CORRECT EXISTING DEFICIENCIES IN OUR SYSTEMS.

SLUSHER: HOW WOULD YOU DEVELOP MORE FLOODING PROBLEMS IN 40 YEARS? YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE BESIDES JUST FLOODING PROBLEMS THERE?

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT FLOODING, EROSION, WATER QUALITY. YOU MAY RECALL WE GAVE A PRESENTATION RECENTLY ON THE WALNUT CREEK WATERSHED, WE ARE EXPECTING SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF EROSION TO OCCUR BECAUSE OF SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT IN THE WALNUT CREEK WATERSHED. WE HAVE PROPOSALS TO PREVENT THAT TYPE OF SCENARIO, NEEDING ABOUT 10 TO 12 MILLION DOLLARS FOR EROSION DETENTION PONDS THAT WOULD ALSO DOUBLE AS FLOOD CONTROL PONDS WHERE WE WOULD ?? WHAT WE WOULD CALL AN INTEGRATED PROJECT TO SOLVE BOTH THE FLOODING AND EROSION PROBLEMS IN THE WALNUT CREEK WATERSHED.

IF IT'S GOING TO CAUSE SERIOUS EROSION PROBLEMS, THE CITY IS GOING TO HAVE TO PAY TO ATTEMPT TO CORRECT LATER, WHY ARE WE ALLOWING THAT TO PROCEED, THAT KIND OF DEVELOPMENT TO PROCEED.

AS PART OF THE MASTER PLAN, WE DID PROPOSE NEW REGULATORY INITIATIVES, INCLUDING STREAM SETBACKS FOR EROSION DETENSION, BUT THE THING WITH STREAM BANK DEGRADATION OR EROSION ALONG EXTREMES, IT DOESN'T OCCUR OVERNIGHT. SO A LOT OF THE DEVELOPMENT THAT IS ALREADY OUT THERE, THE FULL IMPACT OF THAT DEVELOPMENT THAT OCCURRED PRIOR TO OUR CURRENT REGULATIONS OR ANY EROSION REGULATIONS WOULD CONTINUE TO DEGRADE OUR STREAMS.

SLUSHER: OKAY. BUT ARE WE ?? WE APPROVED ?? DEVELOPMENT WE APPROVE BETWEEN NOW AND THEN, ARE WE FACTORING THAT INTO THAT, ARE WE TRYING TO PREVENT THE EROSION IN WHAT WE APPROVE, ARE WE SAYING THIS IS GOING TO CAUSE ??

WE CURRENTLY HAVE EROSION REGULATIONS ON THE BOOKS AT THIS TIME. WE HAVE A CRITERIA FOR CONTROLLING THE TWO?YEAR PEAK RUN OFF. WE WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO CHANGE THAT TO A VOLUME BASED APPROACH THAT OUR TECHNICAL EXPERTS HAVE FOUND IS MORE EFFECTIVE IN CONTROLLING EROSION, AGAIN, WHEN YOU LOOK ACROSS THE URBAN WATERSHED ESPECIALLY, WE ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO SEE STREAM EROSION FROM ALL OF THE DEVELOPMENT THAT OCCURRED PRIOR TO THOSE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.

SLUSHER: RIGHT, BECAUSE IT'S ?? I MEAN, THAT ALLOWS THE WATER TO ROLL DOWN THERE AND ??

RIGHT.

SLUSHER: OVER TIME IT CAUSES IT TO ERODE.

IN GENERAL, WE ESTIMATE THAT IT TAKES MAYBE 30 TO 40 YEARS FOR A WATERSHED OR CREEK OR STREAM TO REACT TO THE DEVELOPMENT THAT HAS OCCURRED IN ITS WATERSHED. DEVELOPMENT THAT OCCURRED 20, 30 YEARS AGO, PRIOR TO OUR REGULATIONS, IT'S CONTINUING TO STILL HAVE AN EFFECT AS THE INCREASED FLOWS CONTINUE TO ERODE. SHOAL CREEK IS A VERY GOOD EXAMPLE WHERE IT'S BEEN COMPLETELY BUILT OUT. MOSTLY PRIOR TO OUR REGULATIONS FOR EROSION. AND THE STREAM CONTINUES TO ERODE.

SLUSHER: I VISITED PROPERTY, THIS ?? PARTICULAR ONES IN EAST AUSTIN, SOME IN WEST AUSTIN, SEEN PICTURES ANYWAY. BUT WHERE FOLKS ARE STARTING TO LOSE PARTS OF THEIR YARD. AND WHAT I ?? I GUESS THE DEPARTMENT SAYS WELL WE HAVE SITUATIONS THAT ARE EVEN WORSE THAN THIS. SO WE CAN'T GET TO THIS ONE BECAUSE IT'S A ?? IT'S NOT ON THE HIGHEST PRIORITY LIST. BUT OF COURSE THAT'S YOUR YARD, THAT'S PRETTY SERIOUS TO YOU. SO WHAT ?? IF WE INCREASE THE DRAINAGE FEE BY $5, GIVE ME AN IDEA OF HOW MANY MORE OF THESE SITUATIONS WE ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS.

THE WAY THAT WE APPROACH THE FUNDING OF ANY PARTICULAR PROJECT, THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS SPELLED OUT IN THE MASTER PLAN, IS IS THAT WE HAVE ESTABLISHED A PRIORITIZATION PROCESS THAT'S BASED ON PROBLEM SEVERITY. SO THE WORST PROBLEMS WOULD BE CORRECTED FIRST. IT WOULD JUST BE A MATTER OF IDENTIFYING ADDITIONAL FUNDING AND ESSENTIALLY WORKING OUR WAY DOWN A PRIORITIZATION LIST. RIGHT NOW FOR OUR EROSION PROGRAM, WE KNOW OF A NUMBER OF HOMES AND BUSINESSES THAT ARE WITHIN INCHES OF STREAM BANKS THAT ARE ERODING VERY QUICKLY. IN FACT THERE WERE A COUPLE OF EMERGENCY PROJECTS THAT COUNCIL APPROVED, EMERGENCY FUNDING FOR, TO STABILIZE THE STREAMS, PARTICULARLY ALONG LOYOLA LANE IN THE LITTLE WALNUT CREEK WATERSHED, I BELIEVE.

YES.

AND NORTHWEST PARK. THAT HAS SIGNIFICANT DAMAGE THAT'S ABOUT TO COMPROMISE THE INTEGRITY OF OUR 100 YEAR DETENTION POND UP IN THE MIDDLE OF SHOAL CREEK. SO AGAIN AS THAT ADDITIONAL FUNDING CAME IN, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO SUPPORT, FIX THIS ?? FIXES FOR PEOPLE'S HOMES AND YARDS IN TERMS OF STABILIZING THE STREAM BANK TO STOP THE EROSION ON A PRIORITY BASIS. AND WE WOULD BE DEVELOPING PROJECTS GOING DOWN THE LIST AS THIS FUNDING CAME IN.

COUNCILMEMBER, WE HAVE IDENTIFIED SLIGHTLY IN EXCESS OF A $12 MILLION NEED, JUST TO ARREST THE EROSION THAT IS IMMEDIATELY THREATENING COLLAPSE OF STRUCTURES. SO UNTIL WE GET TO THAT POINT, THAT'S A HIGHER PRIORITY THAN SAVING BACK YARDS. SO WE ARE ?? WE ARE ?? WE NEED TO GO $12 MILLION IN IMPROVEMENTS BEFORE WE HAVE THE LUXURY OF SAVING BACK YARDS.

SLUSHER: SO THAT'S 60% OF THE 20 YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, IF WE RAISE ABOUT FIVE BUCKS.

IN ONE YEAR.

DOING IT IN ONE YEAR. WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT IS GRADUALLY DOING THAT.

WE HAVE A TREMENDOUS CHALLENGE OUT THERE. I KNOW YOU HAVE A LOT OF CUSTOMERS CALLING YOU DIRECTLY SEEKING RELIEF. BUT WE HAVE SET THE PRIORITY TO SAVE PEOPLE'S HOMES PRIOR ?? BEFORE WE GET INTO SAVING BACK YARDS. UNTIL WE HAVE MORE MONEY TO GO BOTH WAYS, I THINK WE NEED TO STICK WITH THOSE PRIORITIES.

SLUSHER: WELL, I CERTAINLY AGREE WITH THAT. I'M JUST REALLY LOOKING, WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS MOVE THIS UP A LITTLE FASTER AS FAR AS THE RATE. I IMAGINE A LOT OF THE CITIZENS OF AUSTIN WOULD SUPPORT THAT. AND I ?? ANOTHER THING IS THAT ?? WE ARE JUST TALKING ABOUT EROSION THERE. WE HAVE A NUMBER OF HOMES, AS YOU ALL WELL KNOW, BUT THAT WERE BUILT UNDER REGULATION, OLD REGULATIONS OR IN MOST CASES UNDER COUNTY REGULATIONS. NOW THEY ARE IN THE CITY AND THEY ARE IN THE 25 YEAR FLOODPLAIN. THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT ?? THAT GOT FLOODED ALONG WILLIAMSON CREEK, THE WATERSHED THAT I LIVE IN. THEY GOT FLOODED FOR THE SECOND TIME IN THREE YEARS. IN THIS LAST FLOOD. THEY ARE IN THE 25 YEAR FLOODPLAIN. BUT IT'S ?? THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT ANY LESS PAINFUL FOR THEM. IS THERE ?? LESS PAINFUL FOR THEM. IS THERE ANYTHING MORE IMMEDIATE WE CAN DO. I KNOW THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS PROGRAMS TO BUY OUT SOME OF THE HOUSES THAT GOT FLOODED IN 1998. I THINK THAT PROGRAM REQUIRES IF ?? IF THEY ARE FLOODED REPEATEDLY, SO WOULD TWICE IN THREE YEARS, THAT SEEMS LIKE THAT WOULD COUNT AS REPEATEDLY.

WE CAN PURSUE THOSE GRANTS. THERE ARE LOCAL MATCHES REQUIRED. AND WE ARE REEVALUATING THAT IN RESPONSE TO THE NOVEMBER 15TH EVENT. BASICALLY, WE ARE LIMITED NOW BY THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WE HAVE. WE KNOW WHERE IT FLOODS, WE KNOW THE NEED, WE KNOW THE SOLUTIONS, IF WE HAVE MORE MONEY, WE CAN MOVE FORWARD MORE QUICKLY.

SLUSHER: I UNDERSTAND. WELL, YOU GOT BAD TIMING, I GUESS, COMING UP RIGHT AFTER THE FINANCIAL BRIEFING. BUT I THINK THIS MIGHT BE AN AREA WHERE WE HAVE TO ?? TO BITE THE BULLET AND GET MORE FUNDS INTO THE DRAINAGE DEPARTMENT.

OUR DEPARTMENT IS READY TO PROCEED IF WE HAVE THOSE RESOURCES.

OKAY.

SLUSHER: THANK YOU. [ LAUGHTER ].

THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER.

MAYOR GARCIA: HAVE WE MADE AN ESTIMATE OF THE LOSSES THAT WERE INCURRED IN THE ONION CREEK FOREST NEIGHBORHOOD?

WE HAVE A COUNT OF HOMES, OVER 350 HOMES HAD WATER IN THEM IN THAT AREA. THE FLOODING WAS VERY SEVERE, MAYOR, I BELIEVE THAT YOU WERE OUT THERE PERSONALLY AND SPOKE TO SOME OF THE INDIVIDUALS. FOUR AND FIVE FEET OF WATER IN HOUSES. THREE FEET HIGHER THAN IN 1998. THIS IS THE LARGEST FLOOD ON ONION CREEK SINCE DEVELOPMENT EVER STARTED OCCURRING OUT THERE. THE USGS HAS INFORM WOULD US THAT THIS IS CERTAINLY THE LARGEST STORM SINCE 1941 AND IT MAY BE THE LARGEST STORM ON ONION CREEK IN OVER 100 YEARS. SO THIS IS SIGNIFICANT AND IT UNDERSCORES THE IMPORTANCE OF US MOVING FORWARD WITH THE SOLUTION IN THAT AREA. THERE ARE OVER 800 HOMES IN THE FLOODPLAIN IN THAT AREA, IF YOU LOOK AT ONION CREEK, FOREST AND YARBY BEND ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CREEK. VERY SERIOUS SITUATION, EXTREMELY HIGH HAZARD. THAT'S WHAT WE ARE WORKING WITH THE CORPS ON. THE SOLUTION WILL BE VERY EXPENSIVE. BUYOUTS OR STRUCTURAL SOLUTIONS, SOMETHING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF $100 MILLION. THE BEAUTY OF WORKING WITH THE CORPS, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WOULD FUND 65% OF THAT. I THINK THAT IS CRITICAL TO THE SUCCESS OF A SOLUTION OUT THERE WHEN YOU ARE THINKING OF SOMETHING OF A FIX. AT THAT LEVEL OF EXPENDITURE.

MAYOR GARCIA: I WOULD SAY THAT PROBABLY THE LOSSES INCURRED BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS PROBABLY GOT CLOSE TO 50 MILLION.

WE ARE STILL DEBATING THAT WITH FEMA AS WE SPEAK. WE ARE STILL PURSUING THE FEDERAL DISASTER DECLARATION, WHICH WOULD MAKE FEDERAL MONEYS IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE AND WE ARE AT ?? AT DIFFERENCES WITH FEMA ON THE EXTENT OF THE LAWS.

BY THE TIME THAT YOU HAVE FIXED EVERYTHING THAT WAS DAMAGED INSIDE OF THE HOUSE, ALL OF THE FURNITURE THAT WAS DAMAGED, IT'S AT LEAST $20,000 PER HOUSE, WHAT WE SAW.

I AGREE WITH THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: THERE WAS SOME HOUSES THAT WERE LITERALLY DESTROYED. FOR ALL PRACTICAL INTENT AND PURPOSES. IF YOU ALL COULD KEEP US BRIEFED ON ?? ON ANYTHING THAT'S IN THAT AREA, BECAUSE THAT TO ME IS ?? IS IS I GUESS THE AREA THAT RECEIVED THE MOST DAMAGE, RIGHT?

YES, SIR.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. THEN OVER HERE IN EAST AUSTIN, THE OIL COMPANY THEY OWN ?? I CAN'T REMEMBER THE ANYMORE NAIL OF IT. ON SIXTH STREET ?? THE NAME OF IT. SIXTH STREET JUST EAST OF COMAL, THEY HAD FLOODING THERE. I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED. IF IT HAD TO DO WITH DETENTION OR DO YOU KNOW?

PROBABLY IT WAS THE STORM DRAIN NETWORKS. ONE OF THE INTERESTING ASPECT OF THIS STORM WAS THE VERY INTENSE SHORT?TERM RAINFALL AND THESE STORM DRAINS REALLY GET TESTED UNDER THOSE CONDITIONS, AS JOE MENTIONED WE HAD SOME AREAS THAT RECEIVED CLOSE TO FIVE INCHES OF RAIN IN AN HOUR, THAT'S OVER A 100 YEAR EVENT FOR ONE HOUR. THAT WAS ONE OF THE MAJOR OCCURRENCES DURING THIS STORM EVENT. NOT ONLY THE ?? LARGE DAMAGE CENTER LIKE ONION CREEK AND LOWER SHOAL, BUT ALL OF THESE SMALL POCKETS WHERE THE STORM DRAINS WERE UNDER BUILT BECAUSE THEY WERE BUILT UNDER OLD STANDARDS. THAT'S PART OF ANOTHER HUGE NEED HAS WE HAVE ?? THAT WE HAVE. IN THE OLDER AREAS OF TOWN TO REBUILD THE STORM DRAINS SO THEY CAN HANDLE DRAINAGE LIKE AS REQUIRED UNDER OUR CURRENT DESIGN CRITERIA.

I DON'T KNOW, YOU KNOW, HOW MUCH WE CAN TELL FROM ?? FROM CLIMATE CHANGE AND HOW THIS STORM ?? HOW THE STORMS ARE AFFECTED BY CLIMATE CHANGE, BUT I'M SURE THAT THERE WILL BE, AFTER THIS ONE THERE WILL BE SOME ?? SOME STUDIES DONE, YOU KNOW, AS TO THE EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND DEVELOPMENT. DURING THE MEETING AT CAMPO, WE WERE ALSO TALKING ABOUT THE FACT THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE AN EXTENSION OF U.S. 290 WEST, BUT THAT'S IN WILLIAMSON. HOW TEXDOT WAS GOING TO HANDLE THE RUBOFF FROM THAT ?? RUNOFF FROM THAT PROJECT SO WE DON'T EXACERBATE THE PROJECT IN THE LOWER REACHES OF THE WATERSHED.

WE HAVE A STORM LIKE THIS PROBABLY ABOUT EVERY FIVE YEARS, CERTAINLY THIS IS THE BIGGEST ONE SINCE '81, BUT MEMORABLE DATES ARE '81, '91, '98 '01, BACK IN THE 70'S WE HAD SEVERAL BIG STORMS. THIS IS A REPRESENTATIVE ISSUE THAT WE NEED TO DEAL WITH. WE NEED TO BE THINKING ABOUT IT EVEN WHEN WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF A DROUGHT.

RIGHT. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WOULD RECOMMEND IS THAT WE LOOK AT THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY STATISTICS WITH REGARD TO THE FREQUENCY OF THE STORMS. BECAUSE IF PEOPLE IN ONION CREEK FOREST WERE TALKING ABOUT THE FACT THAT THIS JUST HAPPENED IN 1998, IT WAS HAPPENING EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE, NOW EVERY THREE OR FOUR YEARS. SO THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY HAS A LOT OF STATISTICS DEALING WITH WHAT'S HAPPENING, YOU, TO WEATHER. AND THE EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON WEATHER. ANYBODY ELSE? QUESTIONS? COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH?

GRIFFITH: YES, MAYOR, THANK YOU. CAN WE TALK ABOUT RAIN WATER HARVESTING. HOW DOES THAT STRATEGY FIT INTO THE OVERALL PLAN AND COULD WE REDUCE THE IMPACT OF ECONOMISTING AND ?? OF EXISTING AND FUTURE IMPERVIOUS COVER IN TERMS OF FLOODING AND EROSION IF WE DID MORE OF THAT?

I'M LES TOLL WITH THE WATERSHED PROTECTION. IN GENERAL WE LOOK AT RAIN WATER HARVESTING AS POTENTIAL A WATER QUALITY MEASURE, NOT AS A FLOODING OR EROSION CONTROL MEASURE, THOUGH IT MAY HAVE SOME EROSION BENEFITS. GENERALLY SPEAKING THE QUANTITY, VOLUME OF WATER THAT YOU ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO CAPTURE IN A RAINFALL HARVESTING SYSTEM IS SMALL. THAT WATER IS USUALLY KEPT IN THE SYSTEM UNTIL A DRY PERIOD, SO IT'S NOT GOING TO FUNCTION REALLY TO REDUCE THE LARGE STORMS, THE FLOOD EVENTS LIKE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE. IT MIGHT, HOWEVER, BECAUSE IT MIGHT CAPTURE SMALL AMOUNTS ON A MORE REGULAR BASIS HELP IN TERMS OF WHAT'S COMING OFF OF ROOF TOPS, PRODUCING THE TOTAL ?? REDUCING THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF RUNOFF FROM HOMES OR BUSINESSES, THAT COULD BENEFIT THE CREEK.

MAYOR GARCIA: OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU. COUNCIL, WE NEED TO GO BACK AND TAKE ACTION ON SOME ITEMS THAT WERE ?? THAT WERE GOING TO BE DONE AFTER WE DID THE AUSTIN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION AND ONE OF THEM IS ITEM NO. 12. IT'S AMEND THE ORDINANCE BY INCREASING THE APPROPRIATIONS TO THE WATER AND WASTEWATER UTILITY BY $260,000. IS THERE A MOTION? THIS IS RELATED TO ITEM 48 AND 49.

GOODMAN: SO MOVE, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM. IS THERE A SECOND? SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE AYE OPPOSED, NO. MOTION CARRIES. WITH EVERYBODY HERE VOTING FOR IT I THINK WE HAD THE WHOLE COUNCIL. ITEM 48 AND 49, ARE RELATED TO THIS ONE. AND WE WILL GO TO THOSE QUICKLY. THIS IS THE RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING NEGOTIATION, EXECUTION OF A COST REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT WITH REAL?TEX DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $260,000 FOR HARD CONSTRUCTION COSTS, THERE IS A ?? IS THERE A MOTION?

GOODMAN: SO MOVED.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS. DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.?

AYE.

MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF 7 TO 0. AND 49 IS TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION TO REIMBURSE CONSTRUCTION COSTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2 OF 0,000 TO BE PAID FOR ?? 260,000 TO BE PAID FOR THE RIVERSIDE MEADOWS WASTEWATER PROJECT. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

GOODMAN: SO MOVE.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM, SECONDED BY ?? BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF 7 TO 0. WE ARE THROUGH WITH YOUR ITEMS. ON ITEM NO. 5, MR. CITY MANAGER, WE HAD ?? WE HAD A NOTE THAT WE MAY BE THINKING OF POSTPONING THAT ONE. OKAY, WE ARE POSTPONING ITEM NO. 5 TO NEXT WEEK. AND WE NEED TO RECONSIDER ITEM 13, COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, BECAUSE THIS ONE INCLUDED THE ?? THE ITEM THAT WAS POSTPONED. SO WE NEED A VOTE FOR RECONSIDERATION ON 13.

WYNN: SO MOVE.

CAN YOU EXPLAIN ??

GOODMAN: SECOND.

YES, ON ITEM NO. 13, THAT WAS TO ?? TO EXPAND THE EMERGENCY SERVICE DISTRICTS OUT INTO ALL OF THE ANNEXED AREAS. AND IT LISTED AMONG THE ITEMS THE NUWATNE TRACT POSTPONED, ITEM NO. 43, SO I WOULD BELIEVE THAT YOU COULD HAVE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER NO. 13 TO DELETE THAT TRACT FROM THE EMERGENCY SERVICE DISTRICT EXPANSION. MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.?

AYE. MOTION CARRIES. THEN TO RECONSIDER ITEM 13, EXCLUDING THE NUWHATNEY TRACT.

WYNN: MOVE APPROVAL OF ITEM NO. 13, EXCLUDING THAT TRACT REFERENCED IN ITEM NO. 43.

SECOND. MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH. ?? MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH. DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. OPPOSED, NO. MOTION CARRIES. OKAY. [ONE MOMENT PLEASE FOR CHANGE IN CAPTIONERS].

MAYOR GARCIA: DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. MOTION CARRIES. WAS THAT YOU? OKAY. OKAY. BACK TO Z?1.

ITEM NUMBER Z?1 IS A CASE THAT IS STYLED SP 814. THIS IS THE PLANNED WILD HORSE DEVELOPMENT. THIS COMPRISES APPROXIMATELY 2,000 ACRES AND IS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 2,000 FEET SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF BLUE BLUFF AND OLD HIGHWAY 20 IN THE GILLELAND CREEK WATERSHED. THIS IS AN AREA THAT WE ARE WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT TO ANNEX INTO THE CITY OF AUSTIN TO HOPEFULLY ENHANCE OUR TAX BASE. THE APPLICANT HAS PUT FORTH A PLAN THAT ADDRESSES A VARIETY OF USES, AND THE USES THAT ARE PROPOSED INCLUDE SINGLE?FAMILY, SOME MULTI?FAMILY AND SOME COMMERCIAL USES. THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT IS IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE ALSO IS SEEKING SEVERAL ENVIRONMENTAL VARIANCES. AND I WILL JUST RUN THROUGH SOME OF THESE ASPECTS THAT ARE BEING ACCEPTED FROM THE PLANNED USE DEVELOPMENT. BEFORE I EVEN GET TO THAT I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT A PLANNED USE DEVELOPMENT IS PLANNED TO ENHANCE ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES. IT IS INTENDED TO BE SUPERIOR IN DESIGN THAN YOU WOULD SEE THROUGH CONVENTIONAL ZONING. SO I WILL JUST GIVE YOU AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT AND THE APPLICANT WILL WALK YOU THROUGH THE SPECIFICS OF THE PROJECT. THE CASE HAS BEEN BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD. BOTH THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD RECOMMENDS THIS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE IT DOES PROVIDE INNOVATIVE DEVELOPMENT, IT'S PARTIALLY BASED ON THE PRINCIPLES OF NEOTRADITIONAL PLANNING. THE AREA IS IN A TRADITIONALLY DEPRESSED ECONOMIC AREA. IN ADDITION TO THAT, THE APPLICANT DOES OFFER TO PROVIDE REASONABLY PRICED HOUSING AND A LOT OF AMANITIES FOR THIS PROJECT. I'M GOING TO RUN THROUGH SOME OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS. THE ENVIRONMENTAL CODE, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO REDUCE THE STANDARD OF 150?FOOT SET BACK FROM CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL TO 50 FEET. STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND THAT REDUCTION. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO INCREASE CUT AND FILL UP TO 20 FEET. STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND THAT AMOUNT OF CUT AND FILL. THE APPLICANT WILL EXPLAIN WHY HE WOULD LIKE THE ADDITIONAL CUT AND FILL. THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED ITEMS TO PRESERVE THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND ENSURE SUPERIOR DEVELOPMENT TO THAT WHICH WOULD OCCUR WITHOUT THIS TYPE OF ZONING CHANGE. STAFF SUPPORTS THE ITEMS MODIFIED AS FOLLOWS: ADDITIONAL STREAM BUFFERS FOR STREAMS WITH A DRAINAGE AREA BETWEEN 324 AND 265 ACRES. LIMITED IMPERVIOUS COVER, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THAT IT BE LIMITED TO 50%. STAFF RECOMMENDS 40%. THERE ARE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS RELATED TO ENVIRONMENTAL WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE NOT PART OF THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL, BUT STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED. THAT INCLUDES WATER TREATMENT OF RUNOFF ON STATE HIGHWAY 130. STAFF RECOMMENDS THE EXISTENCE OF EXISTING STOCK PONDS AS THEY ARE NOW TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL WATER QUALITY TREATMENT. THESE POND WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH ANY DESIGN CRITERIA OTHER THAN DAM SAFETY AND EMERGENCY SPILLWAYS. AS I INDICATED, THIS CASE HAS BEEN BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD AND IN FACT THE ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD HEARD THIS LAST NIGHT. THEY RECOMMENDED THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO YOU WITH THREE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS. ONE HAD TO DO WITH DRAINAGE EASEMENTS AS SPECIFIED BY STAFF AND SHOULD BE PROVIDED FOR STREAMS WITH DRAINAGE AREAS BETWEEN 10 AND APPROXIMATE 20 ACRES. CONDITION NUMBER 2, THE GOLF COURSE SHOULD BE SUBSTANTIALLY REPLACED WITH THE OPEN PARK SPACE AND UNDISTURBED AREAS. IF A GOLF COURSE IS INCLUDED IN THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, THE CITY OF AUSTIN APPROVED GOLF COURSE MANAGEMENT PLAN SHOULD BE ADOPTED. NUMBER 3, WATER QUALITY MITIGATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED FOR THE INTERSECTION OF STATE HIGHWAY 130 AND PARMER LANE THROUGH THE COMBINED EFFORTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND THE JURISDICTIONAL ENTITIES CONCERNED. THAT CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION. I WILL PAUSE HERE AND LET THE APPLICANT WALK THROUGH THE PROJECT.

GARCIA: MR. DWYER?

I KNOW WHAT TO GIVE YOU GUYS FOR CHRISTMAS. YOU GUYS NEED A NEW EASEL. MAYOR GARCIA, MEMBERS OF THE ??

IT WAS THE LOW BID. [LAUGHTER]. WE'RE PROUD OF OUR EASEL.

MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL, MY NAME IS PETE DWYER. I HAVE PASSED OUT PACKETS OF OUR INFORMATIONAL AND SCIENTIFIC MATERIAL ON THE WILD HORSE PUD. I HAVE SPOKEN TO MANY OF YOU INDIVIDUALLY ABOUT THIS PROJECT. AS YOU KNOW, THIS IS ONE WE'RE VERY EXCITED AND VERY PROUD OF IT. WE HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION THAT WE PASSED OUT TO YOU ALSO AVAILABLE ON A COMPACT DISK THAT WE HAVE TOO IF THAT IS A MORE PORTABLE FORMAT FOR YOU AND WE'LL BE GLAD TO GET YOU ONE OF THOSE. I'VE GOT THEM HERE. I THINK PROBABLY IN EVERYBODY'S MOST EFFICIENT USE OF TIME, IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROJECT IN GENERAL, I'D BE GLAD TO ?? AND HAPPY TO ANSWER THOSE. I'D LIKE TO TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE SPECIFICALLY ABOUT WHERE WE HAVE AGREED TO DISAGREE WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS. WE ARE VERY CLOSE TO FULL AGREEMENT WITH STAFF'S RELIGIOUS. THERE ARE ONLY SEVERAL POINTS OF DIVERSIONS. A LITTLE HISTORY ON WILD HORSE IS IT WAS TURNED INTO THE CITY OF AUSTIN AS A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND WAS CONSIDERABLY PULLED FORWARD THROUGH THE PROCESS WITH THE MAIN TRANSPORTATION NETWORK BEING AN EXTENSION OF PARMER LANE WHERE IT CURRENTLY TERMINATES WITH HIGHWAY 290 DOWN TO 973, THERE BY CREATING WHAT WE THOUGHT WAS AN IMPORTANT TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR TO THE AIRPORT. WE WERE STOPPED IN THAT PROCESS BY THE TURNPIKE AUTHORITY IN THEIR ANNOUNCEMENT THAT THE EASTERN ALIGNMENT OF SH 130 HAD BEEN AGREED TO BY ALL THE PARTIES, SO THE PROJECT ORIGINALLY LOOKED LIKE THIS, AND NOW WE HAVE SH 130 PLANNED TO GO THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF THE PROJECT. WHEN THEY ANNOUNCED THAT TO US, WE WERE PRETTY CONCERNED BECAUSE THAT MEANT WE WERE THROWING HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS OF ENGINEERING WORK IN THE TOILET AND HAVING TO STOP AND REDESIGN. AND THEY AT THAT MEETING SAID, BUT YOU'LL BE COMPENSATED FOR THAT, THE ENGINEERING AND EVERYTHING THAT YOU'RE OUT AND YOU'LL BE COMPENSATED FOR THE LAND. SO THE TWO MAIN AREAS THAT WE DISAGREE WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ON ARE THAT WE SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO CONTRIBUTE THIS RIGHT?OF?WAY SINCE THIS IS A REGIONAL PROJECT. YOU KNOW, IT'S 90 MILES LONG, IT'S A NAFTA HIGHWAY. THERE'S SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS OF FUNDING BUILDING UP TO BE ABLE TO GO BUILD THIS ROAD. WE'RE IN FAVOR OF ANY KIND OF TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT, BUT THIS IS A PRETTY BIG ONE TO ASK US TO MANAGE. AND THE SECOND STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT WE ARE IN DISAGREEMENT WITH IS THAT WE SHOULD SOMEHOW OR ANOTHER HAVE TO MANAGE OR TREAT THE STORM WATER RUNOFF THAT COMES FROM THIS FACILITY. SO WE'VE AGREED TO DISAGREE WITH THOSE TWO MAIN POINTS BECAUSE WE ARE NOT IN ANY MANNER DISAGREEING WITH THE PHILOSOPHY OF TREATING THE STORM WATER RUNOFF, BUT THIS IS NOT A FACILITY THAT WE GENERATE IN THE PROJECT. WE WERE CONTRIBUTING THE RIGHT?OF?WAY TO PARMER LANE AS A GOOD CORPORATE CITIZEN AND AS THE CODE WOULD REQUIRE. WE JUST CAN'T DO THIS AND MAINTAIN OUR PRIMARY GOAL, WHICH IS AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE SETTING. THERE ARE SOME MINOR OTHER DISAGREEMENTS THAT WE HAVE THAT WE HAVE APPLIED IN THE SUPERIORITY CONTEXT OF HAVING A PUD THAT'S A SUPERIOR DEVELOPMENT VEHICLE THAN STANDARD SUBDIVISION AND ZONING IN THE APPLICATION OF STORM WATER MANAGEMENT AND DRAINAGE AREAS ON THE EAST SIDE OF TOWN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ALSO PROVIDES FOR DRAINAGE AREAS TO BE COUNTED AT 320 ACRES. WE'VE BETTERED THAT DOWN TO 64 ACRES AND APPLIED OUR SCIENCE TO THAT. STAFF THINKS THAT THE DRAINAGE AREAS THAT RESULT FROM THAT SHOULD BE WIDER THAN WHAT WE DO AND TREATED A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY. THEY HAVEN'T REALLY SHOWN US THE SIGNS BACKING IT UP. WE'RE NEGOTIATING ON HOW TO MANAGE THAT. AND THEN OVERALL WITH THESE BIG ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS AND OUR OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND OUR SIGNIFICANT GREEN AREAS AND PROPOSED, YOU KNOW, SETBACKS AND GOLF COURSE AREAS, WE THINK THAT WE GENERATE ABOUT 50% IMPERVIOUS COVER ?? [BUZZER]. STAFF THINKS THAT THAT SHOULD BE 40%, AND THAT'S KIND OF AN ARBITRARY JUDGMENT ON US AND WE SIMPLY DISAGREE WITH THAT BECAUSE THERE IS NO BASIS FOR IT IN CODE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND I'LL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.

GARCIA: QUESTIONS OF MR. DWYER? MAYOR PRO TEM?

GOODMAN: I DO HAVE A QUESTION. WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT WHAT IT IS WE MIGHT LOOK AT AS SOME SORT OF COMMITMENT TO BEING ABLE TO MITIGATE WATER QUALITY FROM 130 WHEN IT'S FINALLY IN THERE, YOU WERE GOING TO TRY TO THINK OF SOMETHING THAT YOU COULD COMMIT TO THAT WAS NOT NECESSARILY WHAT WAS FIRST PROPOSED, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, BUT SOMETHING THAT GAVE US A HANDLE IN THE FUTURE TO WORK WITH TXDOT OR THE TURNPIKE AUTHORITY OR WHOEVER BUILDS THIS.

YES. AND I HAVE ?? IT'S BEEN A BRIEF PERIOD OF TIME SINCE WE VISITED ON IT AND WE ARE LOOKING INTO THAT. AND AGAIN, YOU KNOW, AT THIS POINT IN TIME PHILOSOPHICALLY WE'RE BOUGHT INTO THAT. I DON'T WANT TO MAKE A PROMISE THAT I LATER REGRET BECAUSE OF THE BILL THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH IT. THERE ARE SOME AREAS WHERE DRAINAGE OFF OF THIS FACILITY WILL NATURALLY BE CONCENTRATED. AND FOR THE SELF?PRESERVATION OF OUR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE'LL DEFINITELY LOOK AT SOME VELOCITY ATTENUATIONS, SOME STREAM BANK ENHANCEMENTS, GRASSY NATURE STRIPS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE, BUT WE HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL OF THOSE COSTS. AND WE SURE WANT TO GET THE TURNPIKE PEOPLE TO PAY FOR THOSE. AND THEY'LL GET WHATEVER THEY SPEND ON THAT BACK THROUGH TOLLS.

GOODMAN: RIGHT. I'M VERY SUPPORTIVE OF US LOOKING AT THAT, BUT I ALSO WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT UNDERSTAND YOUR DEVELOPMENT WAS NOT ORIGINALLY DESIGNED TO HAVE 130 GO WHERE IT IS NOW PROPOSED, AND I DON'T WANT TO BE PART OF MAKING THAT PENALTY MORE DIFFICULT.

THANK YOU.

WYNN: MAYOR?

GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

WYNN: REMIND ME, HAS THE PROPERTY BEEN ANNEXED?

WE HAVE REQUESTED ANNEXATION. OUR COUNCIL READ AND APPROVED FIRST ROUND ANNEXATION HEARINGS LAST WEEK. IS THERE AN ITEM FOR A SECOND HEARING, SECOND READING TODAY? NO? SO I GUESS WE'LL BRING UP SECOND AND THIRD READING SOON. WE'RE ANTICIPATING ANNEXATION.

WYNN: BASED ON THAT, WHO PURCHASES THE RIGHT?OF?WAY FOR 130, THE COUNTY OR THE CITY?

MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE COUNTY HAS REACHED AN AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE THAT 50% CONTRIBUTIONS ?? NO AGREEMENT YET? THE COUNTY IS NOTING TO TRY TO GET THE STATE TO ACCEPT 50% FUNDING FOR THE SH 130 RIGHT?OF?WAY. AND THAT THERE WAS A POTENTIAL CUTOFF DATE FOR ?? THAT WOULD DESCRIBE LAND THAT WAS IN THE COUNTY AS OF A CERTAIN DATE. SO I REALLY CAN'T HONESTLY ANSWER THAT FOR YOU. I'VE HAD A DISCUSSION WITH MR. LIBRACH ON THE PIECE OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS INTERPORT THAT IS ?? HAS BEEN IN THE CITY LIMITS NOW FOR QUITE SOME TIME AND HAS SH 130 GOING THROUGH IT. AND THERE ARE OTHER FUNDING SOURCES, AND I THINK THE CITY'S RESPONSIBILITY IS FOR PURCHASING THAT RIGHT?OF?WAY.

WYNN: BECAUSE THAT'S IN THE CITY LIMITS. I UNDERSTAND. MY QUESTION MIGHT BE FOR CITY STAFF AS TO WHO HAS RESPONSIBILITY FOR PURCHASING YOUR RIGHT?OF?WAY.

I KNOW THERE ARE MAPS GENERATED BY THE TURNPIKE AUTHORITY THAT HAVE VARIOUS SEGMENTS OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, INSIDE GEORGETOWN, INSIDE PFLUGERVILLE, JUST IN THE COUNTY, AND THERE ARE SIMILAR MAPS FOR TRAVIS COUNTY. THOSE ARE NEGOTIATIONS THAT HAPPEN WAY UP HERE, WAY OVER MY HEAD, SO I'M NOT PRIVY TO HOW ALL THAT'S ACTUALLY BEING ADJUDICATED RIGHT NOW.

WYNN: CAN STAFF HELP ME WITH THAT?

MR. LIBRACH, CAN YOU ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS ON FUNDING FOR FUNDING FOR STATE HIGHWAY 130 FOR THE PROPERTY THAT WILL BE ANNEXED?

THE ?? AS FAR AS I KNOW AT THIS POINT WE WILL BE NEGOTIATING WITH THE STATE AND WITH TRAVIS COUNTY FOR THE PORTION OF STATE HIGHWAY 130 THAT IS INSIDE THE CITY LIMITS. THE MINUTE ORDER, I BELIEVE, IS WITH THE COUNTY AND IT IS FOR 100% OF THE RIGHT?OF?WAY FOR STATE HIGHWAY 130. THE BOND ELECTION, AS YOU ARE WELL AWARE, THAT PASSED RECENTLY IN THE COUNTY, PROVIDED UP TO 50%. AND WE'RE ASSUMING THAT THERE WILL BE SOME NEGOTIATIONS TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT THAT IS REQUIRED FOR ALL PARTICIPANTS, NOT JUST TRAVIS COUNTY TO 50%, BUT I THINK AT THAT POINT WE WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FEW TRACTS THAT ARE IN THE CITY OR ARE ABOUT TO BE IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN, INCLUDING THIS ONE. AND HOPEFULLY AT A 50% RATE. THE FUNDING FOR THAT PRESUMABLY WILL COME FROM THE YEAR 2000 BONDS THAT WERE PASSED BY THE VOTERS LAST YEAR. SIN.

WYNN: SO IT SOUNDED LIKE THERE MIGHT BE SOME TIME SENSITIVITY IN REGARDS TO WHETHER THE COUNTY OR THE CITY PICKS UP THE TAB ON RIGHT?OF?WAY FOR SH 130. AND I GUESS MY QUESTION IS REMIND ME, IT THIS GOING TO BE A FULL PURPOSE ANNEXATION OR IS IT LIMITED PURPOSE, DOES IT ROLL INTO FULL PURPOSE UPON DEVELOPMENT?

I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN DESCRIBE IT PERFECTLY ACCURATELY, BUT IT IS A ROLLING ANNEXATION I THINK IS ?? WOULD BE WHAT I WOULD DESCRIBE IT AS. AS PARTICULAR TRACTS ARE DEVELOPED, THEY WOULD BE ANNEXED. MAYBE LEGAL CAN CORRECT THAT FOR ME.

[INAUDIBLE].

HELLO. IT'S A LIMITED PURPOSE ANNEXATION. I SAW MR. DWYER SHAKING HIS HEAD. THE CURRENT PROPOSAL AS APPROVED ON FIRST READING WAS A LIMITED PURPOSE ANNEXATION THAT CONVERTS TO FULL ON A REGULAR BASIS AS LAND IS PLATTED OUT. SO WE CAN'T PREDICT AT THIS TIME EXACTLY WHAT LAND WILL BE WITHIN THE CITY AT THE END OF EVERY YEAR, BUT IT WILL BE ALONG THE LINES OF WHAT HAS BEEN DONE IN AVERY RANCH.

WHAT DO WE PERCEIVE TO BE THE TIMING OF THE NEEDED RIGHT?OF?WAY ACQUISITION ON SH 130?

I THINK NEAR IMMINENT WOULD BE CORRECT. WE HAVEN'T TALKED WITH THE COMMISSION FOR SEVERAL MONTHS, BUT THEY HAVE BEEN ASKING FOR THE FUNDS TO SET ASIDE THOSE FUNDS FOR QUITE SOME TIME AND THEY'RE ANXIOUS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH STATE HIGHWAY 130. SO THEY WILL BE MEETING, IF THEY HAVEN'T ALREADY, WITH THE COUNTY AND WITH US TO BEGIN TO NAIL DOWN THE SPECIFICS OF THE FUNDING REQUIREMENTS. SO I WOULD SAY IF NOT IMMINENT MEANING TODAY, IT'S CERTAINLY IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE.

WYNN: IT SEEMS TO ME THE LAST MAPS THAT I SAW OF SH 130, THERE'S NOT VERY MUCH OF THAT INSIDE THE CITY LIMITS. AND I'VE GOT TO BELIEVE THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY MIGHT REPRESENT A QUADRUPLING OF THE LINEAL MILES OR ACREAGE TO BE ACQUIRED PERHAPS BY THE CITY.

I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE HOW MUCH ?? HOW GREAT A PERCENTAGE IT REPRESENTS OF THE THREE OR FOUR TRACTS THAT ARE AFFECTED BY STATE HIGHWAY 130. THIS ONE DOES NOT HAVE AN INTERCHANGE IN IT. THERE IS ONE OTHER TRACT, I BELIEVE INTERPORT IS THAT DOES, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN. AND I BELIEVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR THAT PARTICULAR PIECE IS MUCH GREATER.

WYNN: THAT'S ALL FOR NOW, MAYOR. THANK YOU.

GARCIA: WE HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE FROM TRAVIS COUNTY HERE? WELCOME, SIR.

THANK YOU, JOE GISELMAN. LET ME FIRST CORRECT THE RECORD ON STATE HIGHWAY 130. TRAVIS COUNTY BELIEVES THAT THERE IS NO MINUTE ORDER WITH RESPECT TO STATE HIGHWAY 130 BETWEEN TRAVIS COUNTY AND THE STATE OF TEXAS. THE MINUTE ORDER THAT EXISTS IS FOR MOKAN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR, WHICH IS A DIFFERENT CORRIDOR, DIFFERENT HIGHWAY, DIFFERENT PURPOSE. WITH THAT SAID, WE HAVE VERBALLY AGREED THAT TRAVIS COUNTY WAS WILLING TO NEGOTIATE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR REQUISITION OF FUNDING FOR STATE HIGHWAY 130 AND THE VOTERS HAVE APPROVED 50% OF THE COST OF RIGHT?OF?WAY WITHIN THE INCORPORATED AREA. SO THAT IS THE CAREFULLY WORDED TRUTH OF THE ISSUE. WE STILL HAVE A WAYS TO GO WITH THE STATE ABOUT THE COUNTY'S OBLIGATION FOR STATE HIGHWAY 130.

WYNN: I'M CURIOUS. THAT ELECTION THAT WE JUST HAD, I FIGURED THAT WAS BASED ON AN ESTIMATE OF 50% OF THE FIGURE FOR 130, DID THAT INCLUDE THIS SEGMENT OF THE ROADWAY?

THE ONLY STIPULATION WE HAD IN OUR COVENANTS WAS THAT IT WAS THE ALIGNMENT OF STATE HIGHWAY 130 THAT WAS APPROVED IN THE RECORD OF DECISION BY THE STATE. SO IT WAS CLEAR THAT THE MONEY AUTHORIZED WAS FOR THE EASTERN ALIGNMENT AND ONLY THE EASTERN ALIGNMENT AND NOTHING ELSE. THERE HAVE BEEN ACTUALLY THREE BOND ELECTIONS. THERE WAS THE 1997 BOND ELECTION THAT AUTHORIZED FOUR MILLION DOLLARS. THAT STIPULATED THAT THE MONEY BE USED ONLY IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA AS OF SEPTEMBER 1ST OF 1997. SO THAT'S ONE POOL OF MONEY. THERE WAS ALSO ANOTHER 20 MILLION DOLLARS THAT WAS APPROVED IN 2000 AND THE 60 MILLION DOLLARS THAT WAS APPROVED IN THE LAST ELECTION. SO THE POOL IS ROUGHLY 90 MILLION, WHICH IS THE EQUIVALENT OF 50% OF THE RIGHT?OF?WAY. THE COUNTY HAS NOT AGREED TO BUY 50 PERCENT OF THE RIGHT?OF?WAY, BUT I MUST SAY THE ESTIMATE, ALL OF THOSE ISSUANCE TOGETHER REPRESENT 50% OF THE ESTIMATE GIVEN TO US AT THE TIME. AS YOU KNOW, RIGHT?OF?WAY COSTS CAN GO UP UNEXPECTEDLY. THE OTHER THING I WOULD LIKE TO SAY IN REGARD TO THIS IS AS AN AGENT FOR THE STATE IN ACQUIRING RIGHT?OF?WAY, WE DO USE OUR SUBDIVISION AUTHORITY TO EXTRACT AS MUCH AS IS AUTHORIZED UNDER THE LAW FOR STATE HIGHWAYS BEFORE WE GO INTO WHAT IS NECESSARY TO ACQUIRE. IN THIS CASE THIS HAS NOT COME TO OUR AGENCY FOR REVIEW BECAUSE IT'S NOT AT THIS POINT A SUBDIVISION PLAT, SO IT'S ?? EVEN THOUGH IT'S IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA, THE COUNTY AT THIS POINT HAS NOT BEEN ASKED TO LOOK AT THIS IN TERMS OF ITS NORMAL EXTRACTIONS. NOW, I HAVE ANOTHER ISSUE I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON WITH REGARD TO THIS PARCEL, IF I MAY DO SO.

GARCIA: SURE.

WE HAVE BEEN IN DISCUSSIONS WITH MR. DWYER ABOUT ACQUIRING AND RECEIVING DONATIONS OF PARKLAND TO IMPLEMENT WHAT WE CALL THE EAST METROPOLITAN PARK, WHICH IS AUTHORIZED WITH THE MOST RECENT BOND ELECTION. WE ARE CURRENTLY LOOKING AT AN AGGREGATION OF ABOUT 300 ACRES, INCLUDING A PORTION OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. PORTIONS ARE OUTSIDE OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WITHIN MR. DWYER'S HOLDS, AND ANOTHER PORTION IS OUTSIDE HIS HOLDING ALTOGETHER. BUT ALL TOTAL ROUGHLY ABOUT 300 ACRES. WE ARE LOOKING AT. R., AND WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE CITY STAFF, WHAT WOULD BE SOME OF THE DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY FOR THE COUNTY DEVELOPING THIS PARKLAND. SO WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING THROUGH OUR DUE DILIGENCE AT THIS POINT TO FIND OUT WHETHER THIS IS GOING TO BE THE SITE OR WHETHER IT WILL BE SOMEWHERE ELSE. AND I REALLY AT THIS POINT WANT TO MAKE THE COUNCIL AWARE OF THAT. WE'RE HOPING TO FINISH THOSE DISCUSSIONS WITH MR. DWYER AND WITH THE CITY STAFF BEFORE YOUR THIRD READING OF THIS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. THE PARK WILL INCLUDE FACILITIES SUCH AS SOCCER FIELDS, BASEBALL FIELDS, PICNIC PAVILIONS, AND TRAILS SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU MAY SEE IN OTHER COUNTY METROPOLITAN PARKS.

GARCIA: QUESTIONS? LET ME ASK YOU, JOE, ARE YOU ASKING US TO WAIT ON TAKING ANY ACTION ON THIS OTHER THAN FIRST READING?

NO, SIR. I BELIEVE YOU CAN PROCEED. AS I UNDERSTAND, THE FIRST READING IS A GENERAL APPROVAL WITH MORE SPECIFIC DETAILS TO BE WORKED OUT. WE'RE OKAY WITH THAT.

GARCIA: OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU HAVE THREE MORE MINUTES IN WHICH YOU CAN MAKE COMMENTS, NOT NECESSARILY IN A REBUTTAL WAY OR REBUTTAL FORM.

I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY IN GENERAL A GREAT THANK YOU TO STAFF. WE'VE PUT A LOT OF WORK INTO THIS. AND EVEN WHEN WE DON'T AGREE, THEY'VE PUT THEIR HEART INTO THIS PROJECT AND I'D LIKE TO THANK MR. GISELMAN, TOO. HIS INSPIRATION HAS BEEN TREMENDOUS ON TRYING TO STICK TOGETHER ON THIS PARK. OUR AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY THAT'S IN WRITING IS TO DONATE THREE MILLION DOLLARS' WORTH OF LAND, AND WE'RE PRETTY EXCITED AND WE WANT TO TRY TO DO EVERYTHING WE CAN. IF THERE'S ANY OTHER COMMENT THAT I CAN MAKE, IT WOULD BE WE WOULD LIKE TO TRY TO CONTINUE THE TREMENDOUS MOMENTUM THAT WE'VE HAD ON THIS, AND SO IF WE ARE LUCKY ENOUGH TO HAVE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND FIRST READING APPROVAL, WE WOULD LIKE TO BE PUT ON A SCHEDULE, YOU KNOW, SOME TIME IN JANUARY TO BE ABLE TO COME BACK. THANK YOU.

GARCIA: OKAY. MR. DWYER, YOU WOULDN'T OBJECT TO GOING WITH FIRST READING ON STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND THEN WORKING YOUR WAY THROUGH?

WE WOULDN'T OBJECT TO THAT, NOTWITHSTANDING MY COMMENTS BEING NOTED.

GARCIA: SURE. AND LET ME SAY THAT I WANT TO CONGRATULATE YOU BECAUSE THIS IS A DESIRED DEVELOPMENT ZONE AND, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A SAYING THAT WE NEED DEVELOPMENT IN THE EASTERN PART OF THE CITY, AND THIS IS ?? THIS TAKES US A LONG WAY IN THAT DIRECTION. SECONDLY, I LIKE YOUR APPROACH WITH REGARD TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND HOW YOU VIEW THE ISSUE. I THINK THAT'S VERY HEALTHY. AND THIRD, I HOPE THAT IT HELPS ALL THE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S TAKING PLACE ALONG THAT AREA. YOU AND I TALKED ABOUT THE LAKE LONG PARK AND HOW WE CAN DO SOMETHING IN THAT AREA, SO I HOPE WE CAN WORK WITH CITY STAFF ON THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MAYOR.

GARCIA: FURTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS?

ALVAREZ: MAYOR? ABOUT THE ISSUES THAT MR. DWYER MENTIONED ABOUT ?? I GUESS IT WAS DEDICATING THE ?? I GUESS WHAT OUR STAFF IS RECOMMENDING, MAYBE IF THE STAFF CAN ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES ABOUT DRAINAGE AND THOSE KIND OF ISSUES WHERE IT SEEMS LIKE YOU'RE TRYING TO GET THEM TO ADDRESS CERTAIN THINGS THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED I THINK WHEN THIS ROADWAY IS CONSTRUCTED. I WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOUR POLICIES ARE AND WHY WE ARE ADVOCATING THE POSITION THAT WE ARE ADVOCATING.

COUNCIL, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO INDICATE THAT ON RIGHT?OF?WAY MATTERS, YOU REALLY DO NOT NEED TO ADDRESS THOSE DURING THIS PROCESS. THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS IS WHERE THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION WILL THEN CONSIDER THE DEDICATION OR NOT TO DEDICATE AT THAT POINT AND THEN THE APPLICANT CAN THEN DISCUSS THOSE ASPECTS. SINCE WE DO NOT HAVE THAT BEFORE YOU, THE RIGHT?OF?WAY DEDICATION WILL BE PROPERLY ADDRESSED THERE. BUT WE CAN NOT ADDRESS HERE ?? WHAT WE CAN ADDRESS HERE ARE THE ENVIRONMENTAL VARIANCES THAT THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING AND WHERE THERE IS DISAGREEMENT AND WE WOULD LIKE TO ELABORATE ON WHY STAFF IS NOT RECOMMENDING SOME OF THOSE VARIANCES AND HOPEFULLY THAT WILL HELP YOU WITH YOUR DECISION.

I'M PAT MURPHY WITH WATERSHED PROTECTION. COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ, IF I COULD ASK YOU TO CLARIFY. WERE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT ISSUE? IS THAT WHAT YOU WERE ?? .

ALVAREZ: WELL, MR. DWYER HAD MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT I GUESS MITIGATING, I GUESS, SOME OF THE RUNOFF FROM THE PROPOSED HIGHWAY.

OKAY. THERE IS I THINK ONE ISSUE WHERE THERE IS A DIFFERENCE, A SLIGHT DIFFERENCE IN STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL ON SETBACKS FROM WATERWAYS. AND STAFF HAD REQUESTED THE APPLICANT TO CONSIDER THE IDEA OF PROVIDING SET BACKS FOR WATERWAYS DOWN TO A SMALLER DRAINAGE AREA. OUR CURRENT CODE DOES NOT START CLASSIFYING A STREAM IN THIS AREA AS WELL AS REQUIRING SETBACKS FOR DEVELOPMENT UNTIL IT REACHES 320 ACRES ABOVE STREAM DRAINAGE TO THAT POINT. STAFF ENCOURAGED THE APPLICANT TO GO DOWN TO 64 ACRES TO PROVIDE SETBACKS FOR THOSE WATERWAYS. WE HAVE AGREEMENT ON THAT. WHAT WE ARE STILL NEGOTIATING ON IS THE MINIMUM WIDTH OF THAT SETBACK OR THE CRITICAL ZONE IN THOSE AREAS. STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED A MINIMUM OF 50 FEET APPROXIMATE FOR THE CRITICAL ZONE SET BACK, AND WE ARE NEGOTIATING ON THAT AT THIS TIME.

ALVAREZ: AND THAT IS SNAG WE DECIDE ON ON ZONING?

CORRECT. WITH THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ARE PART OF THE ZONING, AND THAT'S WHY WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THESE SORTS OF ISSUES.

ALVAREZ: SO IF WE PASS IT ON FIRST READING, WHICH IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE HEADED, WE CAN SORT ALL THAT OUT BETWEEN SECOND AND THIRD?

WYNN: MAYOR? MR. MURPHY, IN ADDITION TO THE SETBACK REDUCTIONS THAT STAFF DIFFERS FROM MR. DWYER ON, I HEARD CUT AND FILL LEVELS, AND I HEARD IMPERVIOUS COVER LEVELS FROM 50 TO 40%. CAN YOU BRIEFLY TALK ABOUT YOUR CUT AND FILL?

CERTAINLY. THE CUT AND FILL THAT WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT IS ?? IT'S SOMETHING THAT STAFF'S HAVING A DIFFICULT TIME SUPPORTING AT THIS STAGE. WE NORMALLY WANT MORE INFORMATION THAN WE ARE GETTING AT THIS STAGE OF THE GAME. IT ISN'T THAT WE'RE NOT SUPPORTIVE OF HIS PROPOSAL ONCE WE HAVE THE PROPER INFORMATION TO EVALUATE THAT REQUEST. SO IT ISN'T THAT WE'RE IN OPPOSITION TO THE IDEA OF CUT AND FILL VARIANCES, WE'RE JUST UNCOMFORTABLE GRANTING A VARIANCE AT THIS POINT WITHOUT HAVING THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE IMPACTS AND SPECIFICALLY WHAT THEY WOULD MEAN IN TERMS OF CONSTRUCTION. AND I THINK SUSAN CAN DISCUSS THE SECOND ISSUE THAT YOU HAD.

ALSO THE IMPERVIOUS COVER, THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING A 40% LIMIT ON GROSS SITE IMPERVIOUS COVER. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A 50% LIMIT ON GROSS SITE IMPERVIOUS COVER. WE'RE NOT SURE THAT 50% ?? AS PAT MENTIONED, WE DON'T HAVE ALL THE DATA NOW TO FULLY CALCULATE WHAT THE TOTAL NET SITE AREA WOULD BE ON THIS PROJECT, SO IT'S DIFFICULT TO DO THE ANALYSIS OF WHAT WOULD BE ALLOWED UNDER CURRENT CODE WITHOUT THAT INFORMATION, BUT A ROUGH GUESSTIMATE SORT OF SUGGESTS THAT A 50% LIMIT WOULD REALLY NOT BE MUCH OF A DECREASE FROM WHAT'S ALLOWED BY THE CURRENT CODE.

WYNN: THANK YOU, MAYOR.

GARCIA: ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO LATER TODAY IS LOOK AT THE SIGN ORDINANCE. AND I WAS WONDERING IF THE STAFF COULD ALSO LOOK AT WHAT KIND OF ROAD SIGNS, WHAT KIND OF POLICIES THE DEVELOPER IS GOING TO HAVE WITH REGARD TO THE ROAD SIGNS ON THAT PARTICULAR FRONTAGE ON SH 130. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THAT'S WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE WORK THAT WE DO, BUT IF IT IS, YOU KNOW, I WOULD LIKE TO ?? FOR US TO CONSIDER KEEPING THAT ROAD, YOU KNOW, AS AESTHETICALLY PLEASING AS POSSIBLE. FURTHER DISCUSSION? I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON FIRST READING FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

ALVAREZ: MOVE APPROVAL. OWE.

GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ. DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. ON A VOTE OF SIX TO ONE IT PASSES ON FIRST READING.

IS THERE A WAY TO ESTABLISH A SCHEDULE TO COME BACK ON SECOND AND THIRD?

GARCIA: THAT WILL BE WORKED OUT WITH THE STAFF AND WITH MY OFFICE AND WE WILL WORK ON THAT. SO IF YOU CAN WORK WITH THE STAFF WE'LL TRY TO GET BACK ??

YOU SAID YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT BACK SOON?

GARCIA: I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT BACK SOON, BUT THE STAFF HAS SOME WORK THAT'S PRESCRIBED BY CITY ORDINANCES THAT WE PASSED AND WE'RE IN THE HOLDING PLACE THAT WE ALL SIT AT. CITY MANAGER, THAT TAKES US TO NUMBER 60, AND I THINK THAT'S A TIME CERTAIN, ISN'T IT?

[INAUDIBLE].

WE RECOMMEND YOUR APPROVAL.

GARCIA: OKAY. ITEM 60 IS THE CENTRAL EAST AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AND WE DON'T HAVE A STAFF MENTION PRESENTATION ON THAT?

WOULD YOU LIKE A STAFF PRESENTATION, A BRIEF ONE?

WHO IS YOUR LEAD ON THIS?

MY LEAD ON THIS ONE IS SUE HOUSEL. WE'LL HAVE A BRIEF OVERVIEW.

MAYOR, DAVID LLOYD WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. I HAVE A SHEET TO HAND OUT TO THE CITY MANAGER AND THE COUNCIL THAT IS A ?? I GUESS A SCRIPT FOR THE PROCESS FOR THE COUNCIL TO USE IN CONSIDERING AND APPROVING THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AND THE ASSOCIATED ZONING, DESCRIBES THE PROCESS AND THE STEPS TO FOLLOW.

MAYOR, WE'LL START OFF WITH THE PLAN FIRST, WHICH IS ITEM NUMBER 61, AND COME BACK TO THE REZONING TO CONFORM WITH THE ORDER OF THE PROCESS.

I HAD COME TO DO A PRESENTATION ON THE REZONING, BUT HADN'T PLANNED TO DO ANOTHER PRESENTATION ON THE PLAN SINCE WE HAD DONE THAT LAST TIME AND THAT'S HERE FOR SECOND AND THIRD READING.

HAS THERE BEEN ANY CHANGES SINCE THE LAST PRESENTATION?

NO. WE'RE OFFERING THE PLAN ??

CAN YOU GIVE A TWO?MINUTE ?? A ONE?MINUTE?

SURE. THE PLAN ESSENTIALLY ADDRESSES LAND USE TRANSPORTATION, URBAN DESIGN AND NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER. ED LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS VERY GENERALLY ARE TO PROTECT THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS OF CENTRAL EAST AUSTIN AND TO PROMOTE COMMERCIAL AND MIXED USE OPPORTUNITIES ON THE COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS. TRANSPORTATION GENERALLY LOOKING AT INCREASING PEDESTRIAN SAFETY WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND TRYING TO MAKE THE CORRIDORS, PARTICULARLY SEVENTH STREET, MORE PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FRIENDLY. THE URBAN DESIGN SECTION INCLUDES DETAILED URBAN DETAIL GUIDELINES. THOSE ARE VOLUNTARY GUIDELINES IN ADDITION TO THE CURRENT CODE REGULATIONS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION OR REHABILITATION. AND THOSE ARE IN APPENDIX A OF THE PLAN. AND THAT ALSO INCLUDES A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY ABOUT THE AREA AND HOW THE AREA DEVELOPED PHYSICALLY BACK IN I THINK IT WAS IN THE 1800'S. SO THAT'S IN A NUTSHELL WHAT THE PLAN COVERS. AND HERE WE'RE OFFERING IT FOR SECOND AND THIRD READING TODAY.

GARCIA: QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER THAT IS REGISTERED IN FAVOR OF. IS THERE A MOTION?

ALVAREZ: MAYOR?

GARCIA: THERE YOU ARE.

ARE WE SPEAKING ABOUT 60 AND 61?

I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY ON 61 EXCEPT THANK YOU FOR HAVING VOTED FOR IT ONCE. AND I HOPE YOU VOTE FOR IT AGAIN. ON NUMBER 60, THE ACTUAL REZONINGS, I GUESS I DON'T REALLY HAVE THAT MUCH TO SAY ON THAT. I AM VERY PLEASED THAT WE ARE ABLE TO BRING BEFORE YOU A REZONING CASE ATTACHED TO A NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN THAT HAS LITTLE, ALMOST NO OPPOSITION. AS FAR AS I KNOW, THERE'S ONLY ONE PROPERTY THAT IS ?? OF ALL THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE BEING REZONED AS PART OF THIS FOR WHICH WE HAVE RECEIVED A NOTICE OF OPPOSITION FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SPECIFIC USES WITHIN THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE ALLOWED. THERE'S A DISCUSSION THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING TEAM IS CERTAINLY WILLING TO CONTINUE TO HAVE WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER. WE ARE WAITING SOME INPUT FROM THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS OF THAT PROPERTY, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, IN THE BLACKSHEAR PROSPECT HILL AREA. BUT OTHER THAN THAT I THINK WE ARE ABLE TO BRING YOU SOMETHING THAT GENUINELY REFLECTS A CONSENSUS OPINION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND I'M HAPPY ABOUT THAT AND I RECOMMEND IT FOR YOU FOR YOUR APPROVAL. ONE OTHER THING. I WILL SPEAK TO A PROPERTY THAT MY NEIGHBORHOOD, ADJACENT TO MY HOUSE, THAT MY NEIGHBORHOOD FIRST BROUGHT FORTH ASKING THAT IT BE REZONED THREE YEARS AGO. AND IT HAS TAKEN THIS LONG FOR IT TO ACTUALLY COME TO THE DIAS BECAUSE IT WAS DECIDED ?? ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS THAT IT WOULD BE DONE AS PART OF A NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. WELL, HERE WE ARE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

GARCIA: QUESTIONS FOR MR. MADISON.

GOODMAN: I HAVE ONE. AT THE TIME THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND COUNCIL TAKE ACTION ON A SUB DISTRICT MECHANISM WITHIN NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS, WOULD YOU WANT YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN TO BE REVISITED IN THAT CONTEXT?

YES. I WOULD THINK AT THAT POINT WE WOULD WANT TO BRING FORTH AN AMENDMENT, I SUPPOSE, TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN THAT WOULD RESOLVE THE ISSUE OF HOW THE SMART GROWTH INFILL TOOLS WERE TO BE APPLIED. AND I DID WANT TO THANK THE COUNCIL FOR MOVING FORWARD ON THAT AS WELL.

GOODMAN: THANK YOU. SO MAYOR, THAT'S JUST TO MAKE A NOTE THAT AS SOON AS THAT MECHANISM EXISTS AND PERHAPS CONCURRENTLY, THOSE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS THAT NEED THE SUB DISTRICT AND HAVE REQUESTED THAT MECHANISM COME BACK FOR AMENDMENTS AT THE SAME TIME.

GARCIA: THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH, SECONDED BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE? OPPOSED NO? MOTION CARRIES. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THE SECOND AND THIRD READING OF ITEM 61. GOOD DID GOOD MOVE APPROVAL.

GARCIA: MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM. SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. DISCUSSION? COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ?

ALVAREZ: THAT WAS A MOTION TO APPROVE?

GARCIA: MOTION TO APPROVE ON SECOND AND THIRD READING.

ALVAREZ: I HAVE SEVERAL CHANGES TO REQUEST. WHEN IT CAME UP THE FIRST TIME, I HAD RAISED SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE LITTLE TRIANGLE THAT EXISTS OF SEVENTH STREET, WEBERVILLE AND NORTHWESTERN. AND I PERSONALLY DON'T ?? I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THE ?? IN THAT AREA IS ALLOWED THE NEIGHBORHOOD URBAN CENTER USE. AND I WAS GOING TO PROPOSE THAT THAT BE REMOVED. AND ALSO IN THAT AREA FOR TRACTS 130 TO 138, I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST THAT THE SAME CONDITIONAL USES, THE PROHIBITED USES THAT APPLY TO 126 AND 129 BE APPLIED TO THOSE, TO 130, TRACTS 130 TO 138. AND THOSE ARE THE ?? THOSE ARE THE RECOMMENDATIONS.

GARCIA: MR. MADISON, WOULD YOU LIKE TO COMMENT ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS? THOSE WOULD BE IN THE FORM OF AMENDMENTS TO THE PLAN, COUNCILMEMBER?

IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, THE COUNCILMEMBER IS PROPOSING THAT WE REMOVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD URBAN CENTER DESIGNATION FROM WHAT WE CALL THE WEBERVILLE TRIANGLE. AND UNFORTUNATELY, I DON'T KNOW ALL OF THOSE TRACT NUMBERS, SO WHICH ONES ARE WE SAYING ARE GOING TO HAVE ??

IT IS 130 TO 138.

ALVAREZ: WHICH ARE THE ONES THAT ARE SOUTH OF WEBERVILLE.

OKAY. SO ALL OF THE TRACTS WITHIN THE TRIANGLE, IN OTHER WORDS? OKAY. I GOT IT. WE REALIZED DURING THE PROCESS THAT THE SMART GROWTH NEIGHBORHOOD URBAN CENTER TOOL IS MOSTLY DESIGNED FOR PROPERTIES OTHER THAN ?? UNLIKE THIS ONE, FOR SINGLE PROPERTIES THAT NEED, YOU KNOW, CERTAIN OPTIONS FOR REDEVELOPMENT JUST AS WE'VE APPLIED IT OR SUGGESTED APPLYING IT TO THE OLD SAFEWAY CENTER. PROPERTY LIKE THAT. SPEAKING TOTALLY OFF THE CUFF, I DON'T THINK THAT IT DOES ANY GREAT HARM TO THE GOAL OF THE PLAN TO REMOVE THAT DESIGNATION. I DO ANY THAT OVER TIME PROPERTY OWNERS IN THAT AREA MAY STILL WANT ?? AND I THINK THE MAJOR DETERMINING ?? ONE OF THE MAJOR DETERMINING FACTORS HERE IS THAT IT WOULD BE PROXIMATE TO IF THERE EVER IS ONE A LIGHT RAIL STATION, CONSIDER WAYS IN WHICH REDEVELOPMENT MAY OCCUR THAT WOULD BE MADE MORE FEASIBLE OR DESIRABLE WITH THE SMART GROWTH INFILL TOOL. AND I SUPPOSE AT THAT POINT WE COULD COME BACK AND CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE PLAN. SO THAT PART ?? THAT WOULD BE MY RESPONSE TO THAT. THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY ISSUE I DON'T THINK HAS ANY ?? POSED ANY PROBLEM.

SLUSHER: MAYOR?

GARCIA: WE'VE GOT GOT TO DO ONE THING, COUNCILMEMBER. WE'VE GOT TO RECONSIDER THE DECISION ON CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING. I RECEIVED ONE OTHER CARD, SO I'LL ASK FOR A VOTE FOR RECONSIDERATION.

SLUSHER: SO MOVE.

GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE? WE'RE GOING TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE HAVE VERONICA RIVERIA.

SLUSHER: MAYOR, BEFORE WITH SHE GETS UP THERE, COULD I ASK COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ TO RESTATE WHAT HE WANTS TO CHANGE AND WHY?

GARCIA: SURE.

ALVAREZ: BACK WHEN WE CONSIDERED THIS ?? I GUESS THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN PART OF THIS IS FIRST READING, I BELIEVE, I HAD EXPRESSED SOME CONCERN OR AN INTEREST IN TRYING TRYING TO PROTECT SOME OF THE SINGLE?FAMILIES IN THAT IT REALLY DOES HAVE SOMEWHAT OF A NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER AND NOT ?? THERE ARE SOME COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES THERE AND A COUPLE OF BARS AND SOME AUTO STORAGE AND SALES AND THAT SORT OF THING, BUT ?? AND I DO BELIEVE WE CONTACTED THE OWNERS OF THOSE HOMES THAT ARE ZONED COMMERCIAL AND NONE OF THEM REQUESTED THAT THEY BE DOWNSIZED TO SINGLE?FAMILY, WHICH WAS ORIGINALLY I THINK WHAT I WAS INTERESTED IN DOING. SO WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS I GUESS FACILITATE THE PRESERVATION OF THAT NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER. AND IF YOU ALLOW THIS KIND OF NEIGHBORHOOD URBAN CENTER, WHICH USUALLY IS BIGGER. IT'S GOING TO BE AN ACCUMULATION OF LOTS. THEY WOULD HAVE TO BUY UP SEVERAL DIFFERENT LOTS AND THEN DO SOME KIND OF MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT, YOU KNOW, IF THAT'S WHAT THIS WOULD ENCOURAGE, THEN THAT CERTAINLY IS NOT WITHIN THE CHARACTER OF WHAT'S CURRENTLY THERE. I THINK I PREFER TO SEE MORE OF A SINGLE?FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, MORE THAT TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT. A SMALL SCALE COMMERCIAL AND NOT NECESSARILY A BIG URBAN CENTER AND THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I'M COMING FROM, LOOKING FOR WAYS TO TRY TO PRESERVE THAT CHARACTER. ALONG SEVENTH STREET I THINK WE CAN ?? THERE'S MORE FLEXIBILITY BECAUSE IT IS A VERY HIGHLY COMMERCIALIZED CORRIDOR, BUT AS YOU MOVE KIND OF AWAY FROM SEVENTH STREET, IT REALLY DOES HAVE MORE OF A RESIDENTIAL AND SMALL SCALE COMMERCIAL CHARACTER. THE SAME THING SOUTH OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS. WHEN WE DID CESAR CHAVEZ AND WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT TOLLLY IN A LITTLE BIT, I'M TRYING TO KEEP IN THE SPIRIT OF TRYING TO KEEP IN THE CHARACTER THAT CURRENTLY EXISTS AND ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S GOING TO MAINTAIN THAT CHARACTER.

SLUSHER: MR. CLARK?MADISON, TELL ME A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT IS BEHIND THE PLANNING TEAM PUTTING THAT IN THE PLAN?

THE NEIGHBORHOOD URBAN CENTER?

SLUSHER: THAT'S RIGHT.

I WOULD SAY ?? IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME NOW THAT WE'VE BEEN DOING THIS, BUT I WOULD SAY ONE OF THE EMPHASIS FOR PUTTING IT IN WAS LIGHT RAIL. THE TRACKS GO RIGHT THERE. THAT'S WHERE THE TRACKS CROSS SEVENTH STREET. THAT'S A POINT AT WHICH EVEN REGARDLESS OF AT THE TIME WE HADN'T HAD THE ELECTION YET, AND IT'S ALSO A POINT WHERE YOU HAVE FOUR NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AREAS MEET. AND THE LAND USE AND SOME OF THE AREAS AROUND THAT IS MORE RESOLUTELY COMMERCIAL, LIKE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF SEVENTH STREET YOU DON'T HAVE QUITE THE SAME MIXED CHARACTER. SO WE THOUGHT THAT IF ?? AND IT DOES PRESUME FACTS ON THE GROUND THAT AREN'T THERE BECAUSE THAT PROPERTY HASN'T BEEN CONSOLIDATED INTO A PROJECT OF THE REQUIRED ACREAGE TO ACTUALLY USE THE NEIGHBORHOOD URBAN CENTER TOOL, BUT THAT IT WOULD BE A PLACE THAT WE COULD IDENTIFY COULD BE OVER TIME REDEVELOPED TO ALLOW FOR THAT KIND OF DEVELOPMENT. IF IT ISN'T, I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO DO ANY GREAT DAMAGE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT WHAT I WOULD SAY AT THIS POINT PROBABLY, TO ADDRESS COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ' CONCERNS, IS IF SUCH DEVELOPMENT PROSPECT COMES ALONG AND WE REVISIT THAT WHEN WHEN WE UPDATE THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, THEN WE CAN CROSS THAT BRIDGE THEN.

I UNDERSTAND THAT OUR OTHER SUGGESTION WAS TO MAKE THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY MORE RESTRICTIVE, SIMILAR TO TRACT 126 THROUGH 129?

ALVAREZ: YES, THAT'S CORRECT.

ALVAREZ: YES. AND 126 TO 129 IS RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM 130 TO 138. SO I WANTED TO TO BE KIND OF SIMILAR IN CONDITIONS AND PROHIBITIONS. CAN I PROPOSE THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT?

GARCIA: THAT WAS MADE BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM AND SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH; IS THAT CORRECT? WHO MADE THE MOTION?

THE MAYOR PRO TEM MADE THE MOTION BUT IT NOT NECESSARILY ?? [INAUDIBLE].

GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, DO YOU ACCEPT THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT? HELLO?

WYNN: I DO AND THEREFORE PUNT IT TO THE MAKER OF THE MOTION?

GARCIA: MAKER OF THE MOTION, ARE THOSE FRIENDLY AMENDMENTS?

GOODMAN: I WOULD PREFER TO VOTE ON IT AS AN AMENDMENT AND THEN ADD IT. I'M UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE CHANGE IN THAT I HAVE NOT REALLY STUDIED IT AND EFFECTIVE WITH ALL THE DISCUSSIONS THAT HAVE BEEN GONE ON WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I'm NOT SURE THAT THEY KNOW WE'RE DOING THIS. AND THAT MAKES ME UNCOMFORTABLE.

GARCIA: WE HAVE one MORE SPEAKER. I'M GOING TO RECOGNIZE HER AT THIS TIME.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS, I AM HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER 60, WHICH IS ON THE REZONING. WE ARE THE TRACT THAT HAS FILED A VALID PETITION. I AM REMEMBER VON IN A CAR RIVERIA. IT IS THE PROPERTY, 2314 WEST SEVEN THE STREET AND IT'S TRACT 142, BETWEEN SEVENTH STREET AND MORALES. AND WHAT WE ARE HERE IS TO BRING THE COUNCIL AND SAY THAT WE ARE NOT OPPOSED TO BEING DOWNSIZED. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED LI AND WE ARE NOT OPPOSED TO BEING DOWN ZONED TO LS. BUT THERE IS A CONDITION THAT MAKES AUTOMOTIVE SALES AS CONDITIONAL USES. AND WE ASK THAT THEY NOT BE THERE. AND ALSO THE SPOT LOCATED ON SEVENTH STREET, WHICH IS ALSO THE BOUNDARY FOR THE HOLLY NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. UNDER THE HOLLY NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, IF OUR PROPERTY WAS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET, THE CONDITIONAL USES WOULD NOT BE CONDITIONAL USES. SO WE WOULD ASK THAT COUNCIL LOOK AT BOUNDARIES BETWEEN NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS TO SHOW SOME CONSISTENCY. AND AS MR. CLARK?MADISON POINTED OUT, WE ARE WORKING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND WITH THE INPUT PLANNING TEAM TO GET THIS RESOLVED PRIOR TO SECOND AND THIRD READING. THANK YOU.

GOODMAN: MAYOR? COULD I ASK ?? I DIDN'T QUITE FOLLOW THAT LAST ?? I FOUND IT A LITTLE REFUSETORY, SO I BETTER MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS YOU'RE SAYING.

THAT UNDER THE HOLLY NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, THE AUTOMOTIVE SALES AND AUTOMOTIVE RENTALS ARE NOT CONSIDERED CONDITIONAL USES. AND THEY ARE RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM EACH OTHER. THE BOUNDARIES BETWEEN THE CENTRAL EAST AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AND THE BOUNDARY FOR THE HOLLY NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN IS SEVENTH STREET. AND IT'S NOT AN ACCUSATION BY NO MEANS, IT'S JUST THAT WE'RE ASKING THAT YOU LOOK INTO THAT.

GOODMAN: WELL, YOU USED THE WORD CONSISTENT. LET ME ASK YOU, SO YOU WERE SAYING THAT TWO SIDE OF THE STREET DIDN'T HAVE THE SAME SORTS OF REGULATIONS?

THE SAME CONDITIONAL USES IMPOSED ON THEM.

GOODMAN: OKAY. IN ANSWER TO THAT, LET ME SAY THAT WE HAVE MANY STREETS, ACTUALLY WHERE THE TWO SIDES ARE NOT THE SAME. AND IN FACT, A REALLY GOOD ONE TO LOOK AT IS JOLLYVILLE WHERE WE TRIED TO KEEP ALL BUSINESSES OTHER THAN MAYBE LO I THINK IT WAS ON THE NORTH SIDE AND NOT ON THE SOUTH SIDE BECAUSE THE CHARACTER WAS DIFFERENT AND THE PRECEDENTS SET COULD BE DIFFERENT. SO JUST BECAUSE IT IS A ROAD DOESN'T MEAN IT HAS THE SAME IMPACT ON EITHER SIDE OF THE ROAD, SO IT MAY BE SOMETHING WE LOOK INTO, BUT IT'S NOT INCONSISTENT.

THANK YOU.

MAYOR?

THOMAS: THANK YOU, SIR. A QUESTION, SIR. WHAT AREA IS THIS ON WEBERVILLE AND THE AREAS THAT COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ ?? .

IT WOULD BE THE BLACKSHEAR, WEBERVILLE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, WHICH HAS BEEN VERY ACTIVE IN THE PROCESS.

THOMAS: AND THIS IS PROPOSED FOR A CS?CO?MU ?? .

TRACT 132, RIGHT.

THOMAS: WHAT ABOUT 126 ALL THE WAY UP TO 129, THE SAME THING?

YES. YEAH, CS, MU, CO, MP.

THOMAS: THERE ARE SOME HOMES STILL IN THERE, RIGHT?

THERE'S NO SINGLE?FAMILY ZONING IN THERE. THERE ARE SOME HOMES. AND ONE OF THE POINTS OF HAVING THE MIXED USE OVER LAY THROUGHOUT THESE COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS IS TO MAKE THE HOMES LEGAL USES SO IN THE EVENT SOMEONE WANTS TO REDEVELOP OR REBUILD THAT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO. BUT I THINK COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ SPOKE TO THAT EARLIER. THERE ARE SOME SINGLE?FAMILY USE IN THIS AREA, BUT WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY FEEDBACK FROM PROPERTY OWNERS WHO DON'T WANT THEIR COMMERCIAL ZONING.

THOMAS: OKAY. BECAUSE ?? ALL RIGHT. BECAUSE I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THAT AREA AND I KNOW THERE ARE SEVERAL HOMES ON I GUESS IT WOULD BE THE WEST SIDE OF THE STREET NEXT TO THE BUSINESSES.

YEAH, THERE'S HOMES ON WEBERVILLE AND THERE ARE CERTAINLY HOMES WITHIN THE TRIANGLE OF NORTHWESTERN AND WEBERVILLE AND SEVENTH STREET.

THOMAS: OKAY.

IN FACT, SOME OF THOSE HOMES ARE BEING DOWNSIZED BECAUSE THEY'RE CURRENTLY IN LI AND CS?1 ZONING THAT WE'RE BRINGING DOWN TO CS. FOR WHAT THAT'S WORTH.

THOMAS: OKAY. THANK YOU.

GOODMAN: MAYOR WHAT, I MIGHT OFFER ??

GARCIA: MAYOR PRO TEM?

GOODMAN: REMEMBER AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS CONVERSATION WE TALKED ABOUT THE SUB DISTRICTS AND THE FACT THAT THAT'S NOW IN THE PROCESS OF DISCUSSION AND CREATION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. SO IT WILL COME TO US. THEY KNOW WE NEED IT IN A TIMELY MANNER BECAUSE SPEAKING OF BLACK LAND, THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AND THE BOGGY CREEK NEIGHBORHOOD IS IN THE LAST PHASES OF THEIR PLAN TOO, AND THAT WAS I THINK A FIVE?NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING GROUP. SO ANYWAY, IT IS ACROSS THE STREET FROM IT. THE ISSUES WILL COME UP IN BOTH THE SUB DISTRICT ISSUE AND THE NEXT NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN ISSUE. SO IF WE DO WANT TO REVISIT ANY OF THIS, IT'S ACTUALLY A FAIRLY SHORT TIME FRAME BEFORE TWO OTHER ITEMS COME BEFORE US THAT ARE RELATED, AND WE COULD REVISIT AND AMEND IF WE NEED TO SINCE WE'LL HAVE THE SUB DISTRICTS TO AMEND ON TO THIS PLAN.

GARCIA: OKAY. DID YOU HAVE ANY COMMENT?

THAT WOULD BE STAFF'S PREFERENCES IS TO TRY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS PLAN AND THEN COME BACK WITH AMENDMENTS AS NEEDED LATER.

GARCIA: OKAY.

GOODMAN: WELL, THAT'S WHY ?? THE TRIANGLE? SORRY.

GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ, WOULD YOU PREFER DOING IT THAT WAY, ADOPTING THE PLAN AND THEN AT THE TIME THAT WE DO THE OTHER PARTS, COMING UP WITH THE AMENDMENTS?

ALVAREZ: NOT PUTTING THESE ON THE TABLE UNTIL ??

GARCIA: RIGHT.

ALVAREZ: UNTIL THEY'RE UP FOR FINAL APPROVAL THE ZONING CASES.

GARCIA: RIGHT. SO YOU'RE WITHDRAWING YOUR AMENDMENT?

WELL, ONE POSSIBILITY IS WE COULD LEAVE THE URBAN CENTER CONCEPT IN THE PLAN, BUT WITH THE REZONING YOU EITHER HAVE THE OPTION OF APPROVING OR NOT APPROVING THAT USE.

GARCIA: OKAY. COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

SLUSHER: YEAH, I WAS JUST TALKING WITH A COUPLE OF MY COLLEAGUES ABOUT ?? BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WENT INTO IT OR HOW PEOPLE FEEL ABOUT THIS IN THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD, SO WE WOULD RATHER HAVE SOME MORE TIME TO TALK TO THEM. BUT MR. CLARK?MADISON GAVE A GOOD ANSWER, BUT I'M UNCOMFORTABLE WITH JUST YANKING THAT OUT OF THERE. BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE THIS WOULD DEAL WITH THAT. IT STAYS IN THERE AND WE WOULD HAVE TIME BEFORE THE ZONING COMES BACK. BECAUSE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT SECOND READING, BUT THIS IS BETTER BECAUSE WE CAN PASS THE PLAN AND THEN TALK ABOUT IT.

GARCIA: THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE TABLE. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE? OPPOSED NO? MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF SEVEN TO ZERO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CLARK MADISON. AND WELCOME BACK WITH A ZONING LATER, RIGHT?

ACTUALLY, WE'RE HERE FOR FIRST READING ON THE ZONING, ITEM NUMBER 60.

GOODMAN: I ACTUALLY THOUGHT THAT WAS SECOND ?? ALL THREE.

WE HAD ORIGINALLY THOUGHT WE MIGHT COME FORWARD WITH ALL THREE, BUT WE ARE HERE WITH FIRST READING TONIGHT.

GARCIA: 61 IS THE ACTION ITEM ON 60. AND IT SAYS CONSIDER A PUBLIC ELECTION TO APPROVE ON SECOND AND THIRD READING.

THAT'S THE PLAN. AND ITEM ?? .

IT'S THE LAND USE ISSUE.

60 IS THE REZONING.

DO THAT FIRST READING AND THEN WE CAN WORK OUT THE DETAILS.

GARCIA: WE PASSED ON SECOND AND THIRD READING THE ITEM 61, AND I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON 60 TO DO FIRST READING.

ALVAREZ: SO MOVE.

GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ. IS THERE A SECOND.

THOMAS: SECOND.

GARCIA: SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. OPPOSED NO. MOTION CARRIES ON FIRST READING. [ONE MOMENT, PLEASE, WHILE CAPTIONERS CHANGE].

MAYOR GARCIA: I'M GOING TO RECESS THE REGULAR MEETING SO WE CAN TAKE UP THE TIME CERTAIN ITEMS ON LIVE MUSIC AND PROCLAMATIONS. WHEN WE COME BACK, WE'LL BE AT THE TIME CERTAIN ITEM 6:00, CONSIDER THE ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 25?10 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO NON?CONFORMING SIGN REGULATIONS. THIS COUNCIL IS RECESSED UNTIL THEN. [RECESS]

MAYOR GARCIA: AND NOW FOR SOME MUSIC. TODAY WE HAVE ROSANNA HILL.

HI, YOU ALL.

MAYOR GARCIA: TODAY I HAVE THE PLEASURE OF INTRODUCING ROSANNA HILL, ORIGINALLY FROM SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA. SHE PLAYED THE SYDNEY PUB BAND SCENE IN THE EARLY '90s AND REALIZED THIS WAS NOT THE IDEAL OUTLET FOR HER MUSIC. SO SHE HEADED OVERSEAS, INITIALLY TO EUROPE, AND THEN A VISIT TO AUSTIN, TEXAS, BECAME HER REVELATION AND CONVINCED HER THAT THIS WAS THE PLACE SHE SHOULD BE.

YEAH AUSTIN!

MAYOR GARCIA: FOR THE PAST FOUR YEARS, AUSTIN HAS BEEN HER HOME. WE HAVE A PROCLAMATION DECLARING DECEMBER 6TH, 2001, AS ROSANNA HILL DAY IN AUSTIN, TEXAS. LET'S WELCOME ROSANNA HILL. [APPLAUSE].

THANKS VERY MUCH. YEAH, I'M GOING TO PLAY A SONG OFF MY C.D. NOW. IT'S CALLED LOCAL AND/OR GENERAL. OH, I'VE BEEN ?? I'VE BEEN WEARING THIN . SO SHAKE ME OFF WHY DON'T YOU . OH, TAKE ME IN . OH, TAKE ME IN . I NEED A LOCAL AND/OR GENERAL . I NEED A LOCAL AND/OR GENERAL . I NEED A LOCAL AND/OR GENERAL . I CAN'T TAKE THIS ANYMORE . I CAN'T FIGHT THIS STUPID WAR . NOW WON'T YOU HEAR MY CALL, I NEED A LOCAL AND/OR GENERAL . I NEED A LOCAL AND/OR GENERAL . I NEED A LOCAL AND/OR GENERAL .

THANKS VERY MUCH, EVERYONE. [APPLAUSE].

GOODMAN: YOU SHOULD TELL US WHERE WE CAN GO TO SEE YOU, WHERE WE CAN GO TO BUY YOUR MUSIC.

YOU CAN GET MY C.D. FROM BORDERS AND WATERLOO RECORDS. YOU KNOW WHERE THAT IS, RIGHT? AND I'M PLAYING WITH MY BAND THE ROCK HOUNDS ON THE 17TH OF THIS MONTH, IT'S A MONDAY NIGHT, AND WE'RE DOING A SUPPORT AT THE SAXON BAR WITH BOB SCHNEIDER AND WE'LL BE PLAYING FROM 7:00 UNTIL 7:45. COME ALONG FOR THAT IF YOU CAN. THIS IS ?? REALLY, IT WAS A BLAST. THANKS VERY MUCH.

GOODMAN: THANK YOU. [APPLAUSE].

GOODMAN: THE NEXT PROCLAMATION IS FOR THE INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CULTURE AND LANGUAGE. THE 7TH ANNIVERSARY. AND THIS IS TO BE ACCEPTED BY ELSA POTTER, WHO IS HERE BESIDE ME. AND SINCE THIS MICROPHONE DOES NOT BEND ANYMORE, IT'S GOING TO BE ?? THIS PROCLAMATION IS TO LET IT BE KNOWN THAT, WHEREAS, THE INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CULTURE AND LANGUAGE IS A GROUP COMMITTED TO THE DISCOVERY AND CELEBRATION OF BROTHERHOOD THROUGH CULTURAL SHARING. AND WHEREAS, THEY HAVE HAD A SUCCESSFUL FIRST YEAR SERVING AS A VOICE FOR WORLD PEACE AND UNDERSTANDING IN THE TRAVIS AND WILLIAMSON COUNTY AREAS. AND WHEREAS, THE ORGANIZATION IS CELEBRATING ITS 7TH ANNIVERSARY ON THE 7TH OF THIS MONTH. NOW, THEREFORE, GUS GARCIA, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS, DOES HEREBY PROCLAIM DECEMBER 7TH, 2001, AS INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CULTURE AND LANGUAGE 7 ON THE 7TH DAY FOR THE INSTITUTION, AND WE THANK THEM VERY MUCH FOR ALL THAT THEY DO. [APPLAUSE].

OKAY, WELL, NOW MORE THAN EVER BEFORE WE HAVE TO REALIZE OUR BROTHERHOOD AND SISTERHOOD, AND IF WE CAN JUST COME TOGETHER IN A VERY SMALL WAY AND IN A VERY SHARING WAY, I KNOW THAT IT WILL REINFORCE THE NET THAT WE BEGAN TO CAST OVER THE YEARS JUST SEVEN YEARS AGO WHEN WE WERE INCORPORATED IN KINGSVILLE, TEXAS, ON PEARL HARBOR DAY. WE'RE TRYING RIGHT NOW, ONE OF OUR CHIEF THINGS IN FOCUS RIGHT NOW IS TO BRING TINY MUSLIM CHILDREN TOGETHER WITH TINY GENTILE CHILDREN PERHAPS ON THE PRE?KINDERGARTEN LEVEL. AND JUST BY PLAYING TOGETHER THIS WILL PUT OUR UNIVERSE IN A QUANTUM LEAP. THE WORLD IS A BETTER PLACE EVERY TIME WE HAVE A THOUGHT THAT IS POSITIVE AND CERTAINLY EVERY TIME WE PLACE AN ACTION THAT WILL DO ANYTHING TO FURTHER AND PROMOTE BROTHERHOOD, SISTERHOOD, THE TRIUMPH OF TRUTH OVER FALSEHOOD. OF PEACE OVER VIOLENCE. AND OF UNDERSTANDING OVER ITS OPPOSITE, DIRE IGNORANCE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. [APPLAUSE].

GOODMAN: IT'S ALSO ALL ABOUT RECYCLING TODAY. AND WE HAVE AN ART CONTEST WINNER, ACCEPTED BY RACHEL HURTENBURGER. YES, HERE IS YOUR NAME RIGHT HERE. I GUESS WE DON'T HAVE A PROCLAMATION, WE JUST HAVE THE CERTIFICATE OF CONGRATULATIONS, WHICH IS A PROCLAMATION. AND IT'S FOR AMERICA RECYCLES DAY, WHICH LET ME TURN THIS TO BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF VERY MANY PEOPLE IN AUSTIN HAVE SEEN THE NEW PROCLAMATION YET. IT'S DIFFERENT FROM THE OLD BLUE PARCHED TEXT, AND I THINK IT'S REALLY MORE REPRESENTATIVE OF AUSTIN. WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT, YOU SEE HOW SPECIAL IT IS. SO RACHEL, YOU ARE ONE OF THE FIRST PEOPLE TO GET THE NEW CITY PROCLAMATION AND MOUNT IT. THE CERTIFICATE OF CONGRATULATIONS FROM THE CITY OF AUSTIN IS TO CERTIFY FOR HAVING WON THE AMERICA RECYCLES DAY ART CONTEST SPONSORED BY THE CITY OF AUSTIN SOLID WASTE SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND KEEP AUSTIN BEAUTIFUL. RACHEL HURTENBURGER OF O'HENRY MIDDLE SCHOOL IS DESERVING OF PUBLIC ACCLAIM AND RECOGNITION. THIS CERTIFICATE IS PRESENTED IN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF HER ARTISTIC TALENT AND HER COMMITMENT TO PRESERVING AUSTIN'S NATURAL RESOURCES THIS 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, AD, IN THE YEAR 2001. THE CITY COUNCIL OF AUSTIN, TEXAS IS REPRESENTED BY OUR MAYOR, GUS GARCIA, AND IS SO SIGNED AND SEALED. THANK YOU, RACHEL.

THANK YOU. [APPLAUSE].

I GUESS I WOULD JUST LIKE TO THANK MY FAMILY AND MY ART TEACHER, MR. BILL KAWTHORN AND ALL THE EMPLOYEES AT KEEP AUSTIN BEAUTIFUL. [APPLAUSE].

MY NAME IS WILLIE RHOADES, DIRECTOR OF SOLID WASTE SERVICES. I WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT A COPY OF THE WINNING ARTWORK. THIS YEAR WE HAD OVER 450 ENTRIES IN OUR ART CONTEST FOR AMERICA RECYCLES AND RACHEL CAME OUT THE NO. 1 WINNER. ALSO THIS IS THE SECOND YEAR IN A ROW WE HAD A WINNER FROM O'HENRY MIDDLE SCHOOL SO I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO SAY THANK TO YOU THE PRINCIPAL OF THAT SCHOOL AND GIVE A COPY OF THIS ARTWORK TO BILL AND RACHEL. WILL YOU PLEASE COME UP, RACHEL? THE WINNING ARTWORK, A COPY. [APPLAUSE]. .

THE WINNING ARTWORK WAS PUT ON A BILLBOARD AT 7TH AND I?35 FOR THOSE WHO DROVE BY AND HAVE SEEN IT RECENTLY. IT WAS UP FOR APPROXIMATELY 30 DAYS. .

GOODMAN: WE OFTEN HAVE PROUD TEACHERS AND PARENTS HERE. WE DON'T OFTEN GIVE THEM A CHANCE TO SPEAK, BUT I THINK THIS IS KIND OF A SPECIAL OCCASION. SO IF YOU ALL WANT TO SAY SOMETHING AS OBVIOUSLY EXCELLENT PARENTS AND OBVIOUSLY INSPIRING TEACHERS, PLEASE FEEL FREE.

I'M JUST VERY PROUD OF RACHEL AND SHE ENTERED THE CONTEST ALL ON HER OWN WITH NO URGING FROM US. JUST SHOWED US THE WORK AND SHE DID EVERYTHING. AND WE LOVE HER A LOT. [APPLAUSE].

YEAH, I REALLY ?? I HAVE A REALLY BEEN FORTUNATE TO HAVE RACHEL AND STUDENTS LIKE HER AT O'HENRY AND THE PLEASURE TO REALLY TEACH STUDENTS LIKE RACHEL. IT'S WHAT MAKES MY JOB SPECIAL. THANK YOU. [APPLAUSE]. . [APPLAUSE]. .

GOODMAN: OUR LAST PROCLAMATION IS ALSO A VERY IMPORTANT ONE TO END UP ON, AND AID ENIS HERE THIS. IS ABOUT THE AUSTIN WORLD CONGRESS ON INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 2006. AND THE CERTIFICATE OF CONGRATULATIONS FOR THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT FOR HAVING BEEN OFFICIALLY SELECTED AS THE U.S. CANDIDATE TO HOST AN EVENT OFTEN DESCRIBED AS THE OLYMPICS OF HIGH?TECH BUSINESS GATHERINGS, WHICH BRINGS WORLD LEADERS TOGETHER TO DISCUSS INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY ISSUES, THE WORLD CONGRESS ON INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 2006 STEERING COMMITTEE IS DESERVING OF PUBLIC ACCLAIM AND RECOGNITION. THIS CERTIFICATE IS PRESENTED IN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE POSITIVE RESULTS THAT THE COORDINATED EFFORTS OF A FEW MOTIVATED INDIVIDUALS CAN PRODUCE. THE WCIT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO BRING ATTENDEES FROM AS MANY AS 890 COUNTRIES AND MAKE A ?? 90 COUNTRIES AND MAKE A $17 MILLION IMPACT ON THE AUSTIN ECONOMY. WE ARE PRESENTING IT THIS 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER IN THE YEAR 2001, SIGNED BY OUR MAYOR, GUS GARCIA. AND FROM ALL OF US ON THE COUNCIL AND IN THE CITY, IN THE WAKE OF SEPTEMBER 11TH, ALTHOUGH ALL OUR INTENTIONS ARE GOOD AND POSITIVE AND WE ARE NOT GOING TO LET TOO MUCH CHANGE OUR LIVES, IT IS SIGNIFICANT TO MAKE SOMETHING LIKE THIS HAPPEN, AND IT IS A VERY PURE AND POSITIVE SIGNAL THAT LIFE GOES ON, AND IN AUSTIN IT'S GOING TO BE A GOOD LIFE. THANK YOU, MA'AM, AND ALL OF YOU FOR EVERYTHING YOU DO FOR US. AND THE SEASON WE ARE SUCH A GREAT CITY. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. [APPLAUSE].

WE WOULD ALL LIKE TO THANK THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ITS DIRECT ASSISTANCE IN RECOGNITION OF OUR EFFORTS THIS FAR. IT IS OUR PLEASURE TO ANNOUNCE THAT AUSTIN WAS CHOSEN FOR THE UNITED STATES CANDIDATE FOR THE WORLD CONGRESS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 2006 AND APPRECIATE THE CERTIFICATE. HELD EVERY TWO YEARS, THE WCIT IS KNOWN AS THE OLYMPICS OF I.T. CONFERENCES AND ATTRACTS APPROXIMATELY 2,000 GOVERNMENT AND INDUSTRY LEADERS FROM AROUND THE WORLD. PAST SPEAKERS INCLUDE MARGARET THATCHER, BILL GATES, MICHAEL DELL AND MANY OTHERS. WE BEAT OTHER U.S. HIGH?TECH HUBS IN THIS FIRST ROUND OF THE COMPETITION, BUT NOW MUST MOVE ON TO THE INTERNATIONAL ROUND. THE WINNER WILL BE ANNOUNCED AT THE 2002 WCIT THIS FEBRUARY IN ADELAIDE, AUSTRALIA, BY THE WORLD INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND SERVICES ALLIANCE, A CONSORTIUM OF 41 I.T. INDUSTRY ASSOCIATIONS THAT REPRESENT 97% OF THE WORLD'S I. T.. RESPONDING TO THE ECONOMIC DOWNTURN, AUSTIN BUSINESS AND COMMUNITY LEADERS FORMED INDEPENDENT TEAM TO ENTER TEXAS INTO THE INTERNATIONAL COMPETITION T AUSTIN CONVENTION AND VISITORS BUREAU ESTIMATES THAT WINNING WILL RESULT IN THE $17 MILLION WINDFALL TO OUR WHOLE ECONOMY. IF OUR EFFORT IS SUCCESSFUL, THE RESULT FOR AUSTIN IS MORE THAN MONETARY BECAUSE OUR CITIZENS' INITIATIVE JOINS ECONOMIC GROWTH AND ESTABLISHES AUSTIN AS AN INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR HIGH?TECH. PLEASE ALLOW ME TO FORMALLY RECOGNIZE A FEW ESPECIALLY DEDICATED VOLUNTEERS, SOME OF WHICH WE HAVE WITH, THAT MAKE UP AUSTIN'S TEAM. SARAH BREWER, CAROL CHARLES, TOM EVANS, FRANK FLATA, NICK FOX, DAVID GIBSON, BRENDA HALL, PAUL IVY, DAVID LOFT, JOSEPH MCCALL, JOHN THAT THAN OSMUNDSON, MEL RISER, TRACY SOLOMON AND JOEL WIG BEGINS. ADDITIONALLY, AUSTIN'S BID WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE WITHOUT KEY ASSISTANCE FROM A NUMBER OF SOURCES THAT I WILL QUICKLY RECOGNIZE. THESE INCLUDE THE INVALUABLE CORPORATE SUPPORT FROM SCC TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES AND ITS CEO FREDERICK CHANGE. RECORDS HAVE COME IN FROM 17 LOCAL AND STATE GOVERNMENT LEADERS WHO CONTINUE TO BE EXTREMELY RECEPTIVE AND SUPPORTIVE OF OUR EFFORT. FINALLY, THIS EFFORT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE WITHOUT ASSISTANCE FROM THE AUSTIN CONVENTION AND VISITORS BUREAU, THE GREATER AUSTIN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, GEORGE COSMETSKY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS, VINSON AND ELKINS. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ASSIST US, PLEASE SEE OUR WEBSITE AT AUSTIN2006 WCIT.COM OR SEE ONE OF US. WE STILL NEED AS MANY LETTERS OF CORPORATE SUPPORT AND CORPORATE SPONSORSHIP AS POSSIBLE BEFORE DECEMBER 21. THAT IS WHEN WE SUBMIT THE FINAL BID. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. [APPLAUSE]. A A A.

GOODMAN: AS SOON AS WE HAVE FOUR COUNCILMEMBERS ON THE DAIS, THE MAYOR IS ?? AS SOON AS WE DO, THE MAYOR IS OKAY WITH US BEGINNING. WE KNOW SOME FOLKS HAVE TO LEAVE AND IN FACT MAY HAVE ALREADY. BUT WE HAVE A 6:00 PUBLIC HEARING. WE'RE A LITTLE BIT LATE. .

GARZA: ALICE, ARE WE GOING TO MAKE THE CHANGES TO THE ?? THE ?? ARE WE GOING TO DO HOLLY? OKAY. .

MAYOR GARCIA: LET ME CALL THE MEETING BACK TO ORDER. AND WE'RE GOING TO GO TO ITEM 61 FOR RECONSIDERATION. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ARIZONA I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ITEM ??.

ALVAREZ: I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE FOR RECONCLUSION OF 616789 THIS IS THE CENTRAL EAST AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AND IN THE ZONING PARTED OF THAT WE HAD ?? OR I HAD RECOMMENDED ??.

MAYOR GARCIA: DO YOU WANT TO DO 60 AND 61?

ALVAREZ: 60 WE DID ALREADY ON FIRST READING.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY.

ALVAREZ: 61, IF WE CHANGE THE CONDITIONAL AND PROHIBITED USES, THE WAY I HAD DESCRIBED, THEN WE WOULD ALSO HAVE TO AMEND THE PLAN TO DO THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON THE RECONSIDERATION, THEN I'LL RECOGNIZE YOU FOR THE CHANGES. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF RECONSIDERATION INDICATE BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED NO. MOTION CARRIES. I'LL RECOGNIZE YOU NOW FOR THE CHANGES.

ALVAREZ: THE CHANGES, IT WOULD BE APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND COME BACK FOR FINAL APPROVAL WHEN THE ZONING COMES BACK, WHICH IS NEXT WEEK.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. SO WE WILL CONSIDER THE ACTION SO APPROVAL ON SECOND READING ONLY. AND THAT'S YOUR MOTION.

ALVAREZ: YES, SIR.

MAYOR GARCIA: ALL RIGHT. IS THERE A SECOND?

WYNN: SECOND.

MAYOR GARCIA: SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED, NO. MOTION CARRIES. WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING SET FOR 6:00 TIME CERTAIN AND WE ALSO HAVE HOLLY, THE HOLLY NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. LET'S SEE, HOW MANY SPEAKERS DO WE HAVE ON HOLLY? [ONE MOMENT, PLEASE, WHILE CAPTIONERS CHANGE].

GARCIA: OKAY. ITEM 62. STAFF?

GOOD EVENING MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS. MY NAME IS MARIO AND I'M WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT. I'LL BE COMBINING AGENDA NUMBER 62 AND 63 FOR THE AGENDA READING. THE HOLLY NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AND REZONING, CASE C?14?01?0166, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE AUSTIN TOMORROW COMPREHENSIVE BY ADOPTING THE HOLLY NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AND CONSIDER AMENDING CHAPTER 25?2 OF THE AUSTIN CITY CODE BY REZONING PROPERTY LOCALLY KNOWN AS THE HOLLY NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN BOUNDED ON THE WEST BY CHICON STREET, ON THE NORTH BY SEVENTH STREET, ON THE EAST BY PLEASANT VALLEY ROAD AND ON THE SOUTH BY TOWN LAKE. TO ADD A NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN COMBINING DISTRICT TO EACH BASE ZONING DISTRICT IN THE AREA PLAN. TO PERMIT A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY OVERLAY WILL BE ADDED TO 70 TRACTS IN THE DISTRICT AND 71 TRACTS OF LAND WILL BE CHANGED AS DESCRIBED IN THE POSTED AGENDA. THE HOLLY NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN IS A RESULT OF 19 MONTHS OF INTENSE THOROUGH NEIGHBORHOOD WORK. THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS, STAKEHOLDERS REPRESENTING ALL INTERESTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THE PLAN. THE PROCESS HAS SEEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD GO THROUGH TWO MAJOR COMMUNITY WORKSHOPS, AN OPEN HOUSE, A FINAL SURVEY AND AN ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY OUTREACH SESSION AT THE REQUEST OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO ENSURE THOROUGH STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT. IN ADDITION THERE HAVE BEEN REGULAR BIMONTHLY MEETINGS, TARGETED INFORMATIONAL MEETING AND BUSINESS AND ORGANIZATIONAL ?? AND ALSO TARGETED MEETINGS WITH BUSINESS OWNERS AND SCHOOL REPRESENTATIVES, IN ADDITION TO OTHER OUTREACH TACTICS REGARDING STUFFING CHURCH BULL BULLETINS AND THINGS FOR CHILDREN TO TAKE HOME TO THEIR PARENTS AND A RADIO ADVERTISEMENT IN SPANISH. THE FIRST PLAN CONSIDERS THE ADOPTION OF THE HOLLY NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AND THE SECOND CONSIDERS THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN FOR IMPLEMENTATION FOR REZONING. THE BASIS FOR THE PLAN RECOMMENDATION HAVE THE ENVISIONS OF THE STAKEHOLDERS. ONE IS TO PRESERVE THE CHARACTERS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, TWO PROMOTE COMPATIBILITY AND PROTECT USES OF THE VARIOUS DISTRICTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THREE ENSURE HOUSING CHOICE AND HOUSING AFFORDABILITY. AND ENHANCE TRANSIT AND CONNECTIVITY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO OTHER PARTS OF AUSTIN. THE PLAN HAS THE BLUEPRINT OR FUTURE LAND USE MAP THAT USES THE APPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT TO FIVE DISTINCT AREAS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT CAN BE REFERENCE UNDERSTAND THIS MAP ON THE RIGHT.

GARCIA: THERE'S A MICROPHONE OVER HERE. IF YOU CAN PULL THAT ONE AND THAT WAY YOU CAN MOVE AROUND. AND THAT WAY ??

WHICH REFERENCES THE MAP ON THE TOP RIGHT?HAND SIDE.

GARCIA: COULD WE GET MORE VOLUME ON THAT MIC, PLEASE? OKAY.

THE MAP DESCRIBES FIVE DISTINCT DISTRICTS, THE PARKS DISTRICT, WHICH IS IN GREEN, THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, WHICH IS IN YELLOW, THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, WHICH IS ALSO THE EAST CESAR CHAVEZ CORRIDOR. THE COMMERCIAL MIXED USE DISTRICT, WHICH CAN BE FOUND WITH THE PINK COLORS. AND THE SEVENTH STREET CORRIDOR, WHICH IS FOUND IN PURPLE. THESE DISTRICTS CONTAIN SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS TO ENSURE EXISTING AND FUTURE COMPATIBILITY OF LAND USES. FOR EXAMPLE THE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PARK DISTRICTS ARE THAT ALL EXISTING PUBLIC USES REMAIN P PUBLIC LAND AND CONSISTENT WITH THE WATERFRONT OVERLAY. THE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS ARE TO INCREASE OPPORTUNITIES FOR MORE HOUSING THROUGH THE SMALL LOT AMNESTY OPTION AND THE SECONDARY ACCESSORY UNITS OPTION. THE RECOMMENDATION FOR THE EAST CESAR CHAVEZ CORRIDOR ARE MIXED R?4 ?? MIXED USE STRUCTURES AND MIXED USE AND THE MIXED USE COMBINING DISTRICT TO ?? ON TOP OF THE COMMERCIAL BASED ZONING. THE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE COMMERCIAL MIXED USE DISTRICT IN PINK ARE FOR COMMERCIAL USES AND MIXED USE STRUCTURES AS WELL. TO ALSO ALLOW ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL OPPORTUNITIES THAT WEREN'T AVAILABLE BEFORE. THE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE SEVENTH STREET CORRIDOR ARE FOR MIXED USE COMMUNITIES. IN ADDITION TO THE LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THESE AREAS, THE PLAN CONTAINS AN ARRAY OF RECOMMENDATIONS THAT IDENTIFY AREAS AND STRATEGIES FOR NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS AND TRANSPORTATION RECOMMENDATIONS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER DESIGN GUIDELINES. THIS CONCLUDES THE FIRST PART OF THE PRESENTATION, WHICH ADDRESSES THE RECOMMENDED LAND USES FOR THE HOLLY PLANNING AREA AND CONSIDERATION FOR ADOPTION OF THE HOLLY NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. THE SECOND PART OF THIS PRESENTATION ADDRESSES THE REZONING THAT WILL BE REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT THE LAND USE RECOMMENDATION. THE HOLLY PLAN IS RECOMMENDING TWO TYPES OF ZONING CHANGES. THE FIRST DEALS WITH THE REZONING OF AN EXISTING BASE ZONING DISTRICT AND THE SECOND DEALS WITH MAKING EXISTING BASE DISTRICTS MUCH MORE RESTRICTIVE OR MAKING THEM RESTRICTIVE WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY. WE CAN REFERENCE THIS MAP OVER HERE, WHICH HIGHLIGHTS ALL THOSE PROPERTIES THAT WILL BE REZONED. ALL THE PINK PROPERTIES WILL BE REZONED TO COMMERCIAL MIXED USE. THE BROWN PROPERTIES SIGNAL REZONING TO LI WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY AND ADDING THE NP MIXED USE BUILDING OPTION. THE PURPLE SIGNIFIES RIGHT IN HERE REZONING FROM COMMERCIAL SERVICES TO GR. ALONG THE EAST CESAR CHAVEZ CORRIDOR THERE WILL BE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS TO REZONE THAT WHOLE CORRIDOR WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY TO ELIMINATE SOME OF THE INCOMPATIBLE USES FROM EVER OCCURRING ON THAT STREET. THERE IS A LOT OF ?? THERE ARE SOME SPORADIC CASES OF CS ZONED PROPERTIES WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOODS THEMSELVES, AND THOSE PROPERTIES WILL BE REZONED TO SINGLE?FAMILY?3 WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT EXCEPT FOR AN EXISTING LANDMARK OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH IS A MR. MAC'S QUICK WASH TEAR I CAN'T WHICH IS LOCATED ON ROBERT MARTINEZ AND HOLLY AND THAT'S GOING TO BE REZONED TO GR?MU AS WELL. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. I WILL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. THE STAFF IS OFFERING THE PLANNING AND REZONING FOR ALL THREE READINGS.

GARCIA: THERE FLORES, THE ITEM 62 SAYS THAT THE PHASE WAS CONSIDERED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON NOVEMBER THE 27TH, BUT I DON'T ?? I DON'T SEE WHAT THE RECOMMENDATION WAS.

IT WAS A NINE?0 UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION FOR SUPPORT OF THE PLAN AND THE REZONING WITH A CONDITION. THEY ALSO WANTED TO EMPHASIZE THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER THE SPEEDY CLOSURE OF THE HOLLY POWER PLANT. THAT WAS THEIR MOTION.

GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

SLUSHER: I UNDERSTAND THE ?? MR. ?? THE LANDMARK BUSINESS AT ROBERT MARTINEZ AND HOLLY, BUT MAKING THAT GR, DOESN'T THAT MEAN ?? WOULDN'T THAT BE A LITTLE INTENSIVE IN THERE IF THAT BUSINESS WERE TO GO AWAY AND ANOTHER GR USE? IS THAT CONCERNS ME THAT THAT WOULDN'T BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE I THINK THE EXISTING USE IS.

WELL, THERE'S TWO SAFEGUARDS, REALLY ONE SAFEGUARD AND THAT'S IN REGARDS TO THE COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS THAT WOULD KICK IN. THE FIRST THING IS THAT FOR THAT CURRENT USE TO REMAIN A LEGAL USE, THE WASHATERIA REQUIRES GR ZONING. ADJACENT TO IT THERE'S A CONVENIENCE STORE, A GROCERY STORE THAT TECHNICALLY COULD GO BY LR ZONING. THE PROPERTY OWNERS GAVE THEIR INPUT THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS AND OPPOSED THE CS ZONING, BUT WE'RE MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THE DOWN ZONING THE THEIR CS PROPERTY, BUT WERE MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THE GR ZONING DESIGNATION.

SLUSHER: BUT WHAT KIND OF USES COULD GO IN THERE UNDER GR IF THIS USE WERE TO GO AWAY?

IF YOU WOULD PERMIT ME A SECOND. THE CODE ALLOWS FOR A PLETHORA OF USES, RANGING FROM ADMINISTRATIVE AND BUSINESS OFFICES, ARTS AND CRAFTS STUDIOS, AUTOMOTIVE RENTALS, WHICH IS BEING RECOMMENDED AS CONDITIONAL. THERE IS ALSO CONDITIONAL OVERLAY ATTACHED TO THESE PROPERTIES, WHICH IS BEING RECOMMENDED AS A PROHIBITED USE ON THIS PORTION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. OTHER TYPE OF USES, SUCH AS COMMUNICATION ?? WELL, COMMERCIAL OFF STREET PARKING IS BEING RECOMMENDED AS A ?? AS A PROHIBITED USE IN THIS AREA. CONVENIENCE STORE ?? WELL, NO, THAT DOESN'T APPLY THERE. EXTERMINATING SERVICES IS ALSO BEING RECOMMENDED IS ANOTHER USE THAT COULD APPLY, BUT IT'S BEING RECOMMENDED AS A PROHIBITED USE. FUNERAL SERVICES WOULD BE A USE THAT COULD APPLY IN THAT AREA AS WELL. GENERAL RETAIL SALES, GENERAL HOTEL AND MOTEL.

SLUSHER: ONE LOT? HOW MANY LOTS IS THAT?

THERE ARE ABOUT FOUR LOTS TOGETHER, YES, SIR.

SLUSHER: SO LET'S SEE, THAT STRETCHES BACK UP ROBERT MARTINEZ, MAYBE TWO ON HOLLY, TWO OR MARTINEZ? HOW IS THAT ALIGNED?

IF YOU LOOK AT ?? IN PARTICULAR THIS AREA FROM ROBERT MARTINEZ JUST TO ANTHONY, JUST EAST OF ANTHONY STREET, ABOUT THREE LOTS FROM THE INTERSECTION OF ANTHONY AND HOLLY.

SLUSHER: WHAT'S THAT ZONED NOW?

IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED CS.

SLUSHER: WHAT ABOUT ON EACH SIDE OF IT?

SF?3.

SLUSHER: SO IS IT SF?3 ALL UP AND DOWN HOLLY EXCEPT FOR THERE?

YES. ACTUALLY, TRACT 70 RIGHT IN HERE IS ?? THERE ARE SOME EXISTING HOMES AND THE CURRENT ZONING IS CS.

SLUSHER: OKAY. THANK YOU, I MAY MIGHT COME BACK TO THIS LATER. THAT'S ALL I HAVE, MAYOR.

GARCIA: I WANT TO KNOW WHEN I WAS MR. FLORES' AGE, I DIDN'T KNOW THAT THE WORD PLETHORA WAS IN THE DICTIONARY. SO THAT'S HOW FAR WE'VE COME. [LAUGHTER]. QUESTIONS? FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. FLORES?

[INAUDIBLE]. [LAUGHTER].

GARCIA: FIRST DARLENE ROSALES? SHE IS REGISTERED IN FAVOR OF. SHE SAYS LET'S CLOSE THE PLANT, 2005. LORI RENTERIA? SHE SAYS MY SON ALSO HAS IN THE AREA AT 2512 CESAR CHAVEZ AND MANY MEMBERS OF OUR GROUP, UNITED EAST AUSTIN COALITION LIVE OR OWN BUSINESSES IN THE HOLLY AREA. WE ALL WANT THE PLAN TO PASS TODAY. NO EXCUSE, NO DELAYS. PASS THE HOLLY PLANT TODAY. SARAH BREWER? MS. BREWER, WELCOME.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY. I AM A HOMEOWNER AND A RESIDENT IN THE HOLLY NEIGHBORHOOD, AND I SUPPORT BOTH THE ZONING AND THE PLAN AS SUBMITTED. I THINK PEOPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAVE BEEN OFFERED AN AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO VOICE THEIR INPUT. AND THOUGH WE MAY NOT HAVE ACHIEVED EVERYTHING THAT I PERSONALLY WOULD HAVE WANTED, WE ENGAGED IN A VERY LIVELY DEBATE AND CONCESSIONS WERE MADE BOTH BY HOMEOWNERS, RESIDENT HOMEOWNERS, COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OWNERS AND RESIDENTIAL OWNERS WHO DO NOT LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND SO I DO SUPPORT THE PLAN. I THINK THAT THE USE OF CONDITIONAL OVERLAY'S IS GOING TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE ABOUT POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THAT WE MIGHT SEE AS UNDESIRABLE. I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT SOMETHING THAT REMAINS A PROBLEM IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS ENFORCEMENT OF ZONING. I MEAN, THE EXISTING ZONING THAT IS THERE IS NOT ENFORCED VERY WELL AT ALL, AND THAT'S A REAL PROBLEM FOR ME AS A RESIDENT. AND I HOPE THAT THERE IS SOME WAY THAT WE CAN IMPROVE THAT WITH THE NEW ZONING, IF IT PASSES. AND THE OTHER ISSUES, ONE THAT'S CONSISTENTLY NOTED BY RESIDENTS AS BEING OF THE UTMOST IMPORTANCE AND THAT IS, OF COURSE, THE CLOSURE OF THE HOLLY POWER PLANT. AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE COUNCIL PURSUE OPTIONS TO THE POWER THAT WE GET FROM THE HOLLY POWER PLANT WITH GREAT SPEED AND I HOPE THAT YOU DO EVERYTHING YOU CAN ON TO EXPLORE AND PUT INTO PLACE OPTIONS. THIS IS A VERY INAPPROPRIATELY SIGHTED POWER SOURCE AND IT'S OF GREAT CONCERN TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND I ALSO URGE YOU TO DO ANYTHING YOU CAN TO ENCOURAGE THE PRESERVATION, RESTORATION AND REHABILITATION OF WHAT IS REALLY A DETERIORATED HOUSING STOCK AND TO INCREASE ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE, SAFE HOUSING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK YOU.

GARCIA: THANK YOU, MS. BREWER. SARA GANGER? WELCOME.

GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS SARAH GANGER AND I REPRESENT EMPLOYEES OF BALCONES RECYCLING. WE'RE LOCATED AT SIXTH AND PERIOD NATIONAL LESS AND I'VE PERSONALLY BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS. MARIO SAID 19 MONTHS, BUT I'M PRETTY SURE IT'S ALMOST TWO YEARS AT THIS POINT. AND WE HAVEN'T ALWAYS ALL SEEN EYE TO EYE AND THERE HAS BEEN DIFFERENCES OF OPINION, BUT I THINK THAT OVER THOSE TWO YEARS WE CAME TO UNDERSTAND WHERE OTHER PEOPLE STOOD AND REALLY TRIED TO TRULY BUILD A CONSENSUS AND COME UP WITH A PLAN THAT FIRST OF ALL DID NO HARM AND SECOND OF ALL TRIED TO ENHANCE THE GOOD THINGS ABOUT THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND ADDRESS ISSUES LIKE SAFETY AND SIDEWALKS AND LIGHTING AND TRANSPORTATION. AND REALLY GIVE PEOPLE SOMETHING THAT THEY COULD TAKE AWAY AND FELT LIKE THEY WERE A PART OF THIS PROCESS. AND WE'VE DONE THAT AND WE PERSONALLY HAVE TAKEN CONCESSIONS ON OUR OWN PROPERTY AS OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE AND THAT'S STILL OKAY WITH US BECAUSE OVERALL I THINK IT'S A GOOD PLAN. AND WE'D LIKE TO SEE IT PASS. THANK YOU.

GARCIA: THANK YOU, MS. GANGER. COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ HAS A QUESTION.

ALVAREZ: ONE OF THE ?? I GUESS ONE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT CAME OUT OF THE PLAN IS THAT CERTAIN LI USES RETAIN THEIR LI ZONING, AND I KNOW THE CESAR CHAVEZ BASICALLY DOWN ZONED ALL BUT ONE LI USE, AND THAT ONE PARTICULAR LI USE IN THE CESAR CHAVEZ PLAN, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE SAID IS IT WILL RETAIN ITS LI ZONING, BUT THAT'S GOING TO BE THE ONLY PERMITTED USE UNDER LI. AND SO I WAS WONDERING ?? AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WERE THE SPOKESPERSON FOR THE COMPANY OR IF THAT PERSON MAYBE WILL SPEAK LATER, BUT IF WE WERE TO DO THAT WHERE, LET'S SAY, YOU RETAIN YOUR LI ZONING, BUT WE SAY THAT THE ONLY PERMITTED LI USE BECOME THE EXISTING USE, IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT STILL WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE AND CONSISTENT WITH THE PLAN.

WELL, I THINK THAT ?? LET ME BACK UP JUST A LITTLE BIT. I THINK THAT WE ADDRESSED THAT SAME ISSUE FROM A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT ANGLE WHERE WE RECOMMENDED USES THAT WERE NOT ALLOWED IN THE OVERLAY AND WE SAID WE IDENTIFIED WHAT WE FELT LIKE WERE ALREADY NOXIOUS USES AND WE OUTLINED THEM AND SAID WE DON'T WANT THESE THINGS. AND EVERYTHING ELSE IS OKAY. SO I THINK WE CAME AT THAT SAME GOAL, A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT ANGLE. BUT R. BUT I WOULD SAY THAT THE ONLY THING THAT WE COULD DO ON OUR PROPERTY WAS WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW. THAT MAY SUIT US FOR NOW, BUT I THINK LONG?TERM THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY OUR GOAL IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, THAT'S VERY LIMITING IN TERMS OF THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. BUT, YOU KNOW, OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, I CAN'T REALLY SAY LONG?TERM YES OR NO.

ALVAREZ: AND IF THERE ARE OTHER FOLKS WHO ARE GOING TO SPEAK TO THAT ISSUE, IF THEY HAVE LI PROPERTY, HOW THEY WOULD FEEL ABOUT THE ONLY PERMITTED LI USE BEING THER I WOULDN'T CONSIDER THAT THE SAME NEIGHBORHOOD. IF YOU DRIVE OUR CORRIDOR OF SIXTH STREET VERSUS THEIR CORRIDOR OF SIXTH STREET, IT REALLY HAS A DIFFERENT CHARACTER. THERE ARE NOT, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, VERY MANY LI EXISTING USES FURTHER WEST ON SIXTH STREET WHERE IF THEY ARE IN OUR CORRIDOR.

ALVAREZ: I GUESS I'M TALKING MORE THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD FROM TOWN LAKE TO SEVENTH STREET.

CERTAINLY THERE ARE LI USES IN THAT ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S REALLY ALONG THE SIXTH AND SEVENTH STREET CORRIDOR.

ALVAREZ: THANKS.

GARCIA: I THINK THAT WHAT THE COUNCILMEMBER IS REFERRING TO IS THAT IN A LOT OF INSTANCES THIS ?? PLANS WERE DEVELOPED FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAKING WHAT WAS DONE MANY, MANY YEARS AGO AND TRYING TO ADDRESS A WAY TO CORRECT THAT SITUATION.

RIGHT. AND I GUESS I AGREE WITH THAT AND I THINK WE DID IT JUST FROM A DIFFERENT ANGLE.

GARCIA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. BILL STRINGER?

MAYOR GARCIA, COUNCIL PERSONS, I'M BILL STRINGER. I'VE BEEN IN AUSTIN APPROXIMATELY 30 YEARS. I'VE OWNED THIS PROPERTY THAT I HAVE IN THE AREA, WHICH IS AN LI ZONED PROPERTY 22 YEARS. IT IS PURELY A WAREHOUSE. IT IS ?? IT HAD BEEN A POLISHED IRON, MOLDING PLANT AT ONE TIME. AND IT WAS BUILT AS A FURNITURE STORAGE BUILDING. I BOUGHT IT IN 1979. THIS PLAN THAT WE'VE WORKED OUT HAS BEEN A LONG, ARREST ARDUOUS PLAN. FEBRUARY WILL BE TWO YEARS INTO THIS EFFORT. MY POSTURE WAS ALWAYS IF YOU WERE GOING TO REZONE SOMEONE'S PROPERTY, YOU MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE AWARE OF IT AND HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ACCEPT THAT. ALSO THE COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS WERE LOOKED AT BOTH WAYS, COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS WHERE MY WAREHOUSE ARE CONCERNED IS A WAREHOUSE BEING NEAR SOMEONE'S HOUSE. MY PARTICULAR BUILDING SITS NEXT TO THE U.S. POST OFFICE. I'M PROBABLY BETWEEN A THOUSAND AND 2,000 FEET FROM MY RESIDENCES. WE'RE IN A VERY HIGH TRAFFIC AREA. THE U.S. POST OFFICE IS ON ONE SIDE OF ME. THE POSSIBILITY OF MY BUILDING BEING USED ANY OTHER WAY IS AN IMPOSSIBILITY BECAUSE IT IS PURELY A WAREHOUSE AND HAS A SMALL PARKING LOT, AND THAT'S DESIGNED IN THE ?? YOU REQUIRE ONE PARKING SPACE PER 20 ?? PER THOUSAND SQUARE FEET AND IN A WAREHOUSE TYPICALLY IT HAS EVEN LESS THAN THAT. BUT ANYWAY, WE WORKED HARD ON THE PLAN. MR. FLORES PROVIDED US WITH VERY GOOD LEADERSHIP, HANDLED IT VERY OBJECTIVELY. I'M REAL PROUD OF WHAT WE CAME OUT WITH. I HOPE YOU'LL SUPPORT THE PLAN. IT'S BEEN DONE WITH A LOT OF CONSIDERATION. WE DIDN'T HAVE A LOT OF PARTICIPATION FROM THE RESIDENTS. THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR SOME REASON, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, VOTED IN THE LAST ELECTION WAS DOWN AROUND THE FIVE OR SIX PERCENT RANGE. OUR PARTICIPATION WAS LOWER THAN THAT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PROBLEM IS, BUT ONE OF THE PROBLEMS IS THAT WE HAVE ABOUT 25% ABSENTEE OWNERSHIP, SO THAT GIVES YOU SOME INSIGHT. BUT IT'S A GOOD PLAN AND I HOPE YOU'LL SUPPORT IT.

GARCIA: THANK YOU MR. STRINGER. QUESTIONS? OKAY. DAVID L. BLACK, JUNIOR? WELCOME MR. BLACK.

MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBERS, I'M DAVID BLACK. I OWN THREE LOTS AND BUSINESSES, TRAVIS ENGINE CENTER. MY PROPERTY IS LOCATED BEHIND THE BALCONES RECYCLING ON HIDALGO STREET. THE PROPERTY THAT ?? WHERE IT'S LOCATED IS ?? WORRY IN A HEAVY LI AREA. WE HAVE LI WITH BALCONES, WE HAVE LI DOWN THE END OF THE STREET WITH WAREHOUSING. MY PARTICULAR PROPERTY WHERE THE BUILDING STRUCTURE IS, IS LI. I'VE RECENTLY PURCHASED THE LOT NEXT DOOR, WHICH IS PROPOSED TO BE CS PROPERTY, ALL RIGHT? THE CURRENT ZONING IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE USE AND NEEDS TO CONTINUE TO ?? TO ADDRESS COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ'S QUESTION ABOUT WOULD I WANT TO SEE GOING TO AN L.I. ONE USE ONLY, NO. THAT WOULD TAKE VALUE OUT OF THE PROPERTY AND THE ABILITY TO WHICH POINT I WOULD NEED TO RESELL, SHOULD I EVER. MY INTENT IS TO GROW WHERE I'M AT, BUT THEN AGAIN THAT MAY NOT PROVIDE ITSELF. AND TO RESTRICT IT TO ONE PURPOSE ONLY WITH THE SIZE STRUCTURE THAT I HAVE WOULD LIMIT THE ABILITY TO SELL THE PROPERTY TO BE ABLE TO REINVEST IN JOBS AND GROWTH DOWN THE ROAD. NOW, AS FAR AS THE PLAN ITSELF IS CONCERNED, THIS IS A GOOD PLAN. IT'S A SOLID PLAN. IT HAS BUILT INTO IT, AS SARAH HAD MENTIONED, ALL THE AVENUES OF RESTRICTION FOR WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS DECIDED TO RESTRICT IN THE L.I. ZONING THAT ARE INCOMPATIBLE USES FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS. I AGREE WITH IT. THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT WE'VE GIVEN UP, YES. SO HAS EVERYBODY INVOLVED IN THE PLAN. THE STATISTICS AS FAR AS THOSE SHOWING UP TO THE MEETINGS, THE MEETINGS THEMSELVES HAD ROUGHLY 75% OR BETTER RESIDENT REPRESENTATION ON THE AVERAGE MEETINGS THAT WE HAD. IT WASN'T DOWN 20, 25 PERCENT. THE ACTUAL SURVEY RESULTS WERE ACTUAL LESS THAN TWO PERCENT FEEDBACK FROM THE RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY. THE RESIDENTS WERE VERY WELL REPRESENTED. ON AVERAGE IT WAS THREE OR FOUR OF US FROM THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY THAT WERE AT THESE MEETINGS, AND YES, THEY DID LAST APPROXIMATELY THE LAST 20 MONTHS THAT WE'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH IT. IT'S BEEN A HARD STAKING EFFORT ON EVERYBODY THAT'S CONCERNED AND WE HAVE MET COMMON GROUND GROUND. IT IS SOMETHING IS THAT THROUGH THE MIXED USE, MIXED BUILDING USE, THE INFILL OPTIONS THAT WE HAVE, THEY ADDRESS A LOT OF PROBLEMS IN THE COMMUNITY. AND I THINK THAT AND THE GENERAL SAFETY ISSUES, IT'S A GOOD PLAN AND I SUPPORT IT AS IT STANDS. THANK YOU.

GARCIA: THANK YOU, MR. BLACK. MR. GAVINO HERNANDEZ? FOLLOWING MR. HERNANDEZ IS JOE QUINNTER ROW. ?? QUINTERO. WELCOME MR. HERNANDEZ.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR GARCIA. COUNCILMEMBERS, MY NAME IS GAVRVINO HERNANDEZ. I PARTICIPATED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. AND WHO IS GOING TO SAY TO GENERAL INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS IN A COMMUNITY? THAT'S THE PLAN ELEMENT OF THIS WHOLE PROCESS. WHO'S GOING TO SAY NO TO SIDEWALKS, TO LIGHTS, TO BETTER STREETS, TO ENHANCEMENTS ?? SEEKING EQUITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE? THE ISSUE THAT CONCERNS US AS A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION ONCE AGAIN IS THE NPCD. AND MY CONCERN ENTERING INTO THIS WHOLE PROCESS WAS STAFF'S STRATEGY AND THE NPCD. IT WAS MORE SELLING AMNESTY AND GARAGE APARTMENTS. AND IF YOU WERE TO BUY INTO ONE OF THOSE, GUESS WHAT, YOU GET AN NPCD. AND SHORT OF ?? FOR TIME PREFERENCES, MY RECOMMENDATION IS THAT YOU ADOPT OR CONSIDER THE PLAN, BUT TO PUT A HOLD ON THE ZONING BECAUSE IN THE ZONING, LIKE I SAID, THE NPCD WAS MENTIONED AT THE VERY END. WE HAD VERY LITTLE DISCUSSION IN OUR WORK SESSIONS, IN OUR PLANNING MEETINGS WITH THE NPCD IN GENERAL AND THE BASE DISTRICT EFFECT IT WAS GOING TO HAVE. AND ALSO IN THE ZONING I JUST NOTICED THAT ON FIFTH STREET WE DISCUSS ON THE PLANNING TEAM THAT THEY WERE GOING TO REMAIN SINGLE?FAMILY WITH THE OPTIONS TO GO COMMERCIAL SOMETIME NEAR THE FUTURE. AND AS THE NOTICE WAS SENT OUT, AND I JUST NOTICED, THAT'S NOT THE CASE. THEY'RE BEING REZONED TO GR. SO MANY OF THOSE HOMEOWNERS RIGHT NOW, ALL THOUGH THEY RECEIVED NOTICES, ARE UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THEIR PROPERTIES ARE GOING TO REMAIN SF?3. SO I WOULD STRONGLY RECOMMEND TO YOU THAT IF YOU WANT TO REALLY RECOGNIZE THIS AS A SINCERE, AUTHENTIC NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, THAT WE DO THIS WITH TIME AND WITH CONSIDERATION OF THE EFFECTS OF THE ZONING. WE DID HAVE VERY FEW PEOPLE PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCESS. IT WAS DIFFICULT TO FOLLOW BECAUSE THERE WERE A LOT OF INCONSISTENCIES. FOR EXAMPLE, RIGHT NOW, YOU KNOW, GARAGE APARTMENTS AND THE AMNESTY WAS NOT AN ISSUE THAT WE GARNERED CONSENSUS. AND MY UNDERSTANDING THE MATRIX, ONE OF THE ?? . [BUZZER]. THE RULES OF MEASURING INPUT IS THAT IT HAVE CONSENSUS. WE DIDN'T HAVE CONSENSUS, BUT IT'S IN THE PLAN. SO I THINK THAT WE REALLY NEED TO LOOK AT THIS VERY HARD AND I WOULD STRONGLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO PLEASE ALLOW US MORE TIME TO VISIT THE ZONINGS AND TAKE CARE SOME OF THOSE CONCERNS THAT STILL REMAIN WITH US. THANK YOU.

GARCIA: LET ME ASK YOU ONE QUICK QUESTION. YOU'RE OKAY WITH 63, CORRECT? THAT'S JUST THE ADOPTION OF THE PLAN. IT'S AN ADVISORY PLAN.

THAT'S CORRECT.

GARCIA: BUT YOU WANT US TO RELOOK AT 62, WHICH IS THE ZONING?

RIGHT. AND FOR THOSE THAT ARE FRAMING A VALID PETITION EFFORT, WE HAVE LEARNED THAT EVEN IF YOU BRING ONE, INJURY STILL GOING TO VOTE AGAINST IT, SO COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ, DON'T WORRY ABOUT US BRINGING A VALID PETITION. WE JUST WANT TIME TO SIT DOWN AND TO EVALUATE THE ZONING EFFECTS THATFEINLY CAME OUT OF THIS WHOLE PROCESS. AND JACKIE, YES, I DO LIVE AT 208 KATY AND THIS TIME I DO HAVE ?? I THOUGHT I WAS ON THE OTHER ONE, BUT I DO LIVE IN THIS AREA. SO I WOULD STRONGLY APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION.

GARCIA: THANK YOU. MR. JOE QUINN TEAR QUINTERO.

HELLLY. GREATER EAST AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS, I'M HERE TO ASK YOU TO POSTPONE THE VOTING OF THE HOLLY NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN TODAY. I DO SO BECAUSE THE HOLLY PLANNING PROCESS HAS BEEN MANIPULATED BY THE SAME FORCES THAT OPERATED TO PRODUCE THE CESAR CHAVEZ NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. THOSE FORCES ARE, NUMBER ONE, THE CITY OF AUSTIN'S PLAN TO CONTINUE TO MOVE DEVELOPMENT EAST. NUMBER TWO, ABSENTEE EAST AUSTIN BUSINESS LANDOWNERS TO WANTED WHO PROFIT FROM THEIR INVESTMENTS IN EAST AUSTIN. AND NUMBER THREE, PEOPLE LIKE MARK ROGERS, WHO ARE SELF APPOINTED SPOKESPERSON FOR MIX MAN AMERICAN AND AFRICAN?AMERICAN COMMUNITIES. THEY WANT TO MAKE EAST AUSTIN MORE ATTRACTIVE FOR PEOPLE WHO WANT TO MOVE IN, REDEVELOP AND INCREASE PROPERTY VALUES AND MAKE EAST AUSTIN LESS AFFORDABLE FOR THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE LIVED IN EAST AUSTIN FOR GENERATIONS AND GENERATIONS. LET ME READ A LIST OF NAMES OF THE CESAR CHAVEZ NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING TEAM AND YOU TELL ME IF THEY SOUND LIKE HISPANIC EAST AUSTIN NAMES. KATHY MCPORTER. LORI RENTERIA. JOHN GRAY, JENNIFER GENWITZ. WE ALL KNOW THAT MARK ROGERS AND HIS INVESTORS CREATED THE SUPPORTERS FOR THE ROBINSON HILL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE BENNETT TRACT. MAYOR, AS A COUNCILMEMBER YOU SUPPORTED THAT DELAY BY SUPPORTING DELAYS ON THE ZONING CHANGES. NOW MARK ROGERS AND HIS GROUP HAVE SUCCEEDED IN RAISING PROPERTY VALUES TO LEVELS THAT ARE UNBELIEVABLE. I HAVE TESTIFIED BEFORE ABOUT PROPERTY TAX THAT WAS BROUGHT BY OUTSIDERS FOR 25,000 AND SOLD FOR 400,000. YESTERDAY I VISITED THE RESTORATIONS GOING ON AT EAST EIGHTH AND SAN MARCOS. I GUESS THAT MIGHT GO FOR A MILLION DOLLARS. WHAT DO YOU THINK THE IMPACT OF THAT WILL BE ON SMALL MEXICAN HOMEOWNERS IN THE AREA? THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT THE CITY'S NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING PROCESS IS ABOUT GROWTH, REDEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENTS AND NOT ABOUT THE PRESERVATION OF EAST NEIGHBORHOODS AND ITS PEOPLE. THE ORIGINATORS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN ON THE COUNCIL, STAFF AND SELF?APPOINTED SPOKESPERSONS, NOT EVEN MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WANT TO CHANGE EAST AUSTIN FOREVER THROUGH GENTRIFICATION. A NEW MEMBER OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION NAMED SILVER GARZA SAID LAST WEEK AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WE DON'T NEED TO SAVE ALL THOSE EAST AUSTIN SHACKS. LET'S TEAR THEM DOWN. THEY MAY BE SHACKS TO HIM BECAUSE HE'S NOT FROM AROUND HERE, BUT THEY'RE HOMES TO MANY OF US. THE COUNCIL SHOULD ASK FOR HIS RESIGNATION FOR THOSE REMARKS. I PLAN TO PUSH FOR HIS RESIGNATION AT EVERY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. GENTRIFICATION IS A PROCESS OF AFLUENT PEOPLE MOVING INTO OLDER NEIGHBORHOODS, BUYING PROPERTIES AND REMODELING SO AS TO RAISE PROPERTY VALUES SO THE ORIGINAL PEOPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD LOST THEIR HOMES BECAUSE THEY CAN'T PAY THE NEW PROPERTY TAXES. APPROVING THE HOLLY NEIGHBORHOOD PLANT TODAY WOULD BE ONE MORE STEP IN THE GENTRIFICATION OF EAST AUSTIN. I APPRECIATE YOUR POSTPONEMENT.

GARCIA: MR. PAUL HERNANDEZ. WELCOME, SIR.

GOOD EVENING MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, MAYOR GARCIA. MY NAME IS PAUL HERNANDEZ. I WAS BORN AND RAISED IN EAST AUSTIN, THE SAME AREA THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. AND I AGREE WITH WHOEVER SAYS THAT THE ENTIRE AREA BETWEEN 35 AND PLEASANT VALLEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN PLANNED AS A CONTIGUOUS NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT IS. BUT BECAUSE OF CITY POLITICS AND BECAUSE OF MANIPULATION, IT WAS CUT IN HALF. AND I BEGAN TO WONDER IS IT BECAUSE THE DOWNTOWN EXPANSION LINE IS CHICON STREET, WHICH IS THE DIVIDING LINE FOR THE TWO PLANS? OR IS IT SOMETHING ELSE? I DON'T KNOW. BUT FIRST OF ALL, LET ME SAY THAT AS FAR AS THE HOLLY NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN IS CONCERNED, MR. BLACK MENTIONED THAT LESS THAN TWO PERCENT OF THE RESIDENTS RESPONDED TO THE SURVEY. THERE WAS A DAMN REASON FOR THAT. PEOPLE IN EAST AUSTIN DO NOT TRUST OUR GOVERNMENT, ESPECIALLY THE CITY COUNCIL. THIS CITY COUNCIL AND OTHER CITY COUNCILS HAVE DONE NOTHING TO BRING UP THAT TRUST FACTOR. NUMBER TWO IS THE FACT THAT A LOT OF US KNOW THAT THIS IS NOTHING MORE THAN THE DESIRED DEVELOPMENT ZONE PLANNING PROCESS TO INCREASE THE DENSITY OF EAST AUSTIN. AND NUMBER THREE, WE KNOW THAT THIS IS ANOTHER EFFORT TO GENTRIFY ANOTHER MINORITY AREA MUCH LIKE THE 1928 MASTER PLAN. YOU CAN CALL IT DIFFERENT THINGS AND YOU CAN USE DIFFERENT LABELS AND YOU CAN USE DIFFERENT REASONS, BUT THIS IS NOTHING MORE THAN A DISPLACEMENT EFFORT AIMED AT THE WEAKEST LINK POSSIBLE IN OUR INCOME STREAM, AND THAT IS THE LOW INCOME PEOPLE OF EAST AUSTIN, THE MINORITIES. THIS COULD BE CONSIDERED A RACIST AND A CLASSIST EFFORT BECAUSE IT DISCRIMINATES ON RACE AND IT DISCRIMINATES ON CLASS. THE ASPECT OF PLANNING DID NOT INCLUDE HOW DO YOU MAINTAIN THE LOW INCOME PEOPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. FOR EXAMPLE, HOW DO WE PROTECT OUR RESIDENTS FROM HIGHER TAXES? HOW DO WE PROTECT OUR RESIDENTS FROM THOSE THAT WOULD COME IN WITH MILLION?DOLLAR OPTIONS ON HOMES AND BUY THEM AND REFURBISH THEM AND THEN SELL THEM AT WAY BEYOND ANYTHING THAT WE COULD AFFORD? HOW DO WE PREVENT THAT? OR DON'T YOU CARE? HOW DO WE PREVENT PEOPLE BEING EVICTED WHO HAVE BEEN LIVING THERE FOR 20 TO 30 YEARS? HOW DO YOU PREVENT THAT OR DO YOU CARE? THAT WAS NOT PART OF THIS PROCESS, SO AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED, AND MANY OTHERS ARE CONCERNED, THIS PROCESS IS A FARCE. I ASK THAT YOU DO NOT CONSIDER THE ZONING, NOR THE PLAN TODAY. THAT YOU GIVE US THE TIME TO BE ABLE TO REALLY COME BACK WITH A VALID PETITION. AND IF YOU'RE AFRAID OF VALID PETITION, THEN YOU SHOULD BE AFRAID OF A VALID PETITION ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE CITY. THANK YOU.

GARCIA: THANK YOU, MR. HERNANDEZ. COUNCIL, THAT'S ALL THE SPEAKERS THAT WE HAVE. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON BOTH ITEMS 62 AND 63. MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON BOTH 62 AND 63. IS THERE A SECOND? SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. COUNCIL, DO YOU WANT TO CONSIDER 63 FIRST? MR. FLORES, IS THAT HOW WE SHOULD PROCEED ADOPTION OF THE PLAN? OKAY. SO I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THE PLAN ITSELF. AND THIS PLAN IS ADVISORY AND DOES NOT LEGALLY BIND THE COUNCIL TO ANY RECOMMENDATIONS. SO THAT'S 63. AND THIS IS AN ORDINANCE, SO WE COULD DO IT ON FIRST READING OR WE COULD DO IT ON ALL THREE READ. IS THERE A MOTION?

ALVAREZ: I MOVE APPROVAL, MAYOR.

GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ ?? .

ALVAREZ: THAT IS THE PLAN?

GARCIA: THIS IS THE PLAN ON ITEM 63. THIS IS NOT THE ZONING.

ALVAREZ: BECAUSE I WAS GOING TO RECOMMEND THAT WE DO THE ZONING ON FIRST READING?

GARCIA: WE'LL DO THIS ONE FIRST AND COME BACK TO IT.

ALVAREZ: SHOULD WE DO THIS AS FIRST READING AS WELL?

GARCIA: YOU WANT TO DO THIS ON FIRST READING. SO ITEM NUMBER 63, DO YOU WANT TO INCLUDE BOTH ITEMS FOR FIRST READING?

ALVAREZ: WELL, I HAVE SOMETHING TO ADD IN EACH PARTICULAR ONE, SO I WOULD LIKE TO ADD SOMETHING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

GARCIA: YOUR MOTION IS TO APPROVE ITEM 63 ON FIRST READING.

ALVAREZ: YES, SIR.

GARCIA: IS THERE A SECOND?

SLUSHER: YES.

GARCIA: SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER.

ALVAREZ: AND THIS IS THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. AND I KNOW THERE WERE SOME CONCERNS RAISED ABOUT THE IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT AND GENTRIFICATION, THOSE KINDS OF ISSUES. AND WHEN WE BROUGHT UP THE EAST CESAR CHAVEZ NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, WE DID ?? WE ADDED CERTAIN ELEMENTS OR APPROVED CERTAIN PROVISIONS TO PROTECT AGAINST THAT. SO I WANTED TO MAKE THOSE PART OF OUR APPROVAL OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AND THEN LATER OF THE ZONING. BUT FIRST ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN SIDE, TO ADD THE LANGUAGE THAT WE HAD FOR THE CESAR CHAVEZ NEIGHBORHOOD, IT SAID THE PROJECT IS WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE EAST ?? THE PROJECTS WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE HOLLY NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNED AREA THAT RECEIVE DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES FROM THE CITY MUST EITHER COMPLY WITH THE SMART HOUSING REQUIREMENTS OR THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS OR CONTRIBUTE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM DEVELOPED BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OFFICE WITH PUBLIC INPUT. AND THAT PROJECTS WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THIS HOLLY NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AREA THAT RECEIVE DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES FROM THE CITY MUST COMPLY WITH THE HOLLY NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN DESIGN GUIDELINES. AND THOSE WERE THE TWO ?? THE TWO PROVISIONS I THINK THAT WE ADOPTED AS PART OF THE CESAR CHAVEZ PLAN THAT I THINK WERE APPROPRIATE TO DO WITH THE HOLLY NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AS WELL.

GARCIA: DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF THAT? IF YOU COULD PROVIDE THAT TO YOUR ASSISTANT SO THEY COULD MAKE COPIES FOR THE CITY CLERK. SO THERE'S A MOTION FOR FIRST READING WITH THAT AMENDMENT THAT WAS READ INTO THE RECORD BY THE MAKER OF THE MOTION. DISCUSSION?

SLUSHER: MAYOR? ACTUALLY, THIS IS IN THE BACKUP ON 62, BUT THE TOP 10 ACTION ITEMS ON THE PLAN. AND THERE WERE AT LEAST A FEW OF THEM THAT LOOK LIKE IT WOULDN'T TAKE ANY MONEY TO DO NOW OR VERY LITTLE. NUMBER 9, ENCOURAGE SYNCHRONIZATION OF LIGHTS ON PLEASANT VALLEY ALONG CESAR CHAVEZ TO SEVENTH STREET. I WOULD ASK OUR PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT RIGHT NOW. NEW LEFT TURN AT PLEASANT VALLEY AND 7TH TO IMPROVE TRAFFIC MOVEMENT, WHICH IS GOOD. HOWEVER, THE TIMING AT PEAK HOURS SEEMS TO BE SLIGHTLY OFF, PARTICULARLY FOR NORTHBOUND TRAFFIC. IF WE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT THAT, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT. I'VE NOTICED THAT MYSELF. AND THEN NUMBER 10, INSTALL SIGNAGE TO ENCOURAGE AND INDICATE DESIRED ROUTE FOR TRUCK TRAFFIC LEADING TO SEVENTH STREET AS FOLLOWING LOCATIONS, ROBERT MARTINEZ, INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS TO ADDRESS THE TRUCKS. THAT ONE MIGHT TAKE ?? IT DEPENDS ON SOMETHING ELSE. I READ IT WRONG AT FIRST. BUT NUMBER NINE I WOULD THINK WE COULD GET ON THAT ONE IMMEDIATELY. RIGHT, CITY MANAGER?

GARCIA: YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ITEM 62, RIGHT?

SLUSHER: WELL, IT'S OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. I'M NOT SURE WHY IT'S IN 62. IT SEEMS LIKE A PLAN RATHER THAN THE ZONING.

GARCIA: OKAY. FURTHER DISCUSSION? MAYOR PRO TEM?

GOODMAN: ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE ONGOING DISCUSSIONS ABOUT POSSIBLE GENTRIFICATION AND SOME OTHER WORDS THAT MEAN THE SAME THING RELATIVE TO TO PROPERTY VALUES GOING UP AND QUALITY OF LIFE SEEMING MORE ATTRACTIVE TO FOLKS WHO DON'T LIVE IN AN AREA LIKE THAT, ONE OF THE THINGS WE DISCUSSED WAS A DISTRICT OF SOME SORT. AND WE WERE ABLE TO DISCUSS THAT AS A CONCEPT FOR THE POSSIBLE FUTURE FOR EXISTING PROPERTY OWNERS OR CURRENT FOLKS WHO DWELL IN AN AREA TO BENEFIT FROM IN POSSIBLY THE SAME WAY AS HISTORIC ZONING GIVES YOU THE ABILITY, EXCUSE ME, TO HAVE A SLIGHTLY BETTER DEAL ON YOUR PROPERTY BECAUSE OF THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT WE ARE ASSUMING YOU'LL PAY FOR. THE DISTRICT CONCEPT HAD A LITTLE BIT OF TROUBLE BECAUSE THERE IS STATE LEGISLATION THAT REALLY KIND OF PUTS A STRONG ARM INTO WHAT YOU CAN AND CANNOT DO, BUT WE HAD THOUGHT THAT A DISTRICT WITH SPECIFIC CRITERIA, SUCH AS A NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AREA, MIGHT BE A MECHANISM THAT WE THOUGHT WE COULD USE FOR THAT I KNOW THIS IS INCORRECT LEGALLY, SO SEDUCE ME. FREEZING PROPERTY TAXES ?? SO EXCUSE ME. FREEZING PROPERTY TAXES AT A CERTAIN LEVEL OR SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE OF THE SAME IMPACT. CAN WE, MR. CITY MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY, PULL OUT OUR OLD RESEARCH ON THAT AND SEE WHETHER NOW THAT WE DO HAVE PLANNING AREAS, WHETHER THEY QUALIFY OR WITH SOME MODIFICATION COULD QUALIFY FOR THAT SORT OF TAX DISTRICT.

WE CAN PULL OUT THE RESEARCH AND THEN GIVE YOU THE LEGAL ANALYSIS OF MAYBE WHAT LEGISLATIVE CHANGES MAY BE NEEDED OR STATE CONSTITUTION CHANGES. BECAUSE I DO BELIEVE THERE MAY BE SOME STATE CONSTITUTION CHANGES AS WELL.

GOODMAN: BUT THERE WAS A POSSIBILITY THAT ONCE WE HAD SOMETHING THAT WAS ?? SOMETHING WE COULD CALL A DISTRICT, PER SE, WITH PERSON IMPROVEMENTS OR CERTAIN CRITERIA OF CULTURE CULTURE AND CHARACTER THAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO MOVE CLOSER TO THAT.

GARCIA: OKAY. COUNCIL, THERE'S A MOTION ON ITEM NUMBER 63 FOR FIRST READING WITH THE CHANGES THAT RELATE TO THE RECORD BY COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ. FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. OPPOSED NO? MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF SIX TO ZERO TO ONE WITH COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS ABSENT. AND NOW WE GO TO 62. COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ, DID YOU WANT TO ?? YOU HAD STARTED TO MAKE THIS MOTION, SO LET ME RECOGNIZE YOU FOR THIS.

ALVAREZ: YES, MAYOR. I THINK THIS WAS ?? AND AGAIN, AN ADDITION TO THE ZONING CHANGES PROPOSED BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING TEAM. AND PART OF WHICH IS TO ALLOW SOME OF THE LI USES FOR ZONING DESIGNATIONS TO REMAIN. WHEN WE DID THAT IN THE PLAN, THERE WAS A PROVISION THAT WE PUT IN THERE THAT I WANT TO ADD TO THIS AS WELL. AS WE MOVE TO APPROVE IT ON FIRST READING, THAT SAYS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL FINDS THAT IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR PROPERTY IN THE HOLLY NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AREA RETAINING A LIMITED INDUSTRIAL SERVICE DISTRICT DESIGNATION AFTER THE PLANNED AREA RECEIVES THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN COMBINING DISTRICT DESIGNATION TO BE SUBJECT TO REQUIREMENTS OF THE EAST AUSTIN OVER LAY AND INSTRUCT THE CITY MANAGER TO PRESENT TO THE CITY COUNCIL A PROPOSED CONDITIONAL OVERLAY THAT WILL ESTABLISH THOSE REQUIREMENTS. SO THAT'S TO PROVIDE THE SAFEGUARDS AGAINST, YOU KNOW, PARTICULAR KINDS OF INAPPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT. AND AGAIN, IN THE CESAR CHAVEZ AREA WHAT WE ACTUALLY DID IS WE DIDN'T ALLOW ANY LIMITED INDUSTRIAL USES, SO I THINK OBVIOUSLY THERE WAS A PROCESS THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD WENT THROUGH TO ARRIVE AT THIS POINT AND TO TRY TO RESPECT THAT, BUT ALSO PROVIDE SOME SAFEGUARDS SO THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS A SAY IN THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. SO THE OTHER ISSUE ALSO THAT CAME UP DURING THE CESAR CHAVEZ DELIBERATIONS WAS THOSE HOMES THAT ARE ZONED ?? THAT ARE RESIDENTIAL, BUT THAT ARE ZONED COMMERCIAL, AND WHAT WE DID FOR THE OTHER NEIGHBORHOOD WAS WE GAVE THOSE INDIVIDUALS 60 DAYS TO SAY THAT IF THEY WANTED TO DOWN ZONE THEIR PROPERTY FROM COMMERCIAL TO SINGLE?FAMILY, WE WOULD GIVE THEM THAT OPPORTUNITY. SO THE LANGUAGE THERE IS THAT IT'S REQUESTED BY A PROPERTY OWNER BEFORE FEBRUARY 7TH, 2002 THE CITY MANAGER IS STRUCKED TO INITIATE A ZONING CASE FOR PROPERTY IN THE HOLLY NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AREA IF, ONE, THE PROPERTY IS IN A TOWNHOUSE AND CONDOMINIUM RESIDENCE DISTRICT OR LESS RESTRICTIVE ZONING DISTRICT. TWO, THE PROPERTY HAS THE USE PERMITTED IN AN URBAN FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SF?5 DISTRICT OR MORE RESTRICTIVE ZONING DISTRICT AND THREE, THAT THE REQUESTED ZONING DISTRICT IS IN AN URBAN SF?5 DISTRICT OR MORE RESTRICTIVE DISTRICT, AND THAT BASICALLY MEANS ?? ALL OF THAT BASICALLY MEANS IF YOU'RE COMMERCIAL YOU CAN COME DOWN TO SOME KIND OF SINGLE?FAMILY ZONING AND THE CITY WILL DO THAT AS A MATTER OF ?? WITHOUT ANY COST TO THE INDIVIDUAL, IF THEY WANT TO DOWN ZONE THEIR PROPERTY. SO ?? NOW, THE OTHER THING THAT WE DID ALSO, BECAUSE THERE WAS A CONCERN ABOUT WHAT KIND OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS COULD OCCUR ON THESE MIXED USE PROPERTIES THAT WE'RE DESIGNATING IS WE SAID THAT SOUTH OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS WE WERE GOING TO LIMIT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT CERTAIN WAYS, AND SO I WOULD LIKE TO ALSO ADD THAT ON THE TRACTS THAT ARE SOUTH OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS, WHICH IS TRACTS 21 THROUGH 73, WHERE THIS WOULD APPLY, IT SAYS A STRUCTURE OR A PORTION OF A STRUCTURE CONSTRUCTED MAY NOT EXCEED A HEIGHT OF 40 FEET ABOVE GROUND LEVEL AND THAT TOWNHOUSE RESIDENTIAL USES ARE PROHIBITED. SO THOSE WOULD BE WHAT I WOULD ADD TO I GUESS WHAT'S BEEN PROPOSED FOR APPROVAL ON FIRST READING.

GARCIA: MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 62 ON FIRST READING.

GRIFFITH: SECOND.

GARCIA: SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH. CITY ATTORNEY, DID YOU GET THAT INFORMATION? WOULD YOU GIVE ME A COPY OF WHAT HE READ INTO THE RECORD? ALL RIGHT. DISCUSSION? DISCUSSION ON ITEM 62? COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

SLUSHER: MAYOR, I'M STILL CONCERNED ABOUT THE ROBERT MARTINEZ AND HOLLY. I WOULD ASK STAFF WORK WITH MY OFFICE AND MAYBE THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING TEAM ABOUT A WAY THAT PERHAPS IT COULD BE ?? THAT THE IF THE CURRENT USE CEASES THAT IT WOULD ROLL BACK TO SOMETHING MORE COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAN GR. I THINK THE GOAL I'M TRYING TO REACH THERE IS CLEAR. I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE HOW TO ACHIEVE IT. SO IF Y'ALL WOULD GET ME DURING THE INTERIM PERIOD HERE, MAYBE WE CAN DO SOMETHING. THANK YOU.

GARCIA: FURTHER DISCUSSION? MAYOR PRO TEM?

GOODMAN: JUST BRIEFLY, MAYOR. THERE ARE A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT I'M GOING TO TRY TO GET WITH PEOPLE ON IN BETWEEN NOW AND THEN TO MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT THAT'S BEING REACHED FOR. AND LIKE COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, I WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THE HOLLY SITE A BIT MORE.

GARCIA: OKAY. IS THE STAFF CLEAR ON THE REQUESTS? OKAY. FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. OPPOSED? PASSES ON A VOTE OF SIX TO ZERO TO ONE, WITH COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS OFF THE DIAS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND NOW WE'RE AT THE 6:00 O'CLOCK TIME CERTAIN. WE'RE ABOUT AN HOUR AND 22 MINUTES BEHIND. I APOLOGIZE FOR THE DELAY, BUT WE'RE GOING AS FAST AS WE KNOW HOW.

MAYOR, I WOULD CALL ON MIKE HEIGHTS TO MAKE A BRIEF PRESENTATION ON THIS ITEM.

GARCIA: THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM AND AFTER THAT IT WOULD BE AN ACTION ITEM. MR. HEIGHTS, WELCOME.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. MAYOR, MAYOR PRO TEM, COUNCILMEMBERS, I'M MIKE HEIGHTS. DIRECTOR OF THE WATERSHED PROTECTION AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DEPARTMENT. THIS PRESENTATION IS ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 25?10 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO APPEAL TO THE SIGN REVIEW BOARD AND NONCONFORMING SIGNS. PARTS ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR AND FIVE ARE AMENDED TO REMOVE THE LANGUAGE THAT ALLOWS THE APPEALS OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS TO GO TO THE SIGN REVIEW BOARD. THESE APPEALS SHALL NOW GO TO DIRECT HEER. IN PART 6, THIS SECTION ADDS TWO NEW REPLACEMENT OPTIONS TO THE CURRENT OPTION. FOR ALL OPTIONS, THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS WOULD APPLY: EACH LANDOWNER MUST SIGN APPLICATION APPROVING THE REMOVAL OR REPLACEMENT OF THE SIGN. SECOND, EACH LANDOWNER MUST DESIGNATE THE PERSON WHO WILL BE REMOVING OR REPLACING THE SIGN. THIRD, THE REPLACED SIGN CANNOT EXCEED THE HEIGHT OF THE SIGN IT REPLACES. FOUR, THE REPLACEMENT SIGN MUST BE CONSTRUCTED OF THE SAME MATERIAL AS THE SIGN IT REPLACES. FIVE, THE REPLACEMENT SIGN MUST BE CONSTRUCTED IN THE SAME LOCATION AS THE SIGN IT REPLACES. IN ADDITION TO THESE, OPTION ONE WOULD ALLOW A SIGN COMPANY TO REPLACE A BILLBOARD IF THE FACE OF THE NEW SIGN IS 25% SMALLER. THIS IS THE ONLY OPTION IN THE CURRENT ORDINANCE. OPTION 2 ALLOWS THE SIGN COMPANY TO REPLACE A BILLBOARD WITH NO REDUCTION IN SIZE IF ANOTHER BILLBOARD IS PERMANENTLY REMOVED AND IS LOCATED IN A SCENIC ROADWAY SIGN DISTRICT OR IS LOCATED IN OR WITHIN 500 FEET OF AN HISTORIC SIGN DISTRICT OR IS OF PONO POLE CONSTRUCTION. OPTION THREE ALLOWS THE SIGN COMPANY TO REPLACE THE BILLBOARD WITH NO REDUCTION IN SIZE IF TWO OTHER BILLBOARDS ARE PERMANENTLY REMOVED. PART 7, THIS SECTION REQUIRES THE APPLICATION FOR REPLACEMENT OR RELOCATION OF A BILLBOARD BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY BEFORE THE SIGN IS DISMANTLED. IN PART 8, THIS SECTION ADDS A NEW REQUIREMENT TO THE REGISTRATION SECTION THAT REQUIRES THE LANDOWNER TO PROVIDE THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE SIGN OWNER. THIS REQUIREMENT IS ADDED FOR NOTIFICATION PURPOSES. THIS SECTION ALSO ADDS A NOTIFICATION PROVISION THAT REQUIRES NOTICE TO BE SENT BEFORE THE 14TH DAY AFTER A REPAIR OR REPLACEMENT APPLICATION IS FILED TO THE APPLICANT, TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE BILLBOARD, TO REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THE SCENIC AUSTIN, AND TO THE SIGN OWNER. PART 9, THIS SECTION EXTENDS THE REVIEW PERIOD FOR BILLBOARDS FROM THE CURRENT SEVEN?DAY PERIOD TO A 30?DAY REVIEW PERIOD. WHAT I HAVE DESCRIBED IS WHAT IS PROPOSED IN THE ORDINANCE BEFORE YOU. STAFF SUPPORTS THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE EXCEPT IN THE FOLLOWING TWO AREAS IN WHICH WE ARE ASKING FOR YOUR FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION. NUMBER ONE, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT DOES NOT INCLUDE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE BILLBOARDS. WE FEEL THAT THE NEIGHBORHOODS IN AUSTIN SCENIC WILL TAKE CARE OF THAT TYPE OF NOTIFICATION. AND SECOND, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE SEVEN?DAY REVIEW PERIOD NOT BE CHANGED FOR APPLICATIONS FOR REPAIR OF BILLBOARDS. AGAIN, WE'RE CONCERNED THAT THERE'S A DANGEROUS SITUATION THAT NEEDS ADDRESSING BY THE REPAIR. AND THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.

GARCIA: THANK YOU MR. HEIGHTS. QUESTIONS FOR MR. HEIGHTS? COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

WYNN: THANK YOU, MAYOR. MR. HEIGHTS, ON THE ?? THE OPTIONS THAT HAVE REMOVAL OF EXISTING SIGNS IN ORDER TO GET A REPLACEMENT SIGN PERMIT, DOES STAFF FEEL THAT THAT DOESN'T EXPOSE THE CITY TO ANY TAKING CLAIM? THAT IS, IF WE WERE REQUIRING SOMEBODY TO TAKE SOMETHING DOWN IN ORDER TO REPLACE SOMETHING, DO WE HAVE TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE TAKING ARGUMENT?

FOR A SIGN TO BE REMOVED, NOW THE OWNER WOULD HAVE TO SIGN ON THAT PERMIT. SO TO REMOVE IT, YOU WOULD NEED A PERMIT FOR THAT. THE PROPERTY OWNER WOULD HAVE TO SIGN OFF. IF THE PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT ?? FELT THAT THAT WAS A TAKING, I DON'T EXPECT THAT PROPERTY OWNER WOULD THEN SIGN THAT, THEREFORE WE WOULDN'T ISSUE THAT PERMIT.

THE REPLACEMENT PROVISIONS DON'T REQUIRE A REPLACE. , AND I THINK THAT'S I GUESS THE FUNDAMENTAL DISTINCTION. THE CITY ISN'T REQUIRING ANYBODY TO REMOVE A SIGN IN ANY SITUATION AS SET OUT IN THIS ORDINANCE. IT'S ENTIRELY UP TO THE PARTIES IN INTEREST. AND WHATEVER BUSINESS DEAL THEY WORK OUT REGARDING THAT IS BETWEEN THEM. SO LIKE I SAID, THAT'S THE RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER THE CITY IS REQUIRED ?? THE CITY IS REQUIRED TO MAKE PAYMENT FOR COMPENSATION OR MIGHT RECEIVE A CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION IF WE WERE REQUIRING A REMOVAL OF SIGNS, BUT IT WOULDN'T REQUIRE ANYBODY TO REMOVE A SIGN.

WYNN: THANK YOU, MAYOR.

GARCIA: FURTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? WE HAVE 24 SPEAKERS. SO LET ME BEGIN. ROY MANN IS DONATING HIS TIME TO GERARD KENNY, BUT HE'S IN SUPPORT OF THE SCENIC AUSTIN PROVISION. LINDA DUMONT IS DONATING HER TAME IS RAFAEL QUINTERA? HE IS FOR THE SCENIC AUSTIN POSITION. GERARD KINNEY? HE WOULD HE HAS A STATEMENT THAT I'LL TRY TO READ. AND WE HAVE SOME MORE SPEAKERS. MAYOR AND COUNCIL, I AM GERARD KINNEY, LIFELONG AUSTINITE. ARCHITECT AND FOUNDER AND PRESIDENT OF SCENIC AUSTIN. AS YOU KNOW, WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO GET RID OF BILLBOARDS IN AUSTIN FOR MANY YEARS. WE APPRECIATE THE AUSTIN'S REAFFIRMATION OF THE GOAL OF TRYING TO GET RID OF BILLBOARDS IN AUSTIN A FEW MONTHS AGO AND ITS REQUEST TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE THAT FINALLY WILL BEGIN TO GET RID OF BILLBOARDS. UNFORTUNATELY, THE ONE FOR ONE REPLACEMENT POLICY THAT FOUND ITS WAY BACK INTO THE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION DEFEATS THE OTHER PARTS OF THE RESOLUTION WHICH DO OFFER WAYS TO BEGIN TO ELIMINATE BILLBOARDS. WE REGRET THAT COUNCIL, NUMBER ONE, REAFFIRM THIS COMMITMENT TO ELIMINATING BILLBOARDS IN AUSTIN AND ITS ETJ IN A STATEMENT OF INTENT OR A WHEREAS IN YOUR RESOLUTION. NUMBER TWO, DO NOT INCLUDE ANY ONE FOR ONE REPLACEMENTS OF BILLBOARDS. NUMBER THREE, DO NOT ALLOW ANY NEW BILLBOARDS IN NEW LOCATIONS, NO MATTER HOW MANY EXCITING BILLBOARDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN DOWN. SCENIC AUSTIN REPRESENTATIVES TONIGHT ARE PROBABLY THE ONLY SPEAKERS WHO DO NOT BENEFIT FINANCIALLY FROM BILLBOARDS. INSTRUCT YOUR STAFF AND LAWYERS TO BRING YOU AN ORDINANCE THAT GETS RID OF BILLBOARDS. THANK YOU, GERARD KINNEY. MAYOR, IF YOU MUST ALLOW ONE FOR ONE REPLACEMENT, INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF REDUCTION FROM 25% OF AREA TO 25% OF DIMENSIONS. AND THAT'S A STATEMENT FROM MR. GERARD KINNEY. [ ONE MOMENT, PLEASE, WHILE CAPTIONERS CHANGE ].

WELL, WATER TOWERS ARE UNSIGHTLY. I HAVE A PLETHORA OF UTILITY LINES THAT RUN RIGHT IN FRONT OF MY BUSINESS, OKAY? NONETHELESS, THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS THAT ARE UNSIGHTLY. I DON'T THINK TO INHIBIT OR PROHIBIT PEOPLE FROM ADVERTISING THEIR BUSINESSES ON BILLBOARDS IS IN ITSELF WRONG. I THINK IT GOES ALONG WITH THE FREE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM. I WOULD URGE YOU TO CONSIDER TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT KIND OF ORDINANCE WOULD APPLY EQUALLY TO ALL PEOPLE, IN OTHER WORDS, LET'S ?? IF YOU WANT TO REDUCE THE SIZE OF THEM, THAT'S FINE. TO REDUCE THEM AND THEN IN ITSELF NOT ALLOW OTHER PEOPLE TO HAVE ONE IN ITSELF IS DISCRIMINATORY. I VOTE. THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT VOTE. I KNOW THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE, BUT NONETHELESS, IT NEEDS TO BE DECIDED IN A FAIR WAY, AND I WOULD URGE YOU TO CONSIDER ?? TO ALLOW BILLBOARDS TO PEOPLE THAT DO NOT HAVE THEM. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR. DAVE DITMORE IS DONATING HIS TIME TO JOHN JOSEPH, JR. WAYNE KING IS DONATING HIS TIME TO JOHN JOSEPH, JR. CAREY MCADAMS. WELCOME, SIR.

THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS. NOT TO BE REPETITIVE, BUT ON TOP OF WHAT THE GENTLEMAN JUST IN FRONT OF ME HAS SAID, I WOULD LIKE TO OBJECT TO THE PART OF THE AMENDMENT THAT DOES NOT LET THE SIGN COMPANIES MOVE A SIGN TO ANOTHER LOCATION. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN IS THE PEOPLE THAT CURRENTLY ?? THE 1% OF THE FORTUNATE PEOPLE THAT HAVE THE CURRENT SIGN LOCATIONS ARE GOING TO HAVE A MONOPOLY. I BELIEVE IN THE FREE MARKETPLACE. I'VE BEEN A TAXPAYER AND VOTER FOR NEARLY 30 YEARS, AND I WOULD LIKE FOR THEM TO RECONSIDER THAT PART OF IT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, SIR. LYDIA ORTIZ. ROSS HORTON. MR. ROSS HORTON. HE IS AGAINST THE ITEM. ALLEN ALBRIGHT. MR. ALLEN ALBRIGHT. HE IS REGISTERED AGAINST THE ORDINANCE. WINIFRED KELSEY. IF I DIDN'T PRONOUNCE YOUR NAME CORRECTLY, IF YOU COULD CORRECT ME, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR GARCIA AND COUNCILMEMBERS. I'M WINIFRED KELSEY, DIRECTOR OF SCENIC AUSTIN. I WOULD FIRST LIKE TO APPLAUD YOUR ACTION IN PLEDGING TO ELIMINATE BILLBOARDS FROM AUSTIN AND REWRITE OUR SIGN ORDINANCE TO MORE EASILY ACCOMPLISH THIS. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SINCERELY THANK YOU FOR INCLUDING SCENIC AUSTIN IN THIS PROCESS. AUSTIN DOES NOT HAVE MANY UGLY ROADS, BUT IT'S NOT A COINCIDENCE I?35, EAST 7TH STREET, BURNET, LAMAR, SOUTH CONGRESS AND 290 HAVE THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE BILLBOARDS IN AUSTIN. LET'S NOT GIVE THESE ROADS UP FOR DEAD. BEGINNING TO REDUCE BILLBOARDS FROM THESE ROADS WOULD QUICKLY MAKE THEM MUCH MORE ATTRACTIVE. OF THE NUMEROUS SUGGESTIONS WE'VE GIVEN OVER THE YEARS, I'M HAPPY TO REPORT THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS ABLE TO INCORPORATE SEVERAL. WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE A PREFACE STATING THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE IS TO REGULATE AND EVENTUALLY ELIMINATE BILLBOARDS FROM THE CITY OF AUSTIN. SECOND, WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE CODES AND ORDINANCES SUBCOMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION FOR A THREE FOR ONE REPLACEMENT POLICY WITH THE OPTION FOR A TWO FOR ONE REPLACEMENT IN SCENIC OR HISTORIC DISTRICTS. GIVEN THAT THE REPLACEMENT SIGNS ARE 25% SMALLER AND IN THE SAME LOCATION AS AN EXISTING SIGN. WITHIN THE REPLACEMENT PARAMETERS WE WERE GIVEN, WE FEEL THIS WOULD BE AN EFFECTIVE WAY TO ELIMINATE BILLBOARDS. WE ALREADY HAVE A ONE FOR ONE REPLACEMENT OPTION. INCLUDING THAT ?? INCLUDING THIS OPTION AGAIN WILL NOT DO ANYTHING TO STRENGTHEN THE ORDINANCE. FURTHER, WE FEEL THAT ANY RELOCATION WILL BLOCK SOMEONE'S VIEW AND WILL DROP SOMEONE'S PROPERTY VALUES. RELOCATION CAUSES MORE PROBLEMS THAN IT SOLVES. LASTLY, WE WOULD LIKE TO ?? WE WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO TREAT REPLACEMENT SIGNS AS NEW STRUCTURES, WHICH THEY ARE. ALL OTHER NEW STRUCTURES IN AUSTIN HAVE TO COMPLY WITH OVERLAID DISTRICT GUIDELINES AS WELL AS CITY AND STATE REGULATIONS. A NEW BILLBOARD SHOULD HAVE TO COMPLY AS WELL. IF A SLIDE POLAR STREET LIGHT MUST NOT BE IN VIEW OF OUR CAPITOL, CERTAINLY A NEW BILLBOARD SHOULD BE FORCED TO COMPLY AS WELL. I'M PROUD YOU ARE TAKING SUCH A COMPLICATED AND UNSEEMINGLY TOPIC SINCERELY. ON BEHALF OF ALL THE MEMBERS OF SCENIC AUSTIN, I THANK YOU FOR KEEPING THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY IN MIND AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.

MAYOR GARCIA: QUESTIONS FOR MS. KELSEY.

WYNN: YES, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN.

WYNN: I WANT TO MAKE SURE I HAVE THAT CORRECT. I GUESS THE CURRENT ORDINANCE IN FRONT OF US THAT HAS STAFF RECOMMENDATION WITH A COUPLE OF MODIFICATIONS IS AN ALTERNATIVE, I GUESS IT HAS THE ONE FOR ONE REPLACEMENT AT 25% SMALLER, OR YOU CAN DO ONE OF TWO REPLACEMENT SCENARIOS, THREE FOR ONE OR TWO FOR ONE. SCENIC AUSTIN'S POSITION IS TO COMBINE THOSE AND MAKE IT ??

WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE ?? THE ORIGINAL ?? WHAT THE SUBCOMMITTEE DECIDED WAS TO HAVE A ?? TWO OPTIONS. A TWO FOR ONE OR THREE FOR ONE. WITH THE THREE FOR ONE, TWO SIGNS WOULD HAVE TO BE REMOVED TO REPLACE A THIRD ONE. UNLESS ONE OF THE SIGNS REMOVED AND REMAINS ?? AND THE SIGN THAT WAS REMOVED AND NOT REPLACED WAS IN A SCENIC OR HISTORIC DISTRICT. IN THAT CASE YOU ONLY HAD TO REMOVE ONE TO REPLACE ANOTHER ONE. WE WOULD LIKE THAT. WE DON'T THINK HAVING A THIRD OPTION OF ONE FOR ONE HELPS. THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE NOW. IT DOESN'T MAKE THAT ANY STRONGER. WHY WOULD YOU EVER DO A TWO OR THREE FOR ONE IF YOU HAD THE OPTION OF A ONE FOR ONE.

WYNN: RIGHT. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MS. KELSEY. C. C. FOWLER. AND FOLLOWING MS. FOWLER IS CHRIS STOKES.

WELL, I'M FOR THE SCENIC AUSTIN PROPOSAL, AND MY NAME IS C. C. FOWLER AND I'M EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF SCENIC TEXAS, THE PARENT ORGANIZATION OF SCENIC AUSTIN. MAYOR GARCIA AND COUNCILMEMBERS, AUSTIN IS NOT JUST ANOTHER TEXAS CITY. IT IS THE SEAT OF OUR GOVERNMENT, THE HOME OF OUR LARGEST UNIVERSITY, AND THE NUCLEUS OF OUR PASSION FOR THIS GREAT STATE. AND WHILE I WOULD NEVER URGE BEFORE CITY COUNCIL THAT AUSTIN HAS AN OBLIGATION TO LET THE REST OF THE STATE TAKE CHARGE OF HOW THE CITY OUGHT TO BE RUN, I WILL SAY THAT TEXANS FROM EL PASO TO BEAUMONT AND FROM BROWNSVILLE TO DALHART ALL TAKE A GREAT DEAL OF PRIDE IN THEIR MAGNIFICENT STATE CAPITOL. KEEPING A CITY BEAUTIFUL REQUIRES A CAREFULLY HONED PLAN AND A COMMITMENT TO CARRY THAT OUT. WE HAVE ONLY TO LOOK AT MY HOMETOWN OF HOUSTON TO REALIZE WHAT SORT OF HAVOC CAN EMERGE WHEN A PLAN IS NEVER FULLY REALIZED AND INTEREST GROUPS ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE FREE REIN. SURE, THERE ARE RESIDENTIAL AREAS IN HOUSTON THAT ARE AS BEAUTIFUL AS ANY IN THE COUNTRY, BUT OUR GATEWAYS FROM OUR AIRPORTS AND OUR OTHER MAJOR ARTERIES ARE AN UNHOLY EMBARRASSMENT. AND THIS IS THE CASE, THOUGH HALF OF OUR BILLBOARDS HAVE COME DOWN DURING THE LAST 20 YEARS. NOW, I KNOW THERE ARE SOME IN AUSTIN WHO CLAIM THAT IS BECAUSE HOUSTON IS ONE OF A HANDFUL OF TEXAS CITIES THAT IS ALLOWED TO AMORTIZE ITS BOARDS. BUT THE BOARDS IN HOUSTON THAT HAVE COME DOWN HAVE NOT BEEN A RESULT OF AMORTIZATION. WE HAVE 5,000 FEWER BOARDS THAN WE HAD 20 YEARS AGO BECAUSE WE DIDN'T REPLACE THEM. AND THERE WASN'T A PROVISION FOR THAT. IF BILLBOARDS DETERIORATE, THEY ARE NOT REPLACED WITH STRONGER AND NEWER MATERIALS OR IF LEASES EXPIRE AND ARE NOT RENEWED, THE CITY MOVES CLOSER TO ELIMINATION. AND HOUSTON IS LIVING PROOF OF THAT. THAT WE STILL HAVE A LOT OF BOARDS. LEST YOU MISINTERPRET MY COMMENTS ABOUT MY HOME CITY, I LOVE HOUSTON, IT'S BEEN A GREAT PLACE TO RAISE A FAMILY, BUT I'M NOT PROUD OF THE "YEAH, BUT" MENTALITY WE'VE BEEN FORCED TO ADOPT. I'M HERE TO URGE YOU TO AVOID SOME OF THE PITFALLS MANY OTHER URBAN AREAS HAVE FOUND THEMSELVES. SO WHAT IS THE "YEAH, BUT" MENTALITY? WHEN YOU FIND YOURSELF MAKING EXCUSES, WHEN YOU ARE BRINGING A VISITOR OR FAMILY MEMBER IN FROM AN AIRPORT ON, SAY, I?35 AND YOU NOTICE THEM SIZING UP YOUR TOWN BASED ON ONE SORRY EXAMPLE, AND YOU SAY YEAH, BUT YOU OUGHT TO SEE THE CAPITOL OF TEXAS HIGHWAY. [BUZZER SOUNDS]. I URGE YOU TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE SCENIC AUSTIN POSITION AND I THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME SPEAK TONIGHT.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. CHRIS STOWS. FOLLOWING HIM IS CRAIG NASAU. I DON'T THINK HE IS HERE. I'M GOING TO READ HIS STATEMENT. AFTER THAT IS MR. RICHARD BURN.

MR. MAYOR, WELCOME. THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME SPEAK TO THE COUNCIL TONIGHT. COUNCILMEMBERS, I'M CHRIS STOKES WITH LAMAR OUTDOOR ADVERTISING. WE HAVE A SMALL PERCENTAGE, MAYBE 20% OF THE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING STRUCTURES IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN, E.T.J., BUT WE ARE THE LARGEST OPERATOR OF ADVERTISING STRUCTURES IN THE STATE. CLEAR CHANNEL OUT OF SAN ANTONIO HAS MORE BILLING THAN WE DO, BUT WE OPERATE MORE STRUCTURES. SO I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE SIGN ORDINANCES ALL OVER THE STATE. I'M THE REGIONAL ?? ONE OF THE LEASING MANAGERS, WHICH MEANS I TRAVEL ALL AROUND THE STATE FROM EL PASO TO BEAUMONT TO HOUSTON TO DALLAS TO FORT WORTH. AND I'M FAMILIAR WITH HOW IT WORKS. THE ONLY SUCCESSFUL SIGN ORDINANCE IN THE STATE OF TEXAS THAT ACTUALLY REDUCES THE AMOUNT OF BILLBOARDS IS THE ONE IN SAN ANTONIO. I GOT A LETTER SENT TO ME BY NICK HARRIS, THE CHIEF SIGN INSPECTOR, AND I GAVE MARK NATHAN A COPY, MAYBE MR. WINN HAS SEEN IT. I FAXED COPIES TO YOU ALL'S OFFICES, AND I THINK MAYBE THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO HAS PROVIDED THIS INFORMATION TO YOU AS WELL. AUSTIN ENACTED ITS SIGN ORDINANCE IN 1983. I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE A NEGLIGIBLE AMOUNT OF SIGNS HAVE COME DOWN IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN SINCE 1983. SINCE 1986 SAN ANTONIO HAS HAD ITS SIGN ORDINANCE IN PLACE. IT HAD 2,488 STRUCTURES IN 1983. CURRENTLY IT HAS 1940. A TOTAL OF 548 HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM ITS TWO FOR ONE TAKE?DOWN WITH ALLOWING REPLACE PLACEMENT IN CERTAIN AREAS. CERTAINLY WE CANNOT BUILD BILLBOARDS IN NEIGHBORHOODS, HISTORIC DISTRICTS, DOWNTOWN SAN ANTONIO, ANYPLACE THAT PLANNING AND ZONING, THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO'S FINE CITY COUNCIL DOESN'T WANT US TO BUILD. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 410, 35, I?10 PRIMARILY WHERE WE CAN REBUILD. WE HAVE TO FALL UNDER THE DEFAULT TXDOT RULES, 1500 SPACING, CERTAIN HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS, CERTAIN SPACING. IT'S NOT A FREE?FOR?ALL BUILD ANYWHERE YOU WANT, ANYTHING, ANYTHING APPLIES. WE'RE VERY HEAVILY REGULATED. BUT THE BILLBOARDS ARE COMING DOWN. DALLAS, HOUSTON, SAN ANTONIO, DESPITE WHAT I'VE HEARD TONIGHT HAS NOT SEEN A SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE THE RELOCATION PERMISSION THINGS. NOW THERE IS THE AMORTIZATION. THAT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT ISSUE. WE WON'T GO INTO THAT TONIGHT. MAYBE THE CITY CAN INVESTIGATE THAT ON ITS OWN IN THE FUTURE. BUT IF YOU WANT TO SEE THE SIGNS COME DOWN, THEN TWO FOR ONE TAKE?DOWN AND RELOCATION IS CERTAINLY THE WAY TO GO FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN. CURRENTLY WE HAVE A REDUCTION RULE. I LIKE THE IDEA THAT IT'S A ONE FOR ONE REPLACEMENT. THE IDEA THAT 25% REDUCTION MEANS THE VISUAL IMPACT OF THE SIGN IS REDUCED IS A FARCE. I THINK YOU CAN LOOK AT THE REDUCED SIGNS ON THE UPPER DECK ON 35, ON SIXTH STREET AND CONGRESS AND REALIZE THAT THE VISUAL IMPACT HAS NOT REDUCED. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, SIR. CRAIG NASSAU, IS HE HERE? I'LL READ. I'M FOR STRONGER SIGN ORDINANCE THAT ENCOURAGES THE EVENTUAL ELIMINATION OF ALL BILLBOARDS. THREE FOR ONE REPLACEMENT SIGNS SHOULD BE 25% SMALLER THAN THE AVERAGE OF THE THREE. THANK YOU, MR. NASSAU. RICHARD BURNS. WELCOME, MR. BURNS.

MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL. WE'RE COMMERCIAL BUILDING OWNERS IN AUSTIN, AND WE WOULD LIKE TO JUST GO ON THE RECORD TO SAY THAT WE BELIEVE THE SIGN ORDINANCE AS IT EXISTS AND AS PROPOSED DISCRIMINATES PEOPLE LIKE OURSELVES THAT DO NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE WITH SIGN REVENUE. WE WOULD APPRECIATE THE COUNCIL TAKING A FAIR APPROACH IN TREATING NON?OWNERS OF SIGNS AND OWNERS OF SIGNS EQUALLY. AS IT HAS BEEN STATED HERE TONIGHT BY OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS, WE PAY THE SAME TAXES AS THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE THE SIGNS. WE HAVE ALL THE OTHER RULES AND REGULATIONS ENFORCED UPON US ?? OR FORCED UPON US AS THE PEOPLE WITH THE SIGNS. WE OUGHT TO BE AFFORDED THE SAME OPPORTUNITY IF WE CHOOSE TO TO HAVE RENTAL INCOME FROM SIGNS, AND AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW WE DON'T. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. [INAUDIBLE ? NO MIC ON].

TURN YOUR MIC ON.

MAYOR GARCIA: BRANDON BERDEAU.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS. MY NAME IS BRANDON ??.

MAYOR GARCIA: WELCOME.

THANK YOU. I'M A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OWNER HERE IN AUSTIN AND IN PARTICULAR MY PROPERTY IS SURROUNDED BY DENSE COMMERCIAL USES, EASILY A THOUSAND FEET IN CIRCUMFERENCE AND BEYOND THAT. I ASK TO HAVE THE SAME OPPORTUNITY THAT OTHER LANDOWNERS IN AUSTIN HAVE WHO BY THEIR FORTUNATE VIRTUE ARE THE ONE PERCENT WHO WERE ABLE TO HAVE A BILLBOARD SIGN ON THEIR PROPERTY BEFORE THE RESTRICTIONS CAME IN. I'M NOT AN ADVOCATE OF PUTTING BILLBOARDS IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS, ON MOPAC, IN PLACES THAT ARE OBVIOUSLY INAPPROPRIATE, BUT THERE ARE PARTS OF THIS CITY THAT ARE HEAVY COMMERCIAL THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THAT. AND I ASK TO HAVE THE SAME OPPORTUNITY AS OTHER LANDOWNERS.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU. MAYOR MULLEN. WELCOME, MAYOR.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. MAYOR AND COUNCIL, I PUT DOWN ON MY CARD I WASN'T SURE IF I WAS FOR THIS ORDINANCE OR NOT. MR. KINNEY AND I WORKED ON THIS ORIGINALLY 17 YEARS AGO. ONE OF THE THINGS I WOULD ASK IS IF IN 17 YEARS HE CAN'T GET SOMETHING PRESENTED TO YOUR STAFF AND TO YOU THAT MAKES THIS CHANGE INSTEAD OF SAYING FOR YOU TO INSTRUCT THE STAFF TO DO IT, THEN WHAT'S THE USE OF HAVING SCENIC AUSTIN? I MEAN, I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHY THEY HAVE A SPECIAL PLACE, BUT THAT'S ANOTHER POINT. I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO LOOK AT THIS AND ASK THIS QUESTION: WILL THIS END UP REPLACING SIGNS THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN GONE BY THE WAY SIDE ANYWAY? WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT HERE IS THAT WE'RE GOING TO TAKE SIGNS THAT ARE GOING TO BE REPLACED BECAUSE OF LAND USE. WE'RE GOING TO GIVE SOME KIND OF CREDITS THAT I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THAT IS IN THIS ORDINANCE, AND AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE WE'RE GOING TO SEE A NEW SIGN BY THE AIRPORT, AND ANOTHER NEW SIGN BY THE AIRPORT, AND ANOTHER NEW SIGN BY THE AIRPORT BECAUSE THAT NOW IS A MORE HEAVILY TRAFFICKED AREA THAN IT USED TO BE. SO WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO DO IS TAKE SIGNS THAT MAYBE WOULD HAVE BEEN KNOCKED OUT ANYWAY BECAUSE OF A BUILDING, AND SOMEBODY IS GOING TO GET A CREDIT AND TAKE A COUPLE OF THESE CREDITS AND GO TO A BRAND?NEW LANDOWNER AND THEY ARE SAYING PLEASE LET ME IN THE GAME. 17 YEARS AGO PEOPLE SAID DON'T GET ME OUT OF THE GAME, AND WE VOTED THAT WAY. YOU ALL VOTED THIS WAY TOO, TO DO THE RIGHT THING, AND THAT'S TO GET RID OF SIGNS. HOW LONG WILL THE CREDITS LAST? IF THE SIGN COMPANY THAT HAD THE SIGN SELLS THE COMPANY, WILL THOSE CREDITS GO WITH THE NEW COMPANY? I DON'T SEE ANYTHING IN HERE THAT EXPLAINS HOW THIS IS GOING TO WORK, AND IT REALLY GIVES ME GREAT CONCERN. LET ME SUGGEST TO YOU IF PEOPLE ARE REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, IS THERE SOME WAY THAT MAYBE WE COULD REVISE THIS ORDINANCE SO THAT IF THE SIGN WAS REMOVED BECAUSE OF LAND USE, IT DOESN'T HAVE A CREDIT? THAT WOULD BE ONE THING TO THINK ABOUT. AND THE OTHER THING THAT BOTHERS ME, MAYOR AND COUNCIL, IS THIS: I TAKE THREE VERY NON?PERFORMING SIGNS IN AREAS THAT PEOPLE AREN'T TRAVELING, AND I REMOVE THEM. AND NOW I CAN GO OUT BY THE AIRPORT AND LOOK LIKE HOUSTON. NOW, IF WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO LOOK LIKE HOUSTON, WHO ALLOWS FOR CREDITS, THEN I THINK WE'RE BARKING UP THE WRONG TREE. I'M NOT SAYING SCENIC AUSTIN IS ENTIRELY WRONG, I JUST DON'T THINK THEY ARE ENTIRELY RIGHT. I THINK WE OUGHT TO LOOK AT NO. 2 WITH A REAL JAUNDICED EYE. NO. 2 ALL THE WAY DOWN, ANY REPLACEMENT, IN MY OPINION, IS DANGEROUS UNLESS YOU GET A LOT MORE DETAILS ?? [BUZZER SOUNDS] ?? BECAUSE THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS AND THE LAWSUITS ARE IN THE DETAILS.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MAYOR. NORMAN FURLEY. FOLLOWING HIM, MR. GUY OLIVER. WELCOME.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. GOOD EVENING, COUNCILMEMBERS. I'M NORMAN FURLEY. I HAVE A FEW BILLBOARDS IN TOWN. IF THE COUNCIL FEELS THAT THE TWO FOR ONE POLICY HELPS OPEN UP FURTHER OPPORTUNITY FOR BILLBOARD REDUCTION, THAT'S FINE FROM MY POINT OF VIEW. I DON'T HAVE MUCH OF AN ISSUE WITH THAT. BUT IF IT COMES AT THE INTENSE OF A 25% REDUCTION REPLACEMENT POLICY, I FEEL IT WOULD BE A MISTAKE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON. SAY THERE ARE 100 BILLBOARDS IN AUSTIN. 80 OF THOSE BELONG TO ONE COMPANY, ANOTHER TEN TO ANOTHER. AND THE FOLLOWING TEN OR THE REMAINING TEN ARE DIVVIED UP BETWEEN FIVE LITTLE COMPANIES LIKE MINE. IF A TWO FOR ONE WERE TO BE THE SOLE AVENUE, THE MAJOR COMPANY WOULD HAVE COMPLETE CONTROL OF THE MARKET DISALLOWING THEIR COMPETITION TO OFFER LANDOWNERS FAIR MARKET VALUE FOR A BILLBOARD LEASE. IF A TWO FOR ONE IS PUT IN PLACE TO SUPPLEMENT THE EXISTING ORDINANCE, FINE. HOWEVER, THE SAME PEOPLE WHO HAVE MADE ARGUMENTS AGAINST A 25% REPLACEMENT POLICY STAND BEFORE YOU TONIGHT BRINGING THEIR SAME THOUGHTS AND THEIR SAME CONCLUSIONS, AND NOTHING HAS CHANGED SINCE THE LAST TIME THE COUNCIL PUT THE EXISTING ORDINANCE IN PLACE. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU. MR. OLIVER. GUY OLIVER. GUY OLIVER. MR. JOHN JOSEPH. JOHN JOSEPH.

[INAUDIBLE ? NO MIC ON].

MAYOR GARCIA: I HAVE ONE FOR JUNIOR AND ONE FOR SENIOR.

[INAUDIBLE ? NO MIC ON].

MAYOR GARCIA: JUNIOR IS FIRST. I CAN'T READ THIS HANDWRITING, JOHN. JUNIOR COMES FIRST. AND INCIDENTALLY, THE TIME THAT WAS GIVEN WAS GIVEN ALL TO JOHN JOSEPH, JR. SO YOU HAVE 12 MINUTES.

YES, SIR, I DON'T THINK I'LL NEED ALL THAT. THANK YOU, MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBERS. MY NAME IS JOHN JOSEPH, JR., WITH THE LAW FIRM OF MINTER, THORNHILL. WE REPRESENT REAGAN ADVERTISING. I GUESS TO START OFF, UP UNTIL THE POINT, THIS ARGUMENT HAS CENTERED AROUND ONE ISSUE, AND THAT IS WE HAVE CONTENDED THAT WE HAVE A ?? WE HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO THE ORIGINAL SIGN OWNER HAS A LEGAL RIGHT TO THE ?? A PORTION OF THE NON?CONFORMING STATUS OF THE SIGN. AND OUR PROBLEM IS THAT OUR CURRENT SIGN ORDINANCE ALLOWS AN INDEPENDENT THIRD PARTY TO COME IN AND REPLACE OUR SIGN WITHOUT CONSIDERATION FOR THE ORIGINAL SIGN OWNER OR US. WE BELIEVE AND HAVE ASSERTED THAT THIS IS CONTRARY TO STATE LAW, SPECIFICALLY CHAPTER 216 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. AND WE PRESENTED NUMEROUS ORDINANCES, NUMEROUS LANGUAGE, NUMEROUS LAW TO LEGAL AND STAFF AND IN AN EFFORT TO DEMONSTRATE THAT WE'RE UNIQUELY LOOKING AT THIS PARTICULAR STATE LAW, CHAPTER 216. AS WE ARE THE ONLY CITY IN THE STATE OF TEXAS THAT FAILS TO RECOGNIZE THE ORIGINAL SIGN OWNER'S INTERESTS IN THE NON?CONFORMING STATUS. MAYBE WE'RE THE ONLY ONES THAT ARE RIGHT, BUT POSSIBLY WE'RE WRONG. UP UNTIL THIS POINT WE'VE BEEN ARGUING THAT. WE NOW TONIGHT ARE SETTING THAT LEGAL ARGUMENT ASIDE AND WE WANT TO ADDRESS SIMPLY THE MERITS OF THIS ORDINANCE. AND TRULY IN THE INTEREST OF TRYING TO WORK SOMETHING OUT AND AN AMICABLE RESOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM, FINALLY PUTTING THIS THING TO REST, WE WANT TO SET ASIDE OUR OPINION IN REFERENCE TO THE LEGAL STAFF AND LOOK AT THIS BASED ON ITS MERITS. THE PROVISIONS OR THE PROPOSAL CURRENTLY BEFORE YOU RIGHT NOW, AND I BELIEVE ?? DO YOU HAVE THE PACKET THAT I GAVE YOU? YES. I BELIEVE IT'S TAB 3. THESE PROPOSALS BEFORE YOU RIGHT NOW ARE FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION. BUT THERE IS A BIG, BIG DIFFERENCE OF HOW THAT EVOLUTION OCCURRED. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS RECOMMENDED THIS TO YOU, TRUE ENOUGH. BUT ?? AND IT SAYS RIGHT HERE IN THE STAFF REPORT, AT THE TIME THE COUNCIL REQUESTED THE PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEWED THIS SECTION OF THE CODE AND DEVELOPED SOME RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REDUCING THE NUMBER OF BILLBOARDS IN AUSTIN. THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THE SUBCOMMITTEE SPECIFICALLY, CHAIRED BY LYDIA ORTIZ, DID EXACTLY THAT, AND THEY CAME IN AND WORKED SEVERAL WEEKS, MAYBE TWO MONTHS, IN COMING UP AND CRAFTING AN ORDINANCE OR PROPOSAL FOR YOU. HOWEVER, STAFF DID THE SAME THING. STAFF TOOK IT UPON THEMSELVES TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION AS WELL. UNSOLICITED. STAFF SAYS WE ARE GOING TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ?? TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. SO ON TAB 4 YOU WILL SEE I'VE BROKEN UP ALL OF THESE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT CURRENTLY EXIST RIGHT NOW. I'VE BROKEN THOSE UP TO HOW THEY ?? WHO ORIGINALLY PROPOSED THOSE. THIS IS UNDER TAB 4. THE SUBCOMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS CONTRASTED WITH THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS. ESSENTIALLY, AND AS QUICKLY AS I CAN, THE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION WAS TWO OPTIONS OF MULTIPLE FOR ONE. I BELIEVE THAT THEY WERE HESITANT TO SEND BACK ANOTHER RECOMMENDATION TO GET RID OF REPLACEMENT ALTOGETHER BECAUSE THE LAST TWO TIMES THEY DID THAT YOU DID NOT CONSIDER THEIR RECOMMENDATION. THIS TIME I THINK THAT THEY APPLIED THE MODEL OF REPLACEMENT THAT CLEARLY THIS COUNCIL WANTS IN THE ORDINANCE AND TRIED TO TWEAK IT IN A WAY THAT MAYBE ACHIEVES THE STATED PURPOSE. THEY DID THIS IN TWO WAYS, THE THREE FOR ONE AND THE TWO FOR ONE. IN ADDITION TO THAT RECOMMENDATION, THEY RECOMMENDED THAT THE REVIEW PERIOD BE FROM 7 TO 30 DAYS. I WANTED TO LOOK BACK, IF YOU LOOK LOOK AT TAB 1 RIGHT NOW. AND LET'S REMEMBER THE INITIAL PURPOSE OF THIS '99 ORDINANCE. THE PURPOSE SAYS, PART 1, THE CITY COUNCIL FINDS THE PURPOSE OF THIS ORDINANCE IS TO PROMOTE COMMUNITY AESTHETICS AND PUBLIC SAFETY. AND THE ORDINANCE IS INTENDED TO HAVE THE EFFECT OF ELIMINATING OFF?PREMISES SIGNS AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE. SOMEWHERE DOWN THE LINE THIS ORDINANCE TURNED INTO SOMETHING ELSE. WHETHER IT WAS FOR COMPETITION OR PERCEIVED MONOPOLY OR FOR SOMETHING ELSE, IT WAS NOT ?? WE HAVE LOST TRACK OF THE INITIAL PURPOSE. SO WE ARE WEIGHING IN ON THIS ISSUE BASED ON DOES THIS PROVISION ?? DOES THIS PROPOSAL HAVE THE ABILITY TO ACHIEVE THE STATED PURPOSE IN THIS ORDINANCE, AND THE DIRECTIVE SENT DOWN BY CITY COUNCIL, SPECIFICALLY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN AND COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH, THAT INSTRUCTED COUNCIL TO COME ?? EXCUSE ME, INSTRUCTED THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO COME UP WITH A PLAN THAT COULD GET RID OF SIGNS, I BELIEVE THE WORDS USED. AND I BELIEVE THAT COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH SUGGESTED THAT WE INVOLVE WINIFRED ?? GERARD KINNEY AND SCENIC AUSTIN IN THIS PROCESS. THE SUBCOMMITTEE DID EXACTLY THAT. THE STAFF DID NOT. I THINK THAT WE SHOULD GO WITH THE SUBCOMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS. IT'S CLEAR THAT THE SUBCOMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS IS THE ONLY OPPORTUNITY WE WILL HAVE TO EVER GET RID OF SIGNS. A ONE FOR ONE REPLACEMENT, WHETHER IT'S 25% OR ANY PERCENT WILL NEVER GET RID OF THE NUMBER OF SIGNS IN AUSTIN. THERE IS NO CHANCE TO DO THAT. ABSOLUTELY NONE. AND TO THE EXTENT THAT WE WOULD CONTINUE TO PUSH FORWARD AN ORDINANCE THAT DOES NOT ACHIEVE THE STATED PURPOSE OR THE DIRECTIVE BY COUNCIL ISSUED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WE ARE FAILING IN OUR DUTIES. AND I THINK THAT UNLESS THIS IS ABOUT COMPETITION, AND IF THIS IS ABOUT COMPETITION, CERTAINLY WE WOULD LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMPETE. AND OTHER LANDOWNERS HAVE SPOKEN THEY WOULD LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMPETE. BUT TO THE EXTENT THAT THIS IS ABOUT REDUCING THE NUMBER OF SIGNS, WE WOULD SUPPORT ANYTHING THAT AT LEAST ATTEMPTS TO ACHIEVE THAT PURPOSE. AT LEAST. I MEAN IF WE'RE GOING TO BE REGULATED, WHICH WE DO NOT ?? IN THE SIGN BUSINESS, WE WANT TO HAVE SIGNS. IF WE'RE GOING TO BE SUBJECT TO REGULATION, SHOULDN'T WE HAVE THE EXPECTATION, SHOULDN'T OUR CLIENT HAVE THE EXPECTATION THAT THOSE REGULATIONS WOULD BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE THE STATED PURPOSE? I THINK SO. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MR. JOSEPH. ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. JOSEPH, JR.? THANK YOU. MR. JOSEPH, SR. WELCOME, SIR.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS, MY NAME IS JOHN M. JOSEPH, SR., AND I REPRESENT REAGAN OUTDOOR ADVERTISING. FIRST OF ALL, THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE AS IT WAS PASSED AND WHY WE ARE INTERESTED IN IT IS THAT IT PAINTED A BIG OLD BULLSEYE ON REAGAN'S BACK. THEY'VE GOT A NUMBER OF SIGN LOCATIONS. THEY'VE GOT A NUMBER OF VERY GOOD SIGN LOCATIONS AND SO IT MAKES THEM A TARGET AND MAKES IT EASY FOR THOSE SIGNS TO BE ATTACKED AND REMOVED WITH A 25% SIZE REDUCTION. THAT'S WHY WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE ORIGINAL SIGN ORDINANCE. THE REDUCTION IN SIGNS IS ?? AND THE POLICY ESTABLISHED BY COUNCIL IS JUST THAT, THE POLICY THAT IS ESTABLISHED BY THE COUNCIL. BUT THAT'S THE POLICY THAT YOU ALL INVOKED. THREE THINGS, REDUCING SIGNS, REDUCING THE VISUAL IMPACT OF SIGNS, AND FOSTERING COMPETITION. THE 25% REDUCTION DOESN'T AFFECT REDUCTION IN SIGN AND IT DOESN'T AFFECT THE VISUAL IMPACT OF SIGNS. AND WHAT HAS CHANGED OVER THE YEARS SINCE THAT ORIGINAL ORDINANCE HAS PASSED IS THAT IT HAS PROVED TO YOU IT HAS NOT REDUCED THE NUMBER OF SIGNS AND IT HASN'T REDUCED THE VISUAL IMPACT OF SIGNS. AND IT HASN'T INCREASED COMPETITION. SO WHAT REAGAN IS LOOKING FOR AND WHATEVER THE COUNCIL CHOOSES TO PASS AS A SECOND OR THIRD OR FOURTH ITERATION OF THIS SIGN ORDINANCE IS ONE THAT IS FUNDAMENTALLY FAIR, ONE THAT ALLOWS EVERYONE TO COMPETE HAND TO HAND ON THE ISSUE OF SIGN REPLACEMENTS AND RELOCATIONS. AND I THINK THE TWO TO ONE AND THE THREE TO ONE REPLACEMENTS DO JUST THAT. AND I THINK THAT THE SUBCOMMITTEE, WITH ALL THE INPUT FROM ALL THE SIGN OWNERS OF EVERY SIZE AND CATEGORY TOOK THAT INTO CONSIDERATION AND OFFERED TO YOU A REVISION TO THIS SIGN ORDINANCE WHICH IS FUNDAMENTALLY AND BASICALLY FAIR. AND WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUE OF HOW WE CAN KEEP TRACK OF WHAT IS GOING ON, WE HAVE COMPUTERS THAT WORK WITH DRED NOW THAT KEEP TRACK OF EVERY WATERSHED, THE AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS COVER ALLOWED IN THAT WATERSHED, THE SCENIC OVERLAYS, THE DISTANCE BACK FROM THE HIGHWAYS THAT THEY APPLY. WE HAVE SYSTEMS IN THE CITY THAT KEEP TRACK OF UMPTEEN ZILLION DIFFERENT REGULATIONS AND ON EACH PARCEL OF LAND, AND IT WOULD BE NOTHING FOR THEM TO TELL YOU WHEN A PARCEL WAS BEING TAKEN INTO DEVELOPMENT THROUGH A BUILDING PERMIT OR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT OR LAND CLEARING PERMIT SO YOU COULD KEEP TRACK WHETHER A SIGN WAS GOING TO COME DOWN IN ANY EVENT. NOTICE IS A REQUIREMENT THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR BECAUSE IT PROVIDES THE OPPORTUNITY TO NEGOTIATE, AND THAT PROVIDES A BETTER DEAL FOR THE PROPERTY OWNERS. WHICH COUNCILMEMBERS YOU ALL STATED WAS YOUR CONSTITUENCY. AND THE REVIEW TIME. DRED DOES A 28?DAY REVIEW TIME AND THAT SHOULD BE DONE AS WELL. IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS, I WOULD BE GLAD TO ADDRESS THEM.

WYNN: MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN.

WYNN: MR. JOSEPH, REMIND ME, IS REAGAN ADVOCATING A POSITION OF A TWO OR THREE TO ONE SWAP FOR A NEW LOCATION OR TWO OR THREE TO ONE SWAP FOR REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING SIGN? EXISTING LOCATION.

WELL, WE'RE RECOMMENDING THE SUBCOMMITTEE'S ?? OR RECOMMENDING THE SUBCOMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION TO YOU IS FUNDAMENTALLY FAIR. AND I BELIEVE THAT ALLOWED FOR A TWO TO ONE OR THREE TO ONE BASED ON WHETHER THE SIGN TO BE REPLACED WAS WITHIN A CERTAIN DISTANCE FROM A NEIGHBORHOOD OR WAS IN AN HISTORIC AREA. I THINK REAGAN THINKS, AND I THINK PROFESSIONALLY THAT A ?? REAGAN THINKS A MULTIPLE RELOCATION ORDINANCE WOULD BE FAIR TO PROPERTY OWNERS AND WOULD ULTIMATELY RESULT IN SIGNS BEING MOVED AWAY. BUT THAT'S NOT THE RECOMMENDATION THAT IS BEFORE YOU RIGHT NOW BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE, AND WE ARE FALLING IN BEHIND THE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION.

WYNN: THANKS.

COUNCILMEMBER, FOR A POINT OF CLARIFICATION, NONE OF THESE ALLOW FOR A NEW LOCATION.

WYNN: I UNDERSTAND. BUT I WANTED TO SEE IF REAGAN WAS SPECIFICALLY ADVOCATING FOR THAT ADDITIONAL ASPECT OF MULTIPLE REPLACEMENT.

SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: LET'S SEE, WE HAVE ONE ?? SARAH CROCKER. AND YOU HAVE TIME DONATED BY CURTIS FORD SO YOU HAVE SIX MINUTES.

THANK YOU, MAYOR GARCIA. MY NAME IS SARAH CROCKER, AND I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF ACME SIGNS. I OFFERED TO ARM WRESTLE EITHER ONE OF THE JOSEPHS IN FAVOR OF HAVING TO GO THROUGH ALL THE DISCUSSION ON THE SIGN ORDINANCE. WE DECIDED NOT TO DO THAT. I WOULD LIKE TO STAND UP HERE AND SAY THAT I SUPPORT THE ORDINANCE THAT IS IN FRONT OF YOU. WITHOUT LEAPING OFF INTO A WHOLE DISCUSSION ABOUT ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER, I THINK THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION CAME UP WITH A COMPROMISE SITUATION THAT'S COME FORWARD TO YOU TODAY THAT I THINK IS INFINITELY FAIR TO ALL PARTIES. IT DOES LEAVE IN THE OPPORTUNITY FOR ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO DO A TWO FOR ONE OR A THREE FOR ONE REPLACEMENT. SOME OF THE OTHER SIGN COMPANIES HAVE STATED, THEY CAN CERTAINLY GO FORWARD AND DO THAT. IT ALSO DOES ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE ARE AN AMERICAN CITY THAT ALLOWS A COMPETITIVE BUSINESS PRACTICE, AND BY LEAVING THE ONE FOR ONE IN, IT STILL AFFORDS THE PERSON WHO HAS THE ENTITLEMENT, THE POLICY RECOGNIZES THE PERSON THAT HAS THE ENTITLEMENT AS BEING THE LANDOWNER, IT STILL AFFORDS THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO REASONABLY DO BUSINESS IN A COMPETITIVE MANNER WITH THEIR PARTICULAR ENTITLEMENT. ONE OF THE VERY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCES I THINK, PEOPLE HAVE STOOD UP AND TALKED ABOUT THE SAN ANTONIO SIGN ORDINANCE AND THE BILLBOARDS THAT HAVE COME DOWN. THE PRIMARY DIFFERENCE IS THAT SAN ANTONIO'S ORDINANCE DOES PERMIT YOU TO TAKE DOWN TWO SIGNS AND PUT A SIGN UP IN A LOCATION WHERE THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A SIGN BEFORE. THAT IS A VERY IMPORTANT ELEMENT IN THE SAN ANTONIO ORDINANCE FOR ANY REPLACEMENT BILLBOARDS THAT HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED THERE. WE'RE STILL TRYING TO FIND OUT HOW MANY REPLACEMENT BILLBOARDS HAVE BEEN ERECTED THERE. WE DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION YET. THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT ELEMENT. THE OTHER IMPORTANT ELEMENT THAT SAN ANTONIO HAS IN THEIR ORDINANCE THAT PERHAPS WE COULD INCLUDE SINCE THIS IS FIRST READING IS THAT SAN ANTONIO REQUIRES YOU TO GET A REMOVAL PERMIT. WE CAN'T TELL YOU HOW MANY SIGNS HAVE COME DOWN IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN BECAUSE WE DON'T REQUIRE A REMOVAL PERMIT WHEN A SIGN IS TAKEN DOWN. IF YOU WANT TO GO OUT AND TAKE THE SIGN DOWN, YOU CAN JUST GO DO THAT. YOU DON'T HAVE TO GET A PERMIT. I THINK FROM A TRACKING STANDPOINT, I WOULD CONCUR WITH WHAT MR. JOSEPH SAID, THAT WE DO NEED TO MAKE SIGN COMPANIES COME IN AND FILE FOR A REMOVAL PERMIT, WHICH I BELIEVE IS COVERED PARTIALLY IN THE ORDINANCE THAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU. BASICALLY I THINK THE ORDINANCE THAT IS IN FRONT OF YOU IS, LIKE I SAID BEFORE, I THINK IT'S A VERY GOOD COMPROMISE. THE TWO FOR ONE AS WE HAVE IT, IF YOU READ THROUGH IT, YOU BASICALLY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE THE SIGN INVENTORY AT YOUR DISPOSAL, AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS, YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO GET A PROPERTY OWNER WHO IS RECEIVING A YEARLY RENTAL INCOME TO BASICALLY GIVE THAT UP. ONCE THEY GIVE UP THAT ENTITLEMENT, THEY CAN NO LONGER HAVE A SIGN ON THEIR PROPERTY. IF THAT SIGN IS REMOVED, THEY CAN NO LONGER RE?ERECT OR LET SOMEBODY ELSE COME BACK IN AND PUT ANOTHER SIGN UP. THAT'S ONE OF THE PROBLEMS WE HAVE WITH THE TWO FOR ONE IN THAT WOULD IT ACTUALLY REDUCE BILLBOARDS. I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION, BUT I WOULD THINK THE WAY THE ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN AND THE FACT YOU CANNOT PUT A SIGN ON A LOCATION WHERE THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A SIGN BEFORE CERTAINLY WOULD MAKE THAT VERY PROBLEMATIC. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MAYOR GARCIA: QUESTIONS FOR MS. CROCKER? THAT'S ALL THE SPEAKERS THAT WE HAVE, COUNCIL. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH. DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. MR. HEITZ, CAN YOU COME BACK FOR JUST A SECOND IN CASE THE STAFF HAS ?? I MEAN THE COUNCIL HAS SOME QUESTIONS? COUNCIL, ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. HEITZ? MR. ALVAREZ. COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ.

ALVAREZ: YES, I HAD A QUESTION BECAUSE WE'VE HEARD SOME REFERENCES TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION, AND I THINK WE PROBABLY HAVE A PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION, AND THEN DO WE HAVE A STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM BOTH OF THOSE?

YES, COUNCILMEMBER, THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE SIGN COMMITTEE ?? OR THE SIGN BOARD UNANIMOUSLY SUPPORT THE ORDINANCE THAT IS BEFORE YOU. AND SO DOES THE STAFF EXCEPT FOR TWO AREAS. AND THE TWO AREAS WHERE WE DISAGREE IS THAT WE'RE ASKING THAT WE DO NOT BE REQUIRED TO NOTIFY ALL THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE BILLBOARD, WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS AND SCENIC AUSTIN IS ENOUGH NOTIFICATION. WE ALSO FEEL THAT THE SEVEN?DAY REVIEW PERIOD SHOULD NOT BE CHANGED FOR APPLICATION FOR REPAIR OF BILLBOARDS. AND OUR CONCERN THERE IS IF THERE IS A DANGEROUS SITUATION AND WE DO IN FACT NEED TO GET THERE AND REPAIR IT QUICKLY, WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO WAIT FOR 30 DAYS.

ALVAREZ: SO ON THAT PROVISION, WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS THAT THERE IS A SEVEN?DAY PERIOD BY WHICH YOU HAVE TO ?? OKAY, I SEE. WITHIN 14 DAYS YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE NOTICE UNDER THIS ORDINANCE, AND SO WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS RIGHT NOW ?? THIS OTHER ISSUE HAS TO DO WITH HOW QUICKLY YOU CAN ACT ON THAT APPLICATION?

THAT'S CORRECT. THE OTHER ?? THE CURRENT ORDINANCE THE WAY THEY CURRENTLY HAVE IT READ IS 30 DAYS FOR REPAIR OR DISPLACEMENT. WHAT WE ARE RECOMMEND CITY MANAGER THAT FOR REPAIR IT BE SEVEN DAYS. ACTUALLY WE ASK FOR REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT TO BE SEVEN DAYS, BUT WE THINK IF YOU SPLIT IT UP AND DO REPAIR FOR SEVEN DAYS, AND IF THE COUNCIL SO WISHES FOR REPLACEMENT TO BE 14 OR EVEN 30, WE CAN, YOU KNOW, THAT'S OKAY. BUT WE'RE LOOKING MORE FOR THE 14, TO BE CANDID WITH YOU. WE THINK THE 30 IS A BIT LONG IN EITHER CASE.

ALVAREZ: NOW, THIS NOTICE PROVISION, WHY DOES THAT HAVE TO BE 14 DAYS?

LUCY CALLAHAN, WOULD YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THAT ONE?

THAT'S THE CURRENT REQUIREMENT FOR ALL NOTICE FOR APPLICATIONS, 14 DAYS. THAT'S STANDARD.

ALVAREZ: NOTICE OF APPLICATION OF ??

NOTICE OF APPLICATION.

ALVAREZ: FOR SIGNS ??

FOR ANY TYPE OF ?? IN THE CODE THERE IS A SECTION FOR NOTICE OF APPLICATION. AND THAT'S 14 DAYS. AND THE LAW DEPARTMENT SIMPLY MIRRORED THAT, THAT CURRENT REQUIREMENT.

ALVAREZ: IF YOU DO YOUR NOTICE ??

WE WOULD HAVE ??

ALVAREZ: THE 14TH DAY AND THEN THE ?? THEN THE 14 DAYS IS THE REVIEW PERIOD, THEN THE END OF THE REVIEW PERIOD, THEN THAT COULD BE A PROBLEM, I SUPPOSE.

RIGHT. WE UNDERSTOOD THAT AND WE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO SEND THE NOTICE OUT BEFORE THE SEVEN DAYS.

ALVAREZ: BEFORE THE 7TH DAY?

BEFORE THE 7TH DAY, RIGHT.

ALVAREZ: OKAY. THE OTHER ISSUE DEALS WITH THE LAW DEPARTMENT HAS TO DO WITH I THINK SOMEWHERE IN HERE IT SAID AFFECTED LANDOWNER. OR HAS THAT LANGUAGE BEEN REMOVED?

YES, SIR. YEAH, THAT LANGUAGE WAS CHANGED.

ALVAREZ: OH, IS THAT ??

ON PAGE 2, PART 6, B 5 A AND B.

ALVAREZ: B 5 A AND B. IT USED TO SAY AFFECTED ?? ALL RIGHT. THOSE ARE MY POINTS OF CLARIFICATION.

MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS, ONE POINT OF CLARIFICATION. IT WAS THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE SUBCOMMITTEE THAT UNANIMOUSLY SUPPORTED THAT, NOT THE SIGN REVIEW BOARD. I DID WANT TO CORRECT THAT FOR THE RECORD.

ALVAREZ: THAT UNANIMOUSLY SUPPORTED WHICH PART?

WELL, WHAT IS BEFORE YOU IS WHAT THE TASK FORCE AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

ALVAREZ: BUT NOT THE SIGN REVIEW.

RIGHT.

MAYOR GARCIA: ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE SIGN REVIEW FOLKS? COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ? QUESTIONS FOR PEOPLE FROM THE SIGN REVIEW BOARD?

MAYOR, MAYOR PRO TEM, COUNCILMEMBERS, THIS IS GETTING EMBARRASSING, I THINK. ANOTHER POINT CLARIFICATION. THIS TIME FOR SURE.

MAYOR GARCIA: WE'VE BEEN DOING THAT ALL AFTERNOON, MIKE, SO DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT.

WE'LL STICK TO THIS ONE. THE PLANNING COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY TOOK TWO ORDINANCES. ONE RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, ONE RECOMMENDED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE TASK FORCE. AND WITH THOSE TWO ORDINANCES THAT WERE RECOMMENDED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THEY CREATED THE VERSION THAT IS CURRENTLY IN FRONT OF YOU. AND THEY UNANIMOUSLY VOTED FOR THAT. SO THERE WERE ELEMENTS OF REALITY I THINK IN ALL THE OTHER COMMENTS. [LAUGHTER].

MAYOR GARCIA: AND THE POINTS THAT YOU HAVE IN THE RCA, MIKE, THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT OUTLINE WHAT THE COMBINED ORDINANCE SAYS?

YES, SIR, THAT'S CORRECT.

MAYOR GARCIA: AND THAT WAS NOT AGREED TO BY THE SIGN REVIEW BOARD?

THAT'S CORRECT.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY.

WYNN: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN.

WYNN: MR. HEITZ, DON'T WALK AWAY. SO ?? SO WHAT I CALL THE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION, THAT IS, THE COMMITTEE THAT MS. ORTIZ CHAIRED, THEY DIDN'T COME FORWARD WITH THIS ?? THIS COMBINATION THAT WE HAVE NOW, WHICH IS EITHER THE 25% REDUCTION REPLACEMENT OR THE TWO OR THREE FOR ONE FULL REPLACEMENT. CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG, THEY ACTUALLY RECOMMENDED THE TWO OR THREE FOR ONE STRAIGHT REPLACEMENT, PERIOD.

I'M GOING TO ASK LUCY CALLAHAN TO ADDRESS THAT. SHE WAS AT THE MEETING.

THE TASK GROUP RECOMMENDED THE TWO FOR ONE AND THREE FOR ONE OPTION ONLY, NOT THE CURRENT ONE FOR ONE. THAT RECOMMENDATION WENT TO THE FULL PLANNING COMMISSION. THE STAFF ALSO AT THE SAME TIME TOOK OUR OWN RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WHICH INCLUDED THE ONE FOR ONE. THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED ALL THREE OPTIONS. THREE FOR ONE, THE TWO FOR ONE AND THE CURRENT ONE FOR ONE. WHAT WE DID IS WE TOOK THE TASK GROUP RECOMMENDATION AND THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, WE PRESENTED BOTH OF THEM TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND THEY COMBINED THE TWO TO WHAT WE HAVE PRESENTED TODAY.

WYNN: THANK YOU, THAT ACTUALLY DOES HELP. BUT WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO MY FRIENDS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION, IT APPEARS TO ME WHAT THEY HAVE DONE IS, YOU KNOW, JUST PUNTED IT UP TO US BY COMBINING THE TWO OR PERHAPS EVEN THREE INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THEY GOT INTO A SINGLE ORDINANCE, AND NOW THAT'S THE FOURTH. AND IT SEEMS TO ME IT'S SORT OF ONE OR THE OTHER. WE HAVE THIS LENGTHY DEBATE AT COUNCIL, YOU KNOW, WHENEVER IT WAS, SIX OR NINE MONTHS AGO, IT SEEMS LIKE, AND ESSENTIALLY SENT THIS TO THE ?? YOU KNOW, THE PLANNING COMMISSION SUBCOMMITTEE AND ASKING THEM TO TAKE TESTIMONY TO, YOU KNOW, TO STRUGGLE WITH IT LIKE WE HAD STRUGGLED WITH IT. AND SO REALLY I SEE THE ORDINANCE HERE BEFORE US, I ?? I'M NOT PLEASED WITH. IT'S PERHAPS THE ?? YOU KNOW, THE WORST OF BOTH WORLDS, IN MY OPINION. IT SEEMS LIKE OUR JOB IS TO CHOOSE ONE OR THE OTHER AND NOT TRY TO CREATE AN ORDINANCE THAT HAS EVERY POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATION IN IT KNOWING, I SUSPECT, THAT DEPENDING ON YOUR PERSPECTIVE AS A SIGN COMPANY WHETHER YOU HAPPEN TO HAVE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF SIGNS IN A MARKET OR YOU WANT TO HAVE MORE SIGNS IN A MARKET, YOU ARE GOING TO CHOOSE WHICHEVER ALTERNATIVE WORKS FOR YOUR PARTICULAR BUSINESS PLAN. SO I'M FRANKLY VERY FRUSTRATED BY IT AND I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR SOME COMMENTS FROM MY COLLEAGUES, BUT I GUESS I'M PREPARED TO CHOOSE ONE OR THE OTHER, PROBABLY DO IT ON FIRST READING, GIVE STAFF TIME TO THEN TIGHTEN UP THE LANGUAGE AND THE NOTICE PROVISIONS AND THE THINGS THAT STAFF CONCERNS THEMSELVES WITH AND MOVE FORWARD.

GARZA: ONE OF THE THINGS I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST, IS THAT DID HAPPEN, PASS ON FIRST READING, MR. HEITZ AND I WERE VISITING, WE COULD TAKE A CRACK AT DRAFTING AN ORDINANCE THAT BASICALLY MET WHAT WE COULD DO FROM AN ENFORCEMENT AND REGULATORY STANDPOINT. AND AT YOUR DIRECTION COULD EITHER TRY TO HAVE THAT READY FOR NEXT WEEK OR WE COULD BRING IT TO YOU ON THE 10TH OF JANUARY. WE WOULDN'T GO THROUGH ANY MORE COMMISSIONS, WE WOULDN'T GO TO ANY MORE REVIEW. WE WOULD SIMPLY TAKE WHAT IS ALREADY OUT THERE AND BRING YOU AN ORDINANCE THAT WE THINK YOU OUGHT TO ?? AT LEAST WE WOULD RECOMMEND TO YOU TO ADOPT. REJECTING RECOMMENDATIONS FROM EITHER OF THESE COMMISSIONS THAT WE DIDN'T QUITE THINK THOSE WERE THE CORRECT THINGS YOU OUGHT TO DO.

SLUSHER: MAYOR? ARE YOU DONE?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER.

SLUSHER: I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. I HAVE TO SAY THAT'S A TOUGH CHOICE THERE THAT THE CITY MANAGER PRESENTED. DO WE END THE YEAR TALKING ABOUT BILLBOARDS OR DO WE BEGIN THE YEAR TALKING ABOUT BILLBOARDS? [LAUGHTER].

BOTH.

ALVAREZ: BOTH.

SLUSHER: OKAY. MR. HEITZ, ON THIS ?? THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT TO PEOPLE WITHIN 300 FEET, IF SOMEONE GETS NOTIFIED ABOUT A BILLBOARD WITHIN 300 FEET OF THEIR HOUSE, WHAT CAN THEY DO ABOUT IT ONE WAY OR ANOTHER?

THE APPEAL PROCESS THAT'S ALLOWED IN THE SIGN ORDINANCE, COUNCILMEMBER, IS REALLY PERTAINING TO THE ACTIONS OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. AND THAT'S BASICALLY THE BUILDING CODE ITSELF. IT'S NOT AN ISSUE ABOUT LAND USE. AND SO WE'RE TRYING TO CLARIFY THAT SO THAT THE ITEMS DEALING WITH THE REGULATORY ITEMS THAT WE AS A CITY REGULATE AND ENFORCE ARE WITH US AND THE OTHER ISSUES BE IN THE COURTS. AND THE ?? TO KEEP STAFF OUT OF THE MIDDLE OF IT, AS HAS HAPPENED RECENTLY. THAT'S THE POINT OF THAT CLARIFICATION.

SLUSHER: OKAY, BUT WHAT ?? WHAT WOULD YOU BE BEING NOTIFY OF?

THE ONLY THING THAT WE WOULD BE LETTING THEM KNOW IS THAT EITHER A SIGN ?? THE THREE THINGS THAT CAN HAPPEN IN MOST CASES WOULD BE THE SIGN IS GOING TO BE REDUCED, THE SIGN IS GOING TO BE REPLACED AT THE SAME SIZE, OR THE SIGN IS GOING TO GO AWAY. I SAY IN MOST CASES. THERE MAY BE SOME EXTRAORDINARY CASES SUCH AS A RIGHT?OF?WAY ISSUE WHERE YOU HAVE TO WIDEN THE STREET AND YOU HAVE TO MOVE THE RIGHT?OF?WAY THROUGH A SETTLEMENT. MOST CASES ARE AS IDENTIFIED. BUT BASICALLY IT'S JUST TO GIVE THEM NOTIFICATION THAT IT'S HAPPENING. THAT THERE ARE NO RIGHTS THAT I KNOW OF THAT THEY CAN APPEAL AGAINST ANY OF THESE THREE ACTIONS.

SLUSHER: OKAY. AND THEN WAS THE NOTIFICATION STRETCHING OUT THE NOTIFICATION TO 30 DAYS, DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE RATIONALE WAS BEHIND THAT? I REALIZE I'M ON YOUR RECOMMENDATION, BUT I THINK YOU WILL BE FAIR IN TELLING ME WHAT WENT ON AT THE COMMISSION.

THE RATIONALE WAS THAT THEY WOULD ?? THE SIGN COMPANY WOULD HAVE SUFFICIENT TIME TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE PERMIT WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE ISSUED UNTIL THE 30?DAY PERIOD WAS EXPIRED.

SLUSHER: OKAY. BUT THE DEPARTMENT THINKS YOU ALL CAN TURN THAT AROUND IN SEVEN DAYS OR SEVEN DAYS WITH REPAIR, 14 FOR REPLACEMENT.

THE ISSUE IS NOT WITH REPAIR BUT SPECIFICALLY WITH REPLACEMENT. THAT WAS THE CONCERN. AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION ALSO WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT SCENIC AUSTIN HAD SUFFICIENT TIME TO MONITOR. IF THEY GOT A NOTICE, THAT THEY WOULD HAVE 30 DAYS TO GO TO A SITE TO SEE WHAT IS GOING ON, TO MONITOR THE WORK THAT IS BEING DONE.

SLUSHER: OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. WELL, ONE MORE. WHAT IS ?? I HEARD MR. FURLEY TALK ABOUT THE ?? LETTING THERE BE REPLACEMENT WITHOUT REDUCING THE SIZE. WHICH ONE DOES THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION DO? DOES IT REDUCE THE SIZE ON A REPLACEMENT OR JUST LET THEM DO REPLACEMENT THE SAME SIZE?

MR. FURLEY, I BELIEVE HE WAS REFERRING TO THE CURRENT OPTION, REPLACEMENT OPTION, WHICH IS THE ONE FOR ONE, WHICH REQUIRES A 25% REDUCTION.

SLUSHER: SO WHAT'S ON THE TABLE DOES REQUIRE THE REDUCTION? THAT'S THE CURRENT ORDINANCE?

THAT'S THE CURRENT ORDINANCE. WE ARE RECOMMENDING IT TODAY.

SLUSHER: THANK YOU. THAT ANSWERED MY QUESTION. THAT'S ALL I HAVE, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. FURTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO DO THE FIRST READING THAT SOMEBODY WANTED TO CONSIDER.

GRIFFITH: SO MOVED.

GARZA: DID WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING?

MAYOR GARCIA: YES.

GARZA: OH, WE DID?

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION FOR FIRST READING IS ON PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION.

GRIFFITH: THAT'S ON THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

MAYOR GARCIA: STAFF RECOMMENDATION. OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND? WE'RE GOING TO HAVE INSTRUCTIONS AS TO WHAT WE WANT THEM TO DO FOR SECOND AND THIRD.

SECOND.

MAYOR GARCIA: SECONDED BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM. I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO YOU SO YOU CAN DETAIL WHAT IT IS THAT WE WILL DO IN THE WAY OF THE INSTRUCTIONS TO THE STAFF.

ALVAREZ: I CAN MAKE A COUPLE OF SUGGESTIONS.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY.

GRIFFITH: I YIELD TO ??

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH FIRST, THEN COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ.

GRIFFITH: OKAY. THE CITY MANAGER, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, HAS AGREED TO LOOK AT THE DIFFERENT ?? ALL OF THE DIFFERENT IDEAS AND PROPOSALS AND TO PREPARE A RECOMMENDATION FOR US THAT IS ?? TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION ALL OF THE ABOVE, WHICH DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE CAN'T ALSO AGAIN LOOK AT THE OTHER IDEAS, BUT WE WOULD THEN HAVE SOMETHING FROM OUR STAFF THAT HAS VERY SERIOUSLY CONSIDERED ALL THE PROS AND THE CONS AND OUTCOMES AND RISKS AND BENEFITS OF WHAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED. IS THAT ?? WAS THAT THE MANAGER'S OFFER?

IT IS, AND THAT'S CORRECT.

GRIFFITH: THAT WOULD BE MY MOTION.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. FURTHER QUESTIONS?

ALVAREZ: SO THE MOTION INCLUDES BOTH THE ONE FOR ONE AND THE ?? THE ONE FOR ONE WITH 25% REDUCTION AND THE TWO FOR ONE OR ONE FOR ONE?

GRIFFITH: IT DOES. AND MR. HEITZ, WHILE YOU ARE THERE, COULD I ASK YOU SOMETHING RIGHT QUICK. IF I'M GETTING INTO THE SIGN BUSINESS AND I HAVE ONE SIGN, AND THE ONLY OPTION IS TWO FOR ONE OR THREE FOR ONE AND I ONLY HAVE ONE, HOW AM I GOING TO MAKE IT?

WELL, YOUR ONE SIGN CAN ?? THE ONLY THING YOU COULD DO WITH THAT ONE SIGN IS EITHER MAINTAIN IT AND KEEP IT, AND THE SECOND OPTION YOU WOULD HAVE WOULD BE TO REPLACE IT SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE, AND IF YOU DID THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO REDUCE IT BY 25%. THAT'S YOUR OPTIONS. OR YOU MAKE A DEAL WITH ANOTHER SIGN COMPANY WHERE THEY COULD BUY YOUR SIGN RIGHTS, THAT THEY COULD EITHER DISCONTINUE THAT PARTICULAR SIGN AS PART OF A DEAL THAT THEY WANT FOR ONE OF THE OTHER OPTIONS.

GRIFFITH: IS THERE A WAY I CAN GET BIGGER?

NO.

GRIFFITH: OKAY. THANKS. LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR RECOMMENDATION.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. WE HAVE A FIRST READING. EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON, RIGHT?

SLUSHER: I DON'T.

ALVAREZ: IF I COULD MAKE A COUPLE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.

MAYOR GARCIA: LET ME SEE IF MR. HEITZ CAN EXPLAIN TO COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER WHAT IT IS WE'RE VOTING ON ONE MORE TIME.

I THINK WHAT WE'RE VOTING FOR IS FOR STAFF TO COME BACK AT A LATER DATE AND TO BRING WITH YOU THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, WHICH WOULD BE AN ORDINANCE, AND IT WILL BE IN ITS COMPLETE FORM TAKING ALL THE CONSIDERATIONS SAID AND THIS WILL BE THE PROFESSIONAL ?? THE STAFF PROFESSIONAL RECOMMENDATION.

GRIFFITH: ESSENTIALLY IT'S ACCEPTING THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFER TO DO JUST THAT.

SLUSHER: JUST AS LONG AS WE DON'T GET IT BACK AND SAY WE WANT TO SEND TO IT THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

GRIFFITH: I THINK PART OF WHAT HE SUGGESTED WAS THAT THAT WOULD NOT BE SOMETHING HE WOULD RECOMMEND WE CONSIDER IS SENDING IT ANYPLACE ELSE.

HIS DEAL TOOK THAT OFF THE TABLE.

GRIFFITH: I THINK IT DID. THAT WOULD BE PART OF THE MOTION THAT THIS IS IT.

SLUSHER: OKAY. THANKS.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. EVERYBODY ?? COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ.

ALVAREZ: YEAH, JUST ?? I MEAN I ASSUME ?? I'M WORKING FROM THIS VERSION WE HAVE IN OUR BACKUP HERE THAT'S DATED DECEMBER THE 6TH, '01, 2001. BUT SOME OF THE COMMENTS WE HAD HEARD I THINK SHOULD BEAR MENTIONING AND INCORPORATING SO I WOULD ASK IF THE FOLLOWING COULD BE ADDED TO WHAT IS ON THE TABLE. SO ON PART 6, B 532, WHICH IS THE ONE THAT DEALS WITH THE TWO FOR ONE REPLACEMENT OR THE ONE FOR ONE, DEPENDING ON WHETHER YOU ARE IN A SCENIC ROADWAY DISTRICT OR HISTORIC DISTRICT, THE ISSUE THAT WAS RAISED IS THAT IF YOU HAVE A SIGN THAT IS GOING TO BE MOVED AS A RESULT OF DEVELOPMENT, THAT THAT SHOULD NOT COUNT AS A REMOVAL UNDER THOSE TWO SECTIONS, WHICH IS B 532 A AND B. SO UNDER THOSE TWO SECTIONS AND THOSE TWO SCENARIOS, THEN A SIGN THAT IS REMOVED AS A RESULT OF NEW DEVELOPMENT SHOULD NOT BE COUNTED AS A PERMANENT REMOVAL. AND THAT WAS ?? I THINK THAT WAS MENTIONED BY BOTH SIDES ON ON THIS.

OKAY, COUNCILMEMBER.

ALVAREZ: THE OTHER ISSUE HAS TO DO WITH NOTICE. IF WE COULD AMEND THAT. I THINK PART ?? F 2, PERSONALLY I THINK THE NOTICE SHOULD GO OUT IN SEVEN DAYS. AND THEN FOR A ?? SEEMS LIKE EVEN FOR A REPAIR, AGAIN YOU HAVE THAT SEVEN?DAY REVIEW PERIOD, BUT FOR A REPLACEMENT, THAT WE DO HAVE THE 30?DAY PERIOD WITH NOTIFICATION. JUST AS A RECOMMENDATION. AND THEN I THINK THAT'S ALL I ?? AT LEAST I WANTED TO AMEND FOR NOW. PERSONALLY I DO LIKE ?? I MEAN IT'S INTERESTING THAT WE GO TO AMEND OR CLEAN UP THE ORDINANCE AND WE COME BACK WITH BRAND?NEW PROVISIONS THAT REALLY COMPLICATE OUR LIVES. FOR ME THAT'S WHY IT'S DIFFICULT TO SAY, WELL, I'M GOING TO REMOVE THE ONE FOR ONE WITH A 25% REDUCTION BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE AND WE'RE TRYING TO IMPROVE WHAT WE HAD, AND NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TOTALLY REPLACING IT. I DON'T THINK THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL INTENT HERE. BUT IF WE HAVE THESE TWO OPTIONS AND PEOPLE TAKE THEM, THAT CERTAINLY IS NOT GOING TO BE DETRIMENTAL ON OUR GOAL OR MISSION HERE. SO THAT'S WHY I MAKE THESE CHANGES AND DO ADVOCATE, I GUESS, FOR THE ONE FOR ONE AS WELL. I'LL OFFER THOSE AS AN AMENDMENT IF I CAN GET A SECOND. IF THEY CAN BE CONSIDERED FRIENDLY, THAT WOULD BE EVEN BETTER. [ONE MOMENT, PLEASE, WHILE CAPTIONERS CHANGE].

GARCIA: ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS?

WYNN: MAYOR? JUST ONE COMMENT. I'M GOING TO TRY AN AMENDMENT. I GUESS I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED BY ASKING STAFF TO COME BACK WITH A RECOMMENDATION IN SOME PERIOD OF TIME BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S WHAT STAFF HAS BEEN DOING NOW FOR WEEKS. AND WE HAVE THE RECOMMENDATIONS, SORT OF LIKE IT OR NOT OR SORT THE ALL THE FACTS INVOLVED. I JUST DON'T THINK ?? I THINK THE STAFF HAS DONE THEIR WORK AND THEY'VE MADE THE RECOMMENDATIONS. BUT HAVING SAID THAT ?? AND I'M NOT GOING TO BE SUPPORTIVE OF A ONE FOR ONE REPLACEMENT POLICY. AND SO I'LL GO AHEAD AND JUST ASK THAT IF WE COULD AMEND IT NOW TO GO AHEAD AND NOT HAVE THE ONE FOR ONE REPLACEMENT POLICY, ALLOW THE TWO AND THREE TO HUNDRED EXCHANGE, BUT NOT THE ONE FOR ONE.

GRIFFITH: THAT WOULD NOT BE FRIENDLY AT THIS POINT BECAUSE COMPETITION IS ONE OF THE THREE GOALS OF GETTING INTO THIS, AND THAT COULD BE COUNTER. IF YOU HAD TO HAVE TWO AND YOU ONLY HAD ONE, THEN THAT COULD LIMIT YOUR OPPORTUNITIES.

GARCIA: OKAY. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? THIS IS FOR FIRST READING ONLY ON ITEM NUMBER 65. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. THAT'S THE WEAKEST AYE I'VE HEARD, ARE THERE ANY NO'S.

WYNN: NO.

GARCIA: NO FROM COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. SO ON FIRST READING IT PASSES ON A VOTE OF FIVE TO ONE TO ONE WITH COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS ABSENT. THE ONLY THING LEFT, COUNCILMEMBERS, IS ITEM NUMBER 66, WHICH IS AN EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEM. AND I'M GOING TO ASK THE CITY MANAGER IF WE NEED TO DO THIS TODAY.

MAYOR, WE HAVE RECEIVED A LETTER FROM LUMBERMAN'S RELATIVE TO SOME OF THE ISSUES THEY'D LIKE US TO CONSIDER THAT DEALS WITH SOME OF THE ACCESS ISSUES. IF YOU WOULD JUST AT LEAST PERMIT US AT A MINIMUM TO RUN YOU THROUGH THAT LETTER SO WE GET SOME IDEA FOR THE DISCUSSIONS THAT WE'VE BEEN HAVING WITH LUMBERMAN'S TO MAKE SURE THERE IS SOME SUPPORT ON THE COUNCIL FOR PROCEEDING WITH THE DISCUSSIONS THAT WE'VE BEEN HAVING FOR THE NEXT SEVERAL WEEKS.

GARCIA: SO AT THIS TIME THE COUNCIL WILL GO TO EXECUTIVE SESSION UNDER SECTION 551 .071, PRIVATE CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEYS TO DISCUSS LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT DATED JANUARY EIGHTH, 2001 BETWEEN LUMBERMAN'S INVESTMENT CORPORATION AND THE CITY OF AUSTIN. AND WE ARE RECESSED INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. WE DON'T HAVE ANY MORE ACTION ITEMS, SO THE ONLY THING WE WILL DO WHEN WE COME BACK IS ADJOURN. [EXECUTIVE SESSION]

GARCIA: THERE BEING A QUORUM OF THE COUNCIL IN THE CHAMBERS, I WILL CALL THIS MEETING BACK TO ORDER AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION FROM COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER TO ADJOURN. SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. OPPOSED NO. MOTION CARRIES. WE'RE ADJOURNED.

End of Council Session Closed Caption Log