Closed Caption Log, Council Meeting, 01/10/02

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 (512) 974-2210.

MAYOR GARCIA:, IS THERE A QUORUM? THERE WAS. WHERE IS COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH? WHERE DID SHE GO? WELL, SHE IS WITHIN HEARING DISTANCE. I WILL DECLARE THAT WE HAVE A QUORUM OF THE COUNCIL. AND --

[INAUDIBLE - NO MIC]

WE HAVE A SEARCH PARTY OUT FOR THE FOURTH MEMBER.

MAYOR GARCIA: WELCOME, EVERYBODY. THIS IS A REGULAR MEETING OF THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL OF AUSTIN, TEXAS. WE ARE CONVENING AT THE BOARD ROOM OF THE LOWER COLORADO RIVER AUTHORITY IN THE HANCOCK BUILDING, 3700 LAKE AUSTIN BOULEVARD, IT'S THURSDAY, JANUARY THE 10TH, 2002. AND COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ, COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH, COUNCILMEMBER WYNN AND GUS GARCIA ARE HERE. AND WE -- I'M GOING TO ANNOUNCE NOW THAT THE COUNCIL WILL GO INTO SESSION -- EXECUTIVE SESSION UNDER CHAPTER 551 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE TO RECEIVE ADVICE FROM LEGAL COUNSEL TO DISCUSS MATTERS OF LANDS ACQUISITION, TO DISCUSS PERSONNEL MATTERS, TO DISCUSS OR TAKE ACTION ON COMPETITIVE MATTER OF THE ELECTRIC UTILITY DEPARTMENT PROVIDED BY 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 PERMITTED BY LAW REGARDING ANY ITEM ON THIS AGENDA. THE ITEMS THAT WE WILL BE DISCUSSING UNDER PRIVATE CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY, 551.071 TO DISCUSS LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO LONGHORN PARTNERS PIPELINE, LP, VERSUS CITY OF AUSTIN, ET AL, CASE NUMBER A-02-CA-001-SS AND ETHYL SPILLER ET AL VERSUS LONGHORN PARTNERS PIPELINE, LP, ET AL NUMBER 1-98-CA-255-SS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, ATIN DIVISION AND OTHER LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO HAZARDOUS PIPELINES. THE SECOND ITEM WILL BE ITEM NO. 3 ON THE AGENDA, THE FIRST ONE BEING THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES WHICH WE WILL NOT BE DISCUSSING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. ITEM NO. 3 IS DISCUSS ACQUISITION OF AN INTEREST IN REAL PROPERTY FOR THE BALCONES CANYON LANDS PRESERVE. ITEM NO. 4, ON THE AGENDA, THIRD ITEM, WILL BE DISCUSSING DISCUSS ACQUISITION OF AN INTEREST IN REAL PROPERTY IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA FOR MUNICIPAL PURPOSES. I'M SORRY. AND THEN THOSE ITEMS ON THE REAL PROPERTY SECTION, ITEMS 3 AND 4 ARE REAL PROPERTY ITEMS, SECTION 551.071 [SIC].

072.

MAYOR GARCIA: HUH?

MAYOR GARCIA: 551.072, SORRY ABOUT THAT, THANK YOU. WE ARE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. xxx LORRAINE GIBBS, FROM

MAYOR GARCIA: THERE BEING A QUORUM OF THE COUNCIL IN THE CHAMBERS, I'M GOINGO CALL THIS MEETING BACK TO ORDER AND ANNOUNCE THAT WE RECESSED THE EXECUTIVE SESSION, WE CONCLUDED OUR DISCUSSION OF ITEMS 3 AND 4, WE WILL BE GOING BACK TO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO CONTINUE THIS DISCUSSION, PRIVATE CONSULTATION WITH OUR ATTORNEY WITH REGARD TO ITEM NO. 2, LONGHORN PIPELINE ISSUE. AND AT THIS TIME, I'M GOING TO -- EVEN THOUGH I JUST CALLED IT BACK TO ORDER, I'M GOING TO RECESS THIS MEETING AGAIN SO THAT WE CAN ASK PASTOR FRED MOORE FROM THE KINGDOM OF GOD CHRISTIAN CENTER TO BRING US OUR INVOCATION.@@ PASTOR MOORE, IF YOU COULD COME TO THE LECTERN, WELCOME, SIR.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. LET US BOW OUR HEADS. OUR FATHER, WHICH ART IN HEAVEN, WE COME TO YOU ON THIS 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, THANKING YOU FOR ALLOWING EACH OF US TO SEE ANOTHER YEAR. AS WE BEGIN THIS NEW YEAR, AND THIS THE FIRST OF MANY SESSIONS TO COME, WE ACKNOWLEDGE YOU AS THEERIGN LORD WHO RULES AND REIGNS OVER THE AFFAIRS OF MEN. WE ALSO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE OFFICES OF THIS CITY COUNCIL ARE ORDAINED BY YOU. IN YOUR WORDS YOU INSTRUCTED YOUR PEOPLE THAT ARE CALLED BY YOUR NAME, THAT FIRST OF ALL TO PRAY FOR KINGS AND FOR ALL THOSE THAT ARE IN AUTHORITY SO THAT WE CAN LIVE IN PEACE AND QUIETNESS AND GODLINESS AND DIGNITY FOR YOU SAID THIS PLEASES YOU. YOU INSTRUCTED US,FATHER, TO ACKNOWLEDGE YOU IN ALL OF OUR WAYS AND YOU WOULD DIRECT OUR PATH. WE ASK FOR YOUR WISDOM, WE THANK YOU FOR GRANTING IT UNTO US. THIS AFTERNOON, FATHER, WE BEGIN TO PRAY THIS NEW YEAR ASKING YOU TO LOOK WITH FAVOR UPON OUR MAYOR, GUS GARCIA, HIS WIFE MORENA AND THEIR FAMILY. UPON MAYOR PRO TEM JACKIE GOODMAN AND HER HUSBAND JACK, UPON COUNCILMEMBER DARYL SLUSHER, HIS WIFE ADELLA AND FAMILY, FOR COUNCILMEMBER RAUL ALVAREZ, FOR COUNCILMEMBER BEVERLY GRIFFITH, HER HUSBAND BAILEY; FOR COUNCILMEMBER WILL WYNN AND HIS WIFE ANN AND FAMILY; FOR COUNCILMEMBER DANNY THOMAS, HIS WIFE JANICE AND FAMILY. FOR OUR CITY MANAGER, JESUS GARZA AND FAMILY. FOR OUR CITY ATTORNEY, SEDORA JEFFERSON AND FAMILY. WE ASK GOD THAT YOU WILL GRANT THEM THE SPIRIT OF COOPERATION, CONGENIALITY AND DEEP RESOLVE WHEN TACKLING THE ISSUES OF OUR GREAT CITY. LASTLY I WOULD BE REMISS IF WE DID NOT REMEMBER OUR FELLOW AMERICANS OF 9-11 TO -- ASKING YOU TO CONTINUE TO COMFORT AND CONSOLE THEM, KEEP OUR SOLDIERS SAFE IN AFGHANISTAN, AND LET YOUR GUIDING HAND REST AND REMAIN ON OUR GOVERNOR RICK PERRY, PRESIDENT BUSH AND THEIR FAMILIES. ALL THESE THINGS WE ASK IN JESUS' NAME, AMEN.

MAYOR GARCIA: AMEN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, PASTOR MOORE. AND YOU DID GREAT RESEARCH ON THE FAMILIES. [ LAUGHTER ]. EXCEPT YOU MADE THE CITY MANAGER MY RELATIVE. [ LAUGHTER ]. IT'S ALMOST GARCIA, BUT IT'S GARZA. IF -- WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE COUNCIL, IN THIS EARLY PART OF THE MEETING, I WILL JUMP AROUND A LITTLE BIT TO RECOGNIZE THE ITEMS THAT ARE ON TIME CERTAIN SO THAT PEOPLE CAN GO ABOUT THEIR BUSINESS. THE FIRST ITEM OF TIME CERTAIN IS THE CITIZENSS COMMUNICATION, MR. GUS PENA, MS. LORRAINE GIBBS, SOME ALMANZA, MR. AQUASI EVANS, IF YOU COULD COME UP IN THAT RECORD. WELCOME, SIR.

GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBERS, GUS PENA, PRESIDENT OF EAST AUSTIN CONCERNED HISPANICS AND SECOND VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE RAINBOW COALITION, CITY OF AUSTIN AND THE STATE-WIDE CHAPTER. TO MY RIGHT IS MY HANDSOME BOY LUCIO PEN YOO, AGAIN TRYING TO -- PENA, AGAIN TRYING TO LEARN CIVICS AND THE APPROPRIATENESS OF BEING GOOD CITIZENS. NUMBER ONE, MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS, I COME HERE TO SUPPORT UNDER THE AUSTIN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION, NUMBER 4, ITEM NO. 4, APPROVING A RESOLUTION FOR $71,900, ACQUISITION OF NINE UNITS OF TRANSITIONAL HOUSING. LET'S REMEMBER ONE THING, THESE ARE SROS, SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCIES. WE HAVE BEE MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING FOR FAMILIES WHO ARE HOMELESS, ALSO. SO -- BUT WE ARE IN SUPPORT OF THIS AND OTHER INITIATIVES, BUT AGAIN LET'S LOOK OUTSIDE OF THE BOX AND REMEMBER THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF HOMELESS FAMILIES OUT THERE, VETERANS WITH HOMELESS FAMILIES.

MAYOR GARCIA: EXCUSE ME JUST A MINUTE. BEFORE I RECOGNIZE YOU, I HAVE TO CALL THIS MEETING BACK TO ORDER.

MY APOLOGY.

MAYOR GARCIA: SO THIS MEETING IS BACK TO ORDER, IT'S 1:39. MR. PEN YOO.

.

GIVE HIM HIS 3 MINUTES BACK.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. AGAIN MY APOLOGIES TO YOU ALL. HAPPY NEW YEAR'S FIRST OF ALL, AGAIN LIO TO MY RIGHT IS A STUDENT AT AISD. IN MY OPINION, I APPLAUD YOU ALL, I APPLAUD YOU FOR ESTABLISHING AN EDUCATIONAL COMMITTEE. BUT WITH THE GOOD COMES THE BAD ALSO. WITH THE POSITIVE COMES A LITTLE BIT OF A NEGATIVE. WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SEEN MORE GRASS ROOTS PARTICIPATION AND INVOLVEMENT IN THAT COMMITTEE. YOU KNOW, SINCE YOU HAVE KNOWN ME, MAYOR GARCIA, SINCE YOU HAVE BEEN ON THE SCHOOL BOARD THAT INCLUSION IS ONE OF MY BIGGEST ISSUES. WITHOUT ANY GOVERNMENTAL BODY, ELECTIVE BODY, WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE GRASS ROOTS PARTICIPATION ON THAT COMMITTEE. I WANT TO THANK MAYOR PRO TEM JACKIE GOODMAN FOR HAVING A BIGGER PARTICIPATION ON THE -- ON HER I THINK IT'S Y'ALL'S HOUSING SUBCOMMITTEE OR --

AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

YES, SIR, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, I APPLAUD YOU ALL FOR THAT, IT BRINGS BACK A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO BRING FORTH GOOD IDEAS. I WANT TO AGAIN ASK A BIG FAVOR OF THE CITY COUNCIL. TWO OF THEM, ACTUALLY. NUMBER ONE, IN THE PAST, I REMEMBER WHEN MAYOR TODD WAS MAYOR, WE SATURDAY STARTED THE BUDGETARY PROCESS EARLY TO AFFORD A SMALL OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THE PROPOSED BUDGET OR PRELIMINARY BUDGET, TO STUDY IT. IF WE COULD START DOING THAT A LITTLE BIT EARLIER, WE ON THE COMMITTEE WOULD APPRECIATE IT VERY MUCH. THAT HELPS US EDUCATE THE PEOPLE AND OUR CONSTITUENTS, ALSO. HELPS US EDUCATE OUR OWN SELVES, ALSO. NOW, AS FAR AS MENTIONED PROPOSED CUTS, AGAIN I ASK YOU ALL A BIG FAVOR, ALSO. IF YOU COULD INCLUDE THE COMMUNITY IN THE DIALOGUE BEFORE YOU MAKE ANY ACTUAL CUTS, IF YOU HAVE A LIST OF PROPOSED CUTS, BRING IT FORTH TO THE COMMUNITY SO THEY CAN BE INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS AND SAY, YEA OR NAY AND WHAT OR WHOM IS GOING TO BE IMPACTED BY THESE PROPOSED CUTS. WE DON'T WANT ANYTHING CUT THAT WILL HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE SENIORS AND YOUTH. WE CAN FEND FOR OURSELVES, BUT SENIORS PAVED THE WAY FOR US, BUT THE YOUTH ARE NOT ONLY OUR FUTURE, BUT OUR CURRENT -- SO THAT'S WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SAY ABOUT THE YOUTH. THEY ARE OUR LEADERS NOW. WE HAVE YOUTH THAT ARE LEADERS NOW. ANYWAY CONTINUE THE -- TO EXPEDITE THE LOW INCOME AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND TRANSITIONAL HOUSINGMENT DON'T JUST LOOK AT SRO'S, THERE HAS BEEN A BIG PUSH BUT NOT FOR TRANSITIONAL HOUSING FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES. I WANT TO ECHO WHAT THE PASTOR MENTIONED ABOUT SUPPORTING OUR GOVERNMENT LEADERS, ALSO, IN OUR EFFORTS IN AFGHANISTAN. WE NEED TO FIGHT, WE NEED TO FIGHT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE CAUSING HAVOC AND KILLING OUR PEOPLE, ALSO. I SERVED IN VIETNAM, ALSO, WE WENT THERE TO DEFEND PEOPLE'S FREEDOM. I PRAY FOR EVERYBODY, ALSO, VETERANS AND THEIR FAMILIES WHO SUFFERED LOSSES, ALSO, CONTINUE THE MARCH, MAYOR GARCIA, I DO BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE SHOWING GOOD LEADERSHIP. CONTINUE TO DO SO, PLEASE BE MORE INCLUSIVE, AGAIN. JESUS, JESUS GARZA I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THE STEWARDSHIP AND LEADERSHIP THAT YOU HAVE SHOWN. I HAVE NOT ALSO BEEN -- [BUZZER SOUNDING]

LET ME WRAP IT UP.

TAKE LONGER. [ LAUGHTER ].

I WILL LEAVE IT AT THAT. THANK YOU FOR THE STEWARDSHIP FOR THE CITIZENS OF AUSTIN, THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MR. PENA. LET ME SAY THAT THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE WILL HAVE PUBLIC HEARINGS. I HOPE THAT YOU VISIT WITH THEM AND BRING THOSE ISSUES OF EXCELLENCE IN EDUCATION TO THEM.

THANK YOU MR. MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MS. GIBBS. AS YOU COME UP, LET ME INFORM THE COUNCIL THAT WE HAVE A PACKET FROM YOU.

THAT'S CORRECT.

OUTLINING THE ISSUES THAT I AM SURE THAT YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT.

MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS, THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO COME. MY SITUATION IS ONE OF A PERSONAL NATURE AND THAT'S THE REASON THAT I DID MAKE THE COPIES AND HAND OUT THE PACKETS PRIOR TO THE MEETING. AND IT HAS TO DO WITH THE AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT THAT THEY HAVE WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. ONE THING THAT I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THAT I DIDN'T PUT IN THE NOTE WAS TO ENCOURAGE THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO BE MINDFUL, ALWAYS, OF THE PEOPLE THAT THEY ARE SPEAKING WITH, POSSIBLY CHECK THEIR OWN CRIMINAL HISTORY, THEIR OWN MENTAL HEALTH HISTORIES, THINGS OF THIS NATURE PRIOR TO MAKING ANY DECISION ON ANYONE OR ANY -- ANY PROCESS THAT THEY CHOOSE TO TAKE AGAINST ANYONE. I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE POLICE TO BE VERY AWARE THAT IT'S UNUSUAL FOR -- FOR A CITIZEN IN CERTAIN AREA OF -- OF THEIR LIFE, THAT THEY HAVEN'T DONE SOMETHING WRONG, I BELIEVE THAT IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THE POLICE BE MINDFUL OF THIS, BE MATURE IN THEIR ACTIVITY AND REMEMBER THAT EVERYONE HAS THEIR STORY. AND SO MY STORY IS IN THE ENVELOPE THAT I GAVE YOU, I APPRECIATE YOUR TAKING THE TIME AND EFFORT TO GO THROUGH IT. IT'S SOMETHING THAT I THINK EACH OF YOU SHOULD BE MADE AWARE OF, OF THE SITUATION THAT I HAVE EXPERIENCED. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MS. GIBBS, WE WILL PASS THIS INFORMATION ON TO THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER AND THE POLICE CHIEF WHO WILL REVIEW IT AND REPORT BACK TO COUNCIL. THANK YOU.

MS. SUSANA ALMANZA, WELCOME. I DON'T THINK THAT I HAVE SEEN YOU SINCE IT IS NEW YEAR, HAPPY NEW YEAR.

HAPPY NEW YEAR, GOOD EVENING MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, I WANT TO WISH YOU AND YOUR FAMILIES A HAPPY NEW YEAR. I'M SUSANA ALMANZA WITH PODER, PEOPLE ORGANIZED IN DEFENSE OF EARTH AND HER RE SOURCES. I'M ALSO HOPING THAT THE JUDGE WILL RULE TODAY ON THE LONGHORN PIPELINE THAT THE CITY DOES HAVE JURISDICTION, I FEEL IT WOULD BE A CATASTROPHE IF WE HAD SPILLS AND WE'VE HAD FIRE EXPLOSION, WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE AND SAFEGUARD THE COMMUNITIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT AND EVERYBODY THAT ONLY 19 MILES WILL BE NEW MILES AND THAT'S MOSTLY IN THE AFFLUENT AREA AND THE REST OF THE AREA, WHICH IS NOT AS AFFLUENT WILL HAVE A 50-YEAR-OLD PIPELINE. THAT'S REAL IMPORTANT. BUT I AM HERE TODAY TO ADDRESS YOU NOT ON ECONOMIC ISSUES, BUT TO LOOK AT YOU AND ADDRESS YOU ON THE HUMAN PERSPECTIVE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS AND ALSO TO THE HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS OF THE RESIDENTS OF AUSTIN. THE HOLLY STREET POWER PLANT RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE OVER CLOSE TO 500 CHILDREN THAT ATTEND METZ ELEMENTARY WITHIN A ONE MILE RADIUS OF THE HOLLY STREET POWER PLANT. FOR THOSE THAT DON'T KNOW, WHEN THE NOISE STUDIES WERE DONE IN THE 1990'S, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE HOLLY POWER PLANT EXCEEDED THE STANDARDS SET BY EPA AND ALSO THE H.U.D. STANDARDS. WE HAVE OVER 500 CHILDREN BEING EXPOSED TO NOISE OUT OF PROPORTION. ALSO, TOO, IN THE ELECTRIC FIELD STUDIES THAT WAS DONE IN THE AREA, MOST SCIENTISTS SAY THAT YOU SHOULDN'T BE EXPOSED TO MORE THAN 2.0MILIGAWSS. IN SOME WE HAD 30.9, 29.1 THAT THE COMMUNITY IS BEING EXPOSED TO ELECTRO MAGNETIC FIELDS. THEN WE MUST LOOK ALSO AT THE PARTICULAR MATTER THAT IT'S HAPPENING FROM. WHEN YOU DO THE BURNING OF THE OILS OUT THERE FOR FIRING AND ALSO THE NATURAL GAS AND THE OTHER PARTICULAR MATTERS THAT ARE OUT THERE, THAT THESE ARE THINGS THAT CHILDREN, EXPRESSLY THOSE THAT ARE IN DEVELOPMENT STAGE, ARE VERY VULNERABLE. ALSO TO THE SICK AND TO THE ELDERLY. WE HAVE TO RELOCATE THAT POWER PLANT. WHEN WE LOOK AT -- ALL OF US WHO HAVE CHILDREN OR GRANDCHILDREN, NIECES OR NEPHEWS WHO KNOW WHAT IT IS TO SEE A CHILD SUFFER OR IN PAIN OR ILL, WE HAVE TO BE VERY CONSCIOUS AND SAY "YOO SHOULD WE EXPOSE THOSE CHILDREN TO ALL OF THOSE THINGS" LET'S NOT LOOK AT RACE. GENTLEMEN, THE MAJORITY ARE MEXICAN AMERICAN CHILDREN, BUT THEY ARE CHILDREN. CHILDREN ARE CHILDREN. WE NEED TO SAFEGUARD OUR CHILDREN. WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE LOOK AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, NOT FIVE OR 10 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD, BUT WITHIN ONE YEAR. I'M NOT SAYING CLOSE, BUT RELOCATE THAT POWER PLANT. LET'S SEE WHAT WE CAN DO. WE SPEND MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, YOU KNOW, SAFEGUARDING THE ANIMALS, WHICH IS GOOD. BUT WE HAVE TO CREATE A BALANCE, WHERE DO WE SAFEGUARD HUMANITY IN OUR CHILDREN. WE NEED TO CREATE A BALANCE [BUZZER SOUNDING] ON HOW WE SPEND MONEY. I ASK YOU TO PLEASE MOVE ON THIS. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU MS. ALMANZA. MR.AQUASI EVANS. LET ME COMMENT THAT I DIDN'T GET THIS ITEM LISTED ON THE AGENDA TELL US WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO TALK ABOUT.

THANK YOU, MAYOR, I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE ISSUE OF REP OPERATIONS, FIRST OF ALL I WANT TO -- REPARATIONS. I WANT TO THANK THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FOR ALLOWING ME TO TALK ABOUT IT. I HAVE BEEN HERE BEFORE, EACH TIME I HAVE BEEN MET WITH PILOT SILENCE. I HOPE THIS TIME THERE WILL BE SOME RESPONSE FROM COUNCIL ON THIS VERY IMPORTANT NATIONAL, INTERNATIONAL ISSUE. REPARATIONS IS A WORD THAT IS SIMPLY DEFINED AS REPAIRING, MAKING AMENDS. I DOUBT THAT ANYONE ON THE COUNCIL AND THE AUDIENCE WOULD DENY THAT THERE'S A NEED TO REPAIR AND MAKE AMENDS FOR INJUSTICES BASED ON THIS CITY'S HISTORY OF RACISM AND DISCRIMINATION. IN ITS WISDOM, THE FORMER MAYOR, KIRK WATSON, COORDINATED A VENTURE WITH THE LOCAL CLERGY OF ALL CULTURE TO CREATE A COUNCIL ON COMMUNITY RECONCILIATION. I HAPPEN TO SERVE ON THAT COUNCIL, WE ARE WORKING TO RECONCILE DIFFERENCES IN OUR CITY THROUGH PROCESSES OF TRYING TO AVOID CONFLICT, CONFLICT RESOLUTION. BUT AS PASTOR PARKER POINTED OUT, YOU CAN'T REALLY HAVE RECONCILIATION UNTIL YOU HAVE REPARATIONS, YOU CAN'T RECONCILE UNTIL YOU REPAIR. A DEBT IS OWED. YESTERDAY I WAS TALKING TO MRS. -- MS. CONNALLY OVER THE CONLEY-GUERRERO CENTER. SHE HERD NICOLE HAD BEEN HAVING TROUBLE. SHE CALLED ME OVER, SAID SON I LIKE WHAT YOUR PAPER IS DOING. I ALSO LIKE WHAT YOU ARE DOING WHEN YOU GO DOWN AND TALK TO THAT CITY COUNCIL. THEY KNOW WE HAVE BEEN DONE INJUSTICE. MS. CONLEY CONFESSED HER GRANDFATHER WAS A WHITE MAN. IT WASN'T HER GRANDMOTHER'S CHOICE. BLACK WOMEN HAD NO CHOICES BACK THEN. BLACK PEOPLE WERE NOT CONSIDERED HUMANS IN THIS CITY OR IN THIS COUNTY OR IN THIS STATE. THESE PEOPLE WERE CAPTIVE FROM THEIR HOMELAND, BROUGHT HERE, STRIPPED OF LANGUAGE, STRIPPED OF CULTURE, STRIPPED OF PERSONALITY AND SELFHOOD, DENIED ACCESS TO THEIR -- ORDER THANS WRITTEN -- ORDINANCES WRITTEN BY AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL DENYING ACCESS TO CITY SERVICES. NOT ONLY THAT, YOU HAD ORDINANCE AND LAWS, JIM CROW LAWS ALL THROUGH THE 1920'S, 1930'S, 1940'S, THE 1950'S, 1960'S, UP TO 1970 UNTIL SOMEBODY BLACK COULD EVEN SIT ON THE COUNCIL OR COUNTY COMMISSION. AND ALL THIS HAS GONE WITHOUT REPAIR. THERE WAS NO SEVERANCE PACKAGE WHEN SLAVERY ENDED. THERE IS A NATIONAL MARCH BEING PLANNED TO ADDRESS THE QUESTION OF REPARATIONS ON AUGUST THE 17TH, 2002. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU AS THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL TO PASS A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE MARCH ON REPARATIONS, AND TO TAKE THE LEAD IN THIS CITY AND OPENING DIALOGUE ON THE NEED AND THE MEANS FOR BRINGING ABOUT THE REPAIR OF HUMAN PSYCHE AND PERSONALITY BASED ON YEARS OF DISCRIMINATION AND INJUSTICE IN THIS CITY. WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO STILL LIVE IN A RESERVATION THAT'S A POCKET OF POVERTY RESERVED FOR THEM BECAUSE OF WHAT THIS [BUZZER SOUNDING] COUNCIL SAID -- WHERE THIS COUNCIL SAID THEY HAD TO LIVE. WE NEED TO REPAIR THAT DAMAGE. WE HAVE PEOPLE DYING FROM MOLD AND HOUSEHOLD PROBLEMS THAT THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE. BUT THE CITY ALLOWED DEVELOPERS TO DEVELOP SUBSTANDARD LIVING CONDITIONS FOR A POCKET OF PEOPLE THAT THEY DIDN'T CARE ABOUT. NOW IT'S TIME TO SHOW YOU CARE, ADDRESS REPARATIONS, PLEASE.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MR. EVANS, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THAT, COUNCIL, CONCLUDES CITIZENSS COMMUNICATION, WE ARE GOING BACK TO THE BEGINNING OF THE AGENDA. THE FIRST ITEM IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER THE 13TH. IS THERE A MOTION?

WYNN: MOVE APPROVAL, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS. SECONDED BY -- WAS THE MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

THOMAS: I WILL SECOND.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. OPPOSED NO? MOTION CARRIES WITH MAYOR PRO TEM TEMPORARILY ABSENT. TEMPORARILY OUT OF THE CHAMBERS. DO WE HAVE ANY ITEMS, MR. CITY MANAGER, FOR THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING?

GARZA: I WAS TOLD THIS MORNING THAT THE DOCUMENTS ON THE BRACKENRIDGE SETON THING, SETON ITEM WOULD -- ARE PREPARED. YOU SHOULD HAVE THAT OUT TOMORROW NIGHT AS PART OF THE PACKET. AND SO YOU WILL HAVE -- WE WILL THEN POST A HEARING FOR THE 17TH FOR THE PEOPLE WHO COME AND COMMENT ON THE SUBSTANCE OF THE AGREEMENT AND SO THE COUNCIL IS GOING TO HAVE THAT INPUT FROM THE PUBLIC.

MAYOR GARCIA: AT THE PRESENT TIME, THAT DATE OF THE 17TH IS GOING TO BE A DATE JUST FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING. WE WILL NOT HAVE AN ACTION ITEM. THE ACTION ITEM WILL FIRST BE ON THE COUNCIL ON THE 31ST BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A MEETING ON THE 24TH. IF THE COUNCIL WANTS TO EXTEND THE PUBLIC HEARING TO THE 31ST, THEY CAN DO SO. KEEPING THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN ON THE 17TH. AND THE SAME THINKINGS FOR THE ACTION ITEM, THAT WE CANNOT REACH A DECISION ON THE 31ST. WE WILL MOVE IT TO THE FIRST MEETING IN FEBRUARY.

GARZA: MAYOR, WE WERE ALSO WANTING AS PART OF THE BRIEFING NEXT WEDNESDAY IS TO WALK THE COUNCIL THROUGH ONCE AGAIN THE -- THE TAX ANTICIPATION NOTE. JUST SO YOU HAVE THAT DATE TAKE INFORMATION, AGAIN WORK SESSIONS -- YOU WILL NOT HAVE AN ACTION ITEM ON FOR THE 17TH, JUST TO GET INPUT AND FEEDBACK FROM THE CITY COUNCIL ON THAT AND TO SEE IF THERE'S SOME KIND OF A SENSE WHERE THE -- WHETHER THE COUNCIL WANTS TO CONTINUE TO PROCEED WITH THOSE KINDS OF DISCUSSIONS.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. SO FOR THE WORK SESSION ON THE 16TH, WE WILL HAVE AN ITEM TO EXPLAIN THE TAX ANTICIPATION NOTES. COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ?

ALVAREZ: YES, MAYOR, FOR THE WORK SESSION NEXT WEEK, I HAVE GOING TO ASK THE CITY MANAGER IF THEY COULD DO A PRESENTATION ON THE 7TH STREET CORRIDOR PROJECT, I KNOW WE HAVE A CONSULTANT FROM HOUSTON THAT'S WORKING ON THAT, SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S POSSIBLE, BUT IF IT LOOKS LIKE A LIGHT AGENDA AND IT'S FEASIBLE, THEN, YOU KNOW, I WOULD LIKE FOR THAT TO BE CONSIDERED, IF NOT THEN OBVIOUSLY FOR A SUBSEQUENT WORK SESSION.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT BE FOR THE 16TH.

ALVAREZ: FOR THE 16TH, YEAH.

MAYOR GARCIA: THEN YOU WERE ALSO GOING TO ANNOUNCE SOMETHING ABOUT THE --

WE HAD A COUPLE OF ISSUES RELATED TO THE MEXICAN AMERICAN CULTURAL SENTENCE, RELATED TO SITE GOVERNANCE THAT WE WERE GOING TO PUT ON FOR NEXT WEEK I WANTED TO GIVE THE STAFF AND PUBLIC JUST A NOTICE OF THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: FOR THIS ITEM, IF WE CAN GET BACKUP MATERIAL TO THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE SO IT CAN BE INCLUDED IN THE PACKET. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY ITEMS FOR THE NEXT COMEG?

THOMAS: --

FOR THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING?

THOMAS: YES, MAYOR. NEXT WEEK WE WILL COME HAVE A RESOLUTION IN REFERENCE TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE THAT YOU HAVE -- THAT YOU APPOINTED ME OVER, WE WILL BRING THAT NEXT WEEK.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. SO WOULD THAT BE IN THE WORK SESSION? OR IS IT AN ACTION ITEM? TOM THOMAS IT'S GOING TO BE AN ACTION ITEM. WE ARE TRYING TO GET SOME WORDING TOGETHER.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER DID YOU WANT TO ANNOUNCE ANYTHING? ANYBODY ELSE? OKAY. NEXT ITEM IS THE READING OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MS. BROWN.

CLERK BROWN: GOOD AFTERNOON. THE ITEM THAT I -- THE ITEMS THAT I SHOW FOR THE CONSENT AGENDA THIS AFTERNOON ARE BEGINNING WITH ITEM 12, 13, 14, 15, AS A POSTPONEMENT TO JANUARY 17TH, 16, 17, --

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT'S FOR SECOND AND THIRD READING.

CLERK BROWN: 18.

MAYOR GARCIA: ALSO FOR SECOND AND THIRD READING.

CLERK BROWN: 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 42, 43, 44, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 58, 59, AND 61 HAS BEEN POSTPONED TO JANUARY 17TH.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. IF I MAY, I FORGOT TO READ INTO THE RECORD THE CHANGES AND CORRECTIONS. SO I'M DO THAT -- I'LL DO THAT NOW. THE FIRST ONE IS ON AHFC ITEM NO. 2. THAT'S POSTPONED TO JANUARY 17TH, BUT THAT'S THE 1:45 TIME CERTAIN. ON ITEM NO. 5, THAT IS NOT A CONSENT ITEM. NEITHER. ITEM NO. 11, DID WE READ THAT INTO THE RECORD AS POSTPONED INDEFINITELY, I GUESS WE DID. DID WE READ ITEM 11, MS. BROWN?

CLERK BROWN: YES, SIR, AS POSTPONED TO --

MAYOR GARCIA: POSTPONED INDEFINITELY. ITEM NO. 17 WE READ INTO THE RECORD. ITEM NO. 58, MAYOR PRO TEM JACKIE GOODMAN IS BEING ADDED AS A SPONSOR. ITEM NO. 59 IS RECOMMENDED BY THE AUDIT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE. AND ITEM NO. 60 IS CO-SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBERS GRIFFITH AND THOMAS. AND THAT -- ITEM NO. 60 IS ACTUALLY A TIME CERTAIN, NOT A CONSENT ITEM, TIME CERTAIN AT 2:30. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY HERE THAT WANTS TO SPEAK ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? I DON'T HAVE ANY CARDS.

GOODMAN: MAYOR, THERE'S POSSIBLY AN ITEM THAT WE COULD PUT BACK ON CONSENT. WITH A COMMENT, THOUGH.

MAYOR GARCIA: WHICH ONE IS THAT?

GOODMAN: ITEM NO. 57.

PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER AND COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS.

GOODMAN: I'M TOLD THAT THERE IS A DESIRE BY SEVERAL OF US TO POSTPONE THAT ITEM FOR ONE WEEK. AND SO I WOULD PROPOSE THAT FOR THE CONSENT AGENDA, BUT WITH COMMENTS THAT HAVE --

MAYOR GARCIA: WE CAN DO THAT. ITEM NO. 57 THEN, COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER AND COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS, THE PROPOSAL BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM IS THAT WE POSTPONE IT FOR A WEEK AND WE DO IT BY -- BY WAY OF CONSENT AGENDA. COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

SLUSHER: YES, MAYOR, COULD WE GET THAT IN A LEGISLATIVE FORMAT BEFORE THAT? I THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO HAVE THAT THIS TIME.

MAYOR GARCIA: 57?

SLUSHER: THE CHANGES, YES.

GOODMAN: WELL, WE SORT OF DO.

MAYOR GARCIA: I DON'T UNDERSTAND LEGISLATIVE FORMAT. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

GARZA: WHAT'S CHANGED, ITALICIZED OR BOLD, DIFFERENT FROM THE FIRST DRAFT.

MAYOR GARCIA: I THOUGHT IT WAS, MAYBE IT NOT, THE ONE THAT I HAVE HAS THE CHANGES HIGHLIGHTED.

SLUSHER: MAYOR, I THINK THIS CAME IN THIS MORNING, SO WE DO HAVE IT NOW, I JUST FOUND OUT.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER.

GOODMAN: MAYOR, WHAT WE HAD BEFORE THAT WAS LEGISLATIVE, BUT IT WAS EXCERPTS, SO IT WAS DIFFICULT TO MELD THE TWO.

GARZA: IT WAS LEGISLATIVE ABRIDGED. [ LAUGHTER ].

GOODMAN: YEAH.

MAYOR GARCIA: SO ITEM NO. 57 IS NO LONGER ITEM THAT IS PULLED -- IT'S BEING CONSIDERED ON THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR POSTPONEMENT TO JANUARY THE 17TH. THE REQUEST, MS. BROWN, IS FOR US TO HAVE THE CHANGES AND CORRECTION IN LEGISLATIVE FORM TO THE COUNCIL BEFORE WE COME TO THE MEETING. AGAIN, IS THERE ANYBODY HERE TO SPEAK ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? I'M GOING TO READ IT AGAIN SO WE KNOW WHAT WE ARE VOTING ON. ITEM NO. 11 IS CONSENT FOR POSTPONEMENT INDEFINITELY, 12, 13, 14, 15, TO POSTPONE TO JANUARY THE 17TH, '02, 16, 17 FOR SECOND AND THIRD READING, 18 FOR SECOND AND THIRD READING, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, IF I'M DOING A WATSON SLOW ME DOWN, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 42, 43, 44, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 58, -- 57 HAS BEEN PULLED?

POSTPONED.

MAYOR GARCIA: 57 IS POSTPONED, A CONSENT ITEM, POSTPONED UNTIL THE 17TH. 58, 59, AND ITEM NO. 61 IS CONSENT TO BE POSTPONED UNTIL NEXT WEEK, THE 17TH. DISCUSSION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA?

GOODMAN: YES, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYOR PRO TEM?

GOODMAN: ON ITEM NO. 57, THERE IS ONE THING THAT I THINK LEGAL MY NEED TO ADVISE US ON UP SFROINTS THERE ARE SOME COMMISSION -- UP FRONT SINCE THERE ARE SOME COMMISSIONERS HERE WHO MADE NEED THAT ADVICE. WE HAD SAID THAT WE WOULD TAKE ACTION ON JANUARY THE 10TH, THERE ARE SOME TIME FRAMES IN THE COMMISSIONERS' SCHEDULE FOR REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS AND SO ON, SO FORTH. SO THEY HAVE A MEETING SCHEDULED MONDAY, I THINK, ACTUALLY -- LET ME LOOK. I HAVE CEDAR FEVER, I SEE NOTHING. IS THE CHAIR OF THE COMMISSION HERE OR ANOTHER MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION WHO WOULD COME SPEAK TO US? THEY NEED TO KNOW EXACTLY HOW THEY SHOULD WORK THEIR MEETINGS AND ADOPTION IF WE PUT OUR ACTION OFF A WEEK.

MAYOR GARCIA: WELCOME.

THANK YOU, I AM ANDREA BRYANT CHAIR OF THE AUSTIN ARTS COMMISSION. NORMALLY, WE WOULD BE HANDING OUT APPLICATION PACKETS IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS AND THEN HOLDING OUR ORIENTATION FOR THE APPLICANTS WITH THEIR FINAL DUE DATE BEING MARCH 15TH. BUT THE APPLICATION PACKETS HAVE TO INCLUDE THE GUIDELINES. SO IF WE DON'T HAVE GUIDELINES UNTIL NEXT WEEK, ALL OF OUR STUFF WILL HAVE TO SHIFT FROM -- FROM THE TIME THAT WE ACTUALLY DO THE TRAINING FOR THE APPLICANTS AND THE PANELISTS, THOSE WHO DO THE INITIAL REVIEW. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, EVEN CONSIDER SHIFTING THE MARCH 15TH DATE, WHICH THEN THROWS EVERYTHING OFF. WE START WITH TRYING TO BE FINISHED IN TIME TO GIVE YOU OUR FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ALLOCATIONS IN TIME FOR YOU TO DO YOUR BUDGET WORK. AND THEN WORK BACKWARDS. WE HAVE APPEALS NOW SET FOR JULY. WE HAVE OUR FORMAL PRESENTATION DAYS IN MAY. IF WE CAN'T START ON TIME, WE JUST HAVE TO THROW OUR CALENDAR UP IN THE AIR AGAIN.

GOODMAN: MAYOR, I THINK IF I COULD, THE GUIDANCE THEY NEED IS ALONG THE LINES OF SOMETHING LIKE WHEN THE MEETING IS. WHEN IS YOUR NEXT MEETING?

ON THE THIRD MONDAY, WHICH WILL BE THIS COMING --

GOODMAN: SO IS IT POSSIBLE FOR THEM, FOR INSTANCE, TO DO SOMETHING LIKE TAKE ACTION AT THEIR MEETING, WHICH DE FACTO IS -- ACCEPTS AND ADOPTS WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO ON THE 17TH, CAN THEY DO IT SORT OF REMOTELY LIKE THAT SO THAT THE INSTANT WE TAKE ACTION WITHOUT THEM NEEDING A SPECIAL MEETING, THAT COULD BE APPROVED WITHIN THE PROCESS.

MAYOR GARCIA: I GUESS WE CAN DO IT BY WAY OF RATIFICATION, CAN'T WE, CITY MANAGER? I MEAN CITY ATTORNEY.

WELL, I WOULD -- [ LAUGHTER ]. YOU HAVE CAUGHT ME SPEECHLESS. [ LAUGHTER ]. APPROVE THEM TO SEND TO THE COUNCIL FOR THE COUNCIL REVIEW AND THE -- THE REAL ISSUE IS ARE THERE -- IS THERE A POSSIBILITY THAT, YOU KNOW, SUBSTANTIAL SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES OR AS WE'VE BEEN GIVEN TO BELIEVE AT THIS POINT, YOU KNOW, SIMPLY CLARIFICATIONS AND REWORDING WITHOUT A SUBSTANTIVE MEANING CHANGE.

GOODMAN: I THINK THAT PART IS A LITTLE IRRELEVANT TO WHAT CITY LEGAL COULD ANSWER.

I THINK WHAT I AM GOING TO HAVE TO DO IS I DO NOT KNOW HOW THE COMMISSION'S RULES AND REGULATIONS OPERATE OR HOW THEY READ. WHAT WE CAN DO IS THAT THE LAW DEPARTMENT CAN WORK WITH -- WITH THE COMMISSION AND DETERMINE EXACTLY WHAT THEY CAN DO, WHAT THEY CAN RECOMMEND AND WHETHER THEY CAN -- WHETHER THEY CAN SUBMIT, GOING AHEAD AND TAKING ACTION AND SUBMIT IT AND HOW THE RATIFICATION, IF THAT IS POSSIBLE, WOULD WORK. BUT THAT IS NOT AN ANSWER. I CAN GIVE YOU RIGHT NOW OFF THE DIAS. WHAT WE WILL DO, WHAT I WILL PLEDGE TO YOU IS THAT THE LAW DEPARTMENT WILL GET A LAWYER WHO CAN ASSIST THEM TO MAKE THOSE DETERMINATIONS.

WELL, I DO THINK, YOU KNOW, OUR ISSUE, ACTUALLY TWO OF THE MEMBERS OF THE GUIDELINES COMMITTEE ARE HERE, THE POSTURE THAT WE ARE IN NOW, WE HAVE APPROVED THE GUIDELINES SUBJECT TO WHATEVER COUNCIL WISHES TO DO WITH THEM.

I CAN'T TELL YOU THAT IS ENOUGH. WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS THAT WE NEED TO HAVE A LAWYER FROM THE LAW DEPARTMENT LOOK AT IT AND LET YOU KNOW WHETHER THAT IS ENOUGH, BUT WE WILL WORK WITH YOU AND PROVIDE YOU THAT GUIDANCE. AS SOON AS THE -- THE REAL CITY ATTORNEY COMES BACK, WHAT I WILL DO IS I WILL GET WITH YOU AND LET ME AT LEAST GIVE YOU MY CARD SO THAT YOU CAN GET AHOLD OF ME AND I WILL FIND OUT WHO IT IS THAT WE NEED TO BE WORKING WITH TO HAVE WORKING WITH YOU. THANKS A BUNCH.

THANK YOU.

HAD WE TAKEN ACTION ON THIS AND [INAUDIBLE] CERTIFICATION IS THAT WE TAKE A LOOK NEXT WEEK TO LOOK AT THE GUIDELINES, WHAT I CAN FOUND AS A POSSIBLE CHANGE IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE GUIDELINES, HAD TO DO, NUMBER ONE, WITH -- WITH AN UNDERSTANDING THAT ALTHOUGH I WASN'T QUITE CLEAR ON THAT -- THE AMENDMENTS IN THE CLEAN COPY, THAT THE DELETION OF FOUNDER, FOUNDING IN REGARD TO QUALIFYING BOARD MEMBER AND APPLICATIONS HAD BEEN TAKEN OUT AND THAT THE PRINCIPAL MEMBER DEFINITION ON PAGE 13 NOW HAS THE DEFINITION THAT I THINK -- OH, IS MORE FITTING, MORE IN KEEPING IN WHAT WE DO ELSEWHERE. THAT WAS ONE OF THE PREMISES FOR SIGNING OFF ON THAT. THERE WAS AN INSURANCE ISSUE AND THERE WERE ONE OF THE APPLICANTS INSURANCE AGENTS WHO HAD OFFERED TO MEET WITH STAFF AND WORK THROUGH SOME OF THOSE ISSUES. I BELIEVE THAT HAS HAPPENED. AND I BELIEVE THAT HAS BEEN RESOLVED. IF THAT'S SO, THEN THERE WERE THREE THINGS THAT I WANTED TO NOTE, NOT AS AMENDMENT TO GUIDELINES, BUT AS PUBLIC COMMENT. BECAUSE OF SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED AND SOME OF THE ANGST, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, ARTISTS WENT THROUGH LAST YEAR, THE PROCESS NOW INCLUDES PROCEDURES FOR APPLICATION REVIEW TO BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY ORDINANCES PERTAINING TO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND APPEARANCES THEREOF. THE SECOND IS THAT THESE GUIDELINE CHANGES DO NOT PREINCLUDE AMENDMENTS BASED ON FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE CONSULTANT THAT WE PROVIDED FOR IN THE BUDGET TO REVIEW AND REVISE THE PROGRAM AND PROCESSES OVER THE NEXT TWO YEARS. I HAVE FOUND OUT ABOUT THE STATUS OF THE RFP, IN FACT, AND I THINK IT'S READY TO GO. THE CITY AUDITOR'S OFFICE WILL ALSO BE ABLE TO HELP THE CONSULTANT AND US AND STAFF IN CODIFYING AND CLARIFYING POTENTIAL REVISIONS IN -- AND REVIEW OF THE PROGRAM. THIRD, WHEN THE APPLICATION SAID THEY HAD BEEN SUBMITTED AND ARE BEING REVIEWED, I WOULD SUGGEST ALSO THAT THE CITY AUDITOR BE ASSIGNED FOR THE SHORT TIME FRAME TO REVIEW APPLICANT BUDGET PLANNING IN ORDER TO PASS THOSE COMMENTS ON, IF ANY, TO APPLICANTS TO PANELS AND TO THE ARTS COMMISSION AND TO COUNCIL, IF NEEDED. AND I THINK THAT IS AN EXPERTISE WE WOULD ALL LIKE TO HAVE THAT YOU DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE ON A PEER PANEL OR REVIEW PANEL BECAUSE THEIRTIC BENT IS THE MORE -- THEIR ARTISTIC BENT IS THE MORE IMPORTANT CREDENTIAL THERE. THE ONE CHANGE THAT I WILL OFFER WHEN WE TAKE THIS UP ON THE 17TH IS THAT ON THE -- ON THE BROKEN OUT -- WELL, HOW TO DO THIS ON A CLEAN LEGISLATIVE COPY, ON PAGE 12, THERE ARE PANEL REVIEW GUIDELINES, WHICH ARE GUIDELINES FOR THE PANELISTS, THEY ARE NOT REQUIREMENTS. AND AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE, OF OUR BREAKOUT AMENDMENTS, THERE IS REFERENCE ON PAGE 3 OF OUR BREAKOUT AMENDMENTS, IF YOU HAVE THOSE, RELATIVE TO PAGE 12 OF THE GUIDELINES, AND THE NOTE THERE IS THAT FOR SCORING, PANELISTS SHOULD CONSIDER THE FIRST RECOMMENDATION ON THE AMENDMENTS WAS THAT THE NOTE BE THESE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE PROVIDED SOLELY FOR GUIDANCE TO PANELISTS, FAILURE TO FOLLOW THESE RECOMMENDATIONS IS NOT GROUND FOR APPEAL. I JUST THINK THAT'S SORTS OF A NEGATIVE WAY TO SAY IT, I WOULD PREFER AND THINK IS MORE APPROPRIATE TO SAY: THESE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE PROVIDED SOLELY FOR GUIDANCE, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, AND THEN SIMPLY REFER TO THE APPEALS SECTION, APPEAL GROUND FOR APPEAL, ON PAGE 12. FOR THE FOOTNOTE REFERENCE THERE. AND THAT'S ALL THAT I HAVE, MAYOR. THANKS.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER. ANY OTHER COMMENT FROM THE MEMBERS --

SLUSHER: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER.

SLUSHER: I ASSUME THE CHAIRMAN OF THE -- I SEEM TO BE HEARING THE CHAIRMAN OF THE ARTS COMMISSION SAYING THAT IF WE POSTPONE THIS WEEK THAT CREATES SOME SORT OF A PROBLEM WITH THE PROCESS, THE SCHEDULING AND THE PROCESS.

IT DID --

SLUSHER: THAT AN ACCURATE STATEMENT. BECAUSE I WOULD WANT TO KNOW EITHER NOW OR NEXT WEEK HOW THE STAFF LET IT GET TO THE POINT TO WHERE THAT IF THE CITY COUNCIL DELAYS AN ITEM FOR WHICH WE DIDN'T EVEN HAVE THE REQUESTED LEGISLATIVE FORMAT BY -- UNTIL THURSDAY MORNING, THAT HOW THAT ITEM IS DELAYED THAT CREATES A PROBLEM IN THE ARTS FUNDING PROCESS. I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE GOTTEN THAT FARTHER. WE HAVE GONE A LONG WAY TOWARDS ENDING THIS SORT OF THING, AT THE CITY. WHERE SOMETHING GETS DUMPED ON THE COUNCIL AGENDA AND IF YOU DON'T ACT RIGHT THEN THAT CREATES A BIG PROBLEM. SO I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR AN EXPLANATION FOR THAT.

GARZA: LET ME INTERJECT. FIRST OF ALL, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THE COMMISSION DOESN'T WORK FOR JESUS OLIVERES. HE CAN REVISE THE SCHEDULE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL WOULD LIKE TO DO WITH THESE GUIDELINES AND THEN PRESENT THOSE TO THE COMMISSION TO SAY HERE -- THIS IS YOUR NEW SCHEDULE FOR THE AWARD OF CULTURAL ART CONTRACTS AND IF THAT IS A WEEK LATER, THE COMMISSION WILL HAVE TO WORK WITH THAT. IF THAT IS TWO WEEKS LATER, THE COMMISSION WILL HAVE TO WORK WITH THAT. THAT IS -- WE WORK AT THE PLEASURE OF THE COUNCIL WITH RESPECT TO THE TIME LINES THAT YOU SET. I KNOW -- I DON'T KNOW IF MR. OLIVERES AGREES WITH ME ON THAT. WITH RESPECT TO THE THINGS MENTIONED WITH ARE WITH RESPECT TO THE AUDITOR, I WOULD WANT TO CAUTION, THE AUDITOR HAS TO ATTEST TO WHAT HAPPENS ONCE THINGS COME INTO PLAY. IF YOU GET THE AUDITOR TO DO A STAFF FUNCTION, WHICH IS NOT THEIR ROLE, YOU ARE GOING TO RUN INTO SOME ISSUES OF SEPARATION OF BEING INVOLVED IN RECOMMENDING OR PROVIDING INFORMATION OR PROVIDING ADVICE AS TO HOW TO DO THINGS AND THEN SHOULD SOMEONE WANT YOU TO COME IN AND AUDIT SOMETHING, THEY WILL HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THE SUBSTANCE OF THAT PROCESS THAT I THINK IS GOING TO SOMEHOW COMPROMISE THEIR INDEPENDENCE. I WOULD WANT US TO JUST BE CAUTIOUS ABOUT THAT AS TO HOW YOU BEGIN TO PROCEED ALONG THOSE LINES.

GOODMAN: IF I COULD RESPOND?

MAYOR GARCIA: WHERE ARE WE, COUNCILMEMBER? MAYOR PRO TEM?

SLUSHER: GO AHEAD.

GOODMAN: IN RESPONSE TO THE CITY MANAGER, I AGREE AND THOSE ARE THINGS THAT WE ARE GOING TO WORK OUT. IN THIS CASE IT WOULD BE THE REVERSE. THE AUDIO STORE -- AUDITOR HAS BEEN THERE, IS READY TO WORK WITH THE REVIEW OF THE PROGRAM AND THEIR EXPERTISE SEEMED PERFECT FOR TAKING THAT ROLE AND REVIEWING OLYMPICS. BUT OBVIOUSLY THEY COULD ALSO ADVISE US ON HOW TO DO THAT.

GARZA: I UNDERSTAND THAT. I'M JUST SAYING THAT -- YOU HAD MR. OLIVERES' STAFF THAT'S IN CHARGE OF THIS RIGHT NOW. I DON'T WANT THERE TO CREATE A CONFUSION ABOUT YOU WILL HAVE JESUS' STAFF WORKING THIS AND THEN THE CITY AUDITOR'S MINORITY WILL AGREE OR MIGHT HAVE DIFFERENT VIEWS OF JESUS' STAFF. WITHOUT THERE BEING A CLEAR DLIN NATION OF WHO IS IN CHARGE IT COULD GET MESSY.

GOODMAN: I SEE. WE CAN WORK THAT OUT.

I SUSPECT, MR. OLIVERES WE CAN WORK THESE THINGS ALL OUT. THE CITY MANAGER IS CORRECT THE CITY AUDITOR PLAYS A ROLE IN THE FUNCTION, BUT IT MAY BE ONE OF THOSE QUICK SERVICE KIND OF FUNCTIONS THAT THEY DO, I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY --

WE WILL WORK TOGETHER WITH THE ARTS COMMISSION ON -- ON REVISING OUR DATES AND LET ALL OF THE ARTS GROUPS KNOW THAT BASED ON THE FINAL RECOMMENDATION THAT COMES FROM COUNCIL, WE WILL ADJUST TO THAT AND WE WILL PROCEED.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY, THANK YOU.

I ALSO HAVE GIVEN THE CHAIRPERSON THE NAME OF THE ATTORNEY, IT'S RAUL CALDERONE, HE CAN ASSIST THEM WITH FIGURING OUT PROCEDURALLY HOW TO HANDLE THIS IN THE MOST EXPEDITIOUS WAY.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU. FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS? ON ITEM NO. 58, WE HAVE MR. BILLY HUBBARD FROM THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE WHO CAME AND DISCUSSED THIS ITEM WITH US AND MR. HUBBARD, IF YOU COULD STAND. THERE YOU ARE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BRINGING THIS ITEM TO YOU. MY HOPE IS THAT PEOPLE THAT ARE ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE THEIR EARNED INCOME CREDIT CAN GET THEIR RETURNS FILED QUICKLY SO THAT THEY CAN GET THE REFUNDS AND PUT THEIR MONEY INTO CIRCULATION AND IN AN ECONOMY THAT NEEDS IT DESPERATELY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP IN THIS. FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA?

WYNN: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

WYNN: I HAVE PULLED OUT ITEM NO. 41, I CAN PLACE THAT BACK ON THE CONSENT AGENDA IF YOU WOULD INDULGE ME TO SPEAK TO IT BRIEFLY.

MAYOR GARCIA: SURE.

WYNN:

ITEM NO. 41 IS A CONTRACT FOR AUSTIN ENERGY FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND DISPOSAL OF CERTAIN TOXIC WASTES, INCLUDING PCB'S. AND OBVIOUSLY IF ONE OWNS AN ELECTRIC UTILITY, ONE DEALS WITH TOXIC SUBSTANCES, INCLUDING PCB'S PRIMARILY. WHAT THIS IS IS APPROXIMATELY A HALF MILLION DOLLARS CONTRACT FOR THE DISPOSAL OF THOSE WASTES. AND IT'S -- IT'S A BID FORMAT AND THEN WE ARE ABOUT TO AWARD THIS CONTRACT TO THE LOW BID. MY CONCERN IN SEEING THAT FRANKLY HAVING GROWN UP IN THE GOLDEN TRIANGLE OF TEXAS, ONE KNOWS INHERENTLY ABOUT TOXIC WASTE, IS THAT -- IS LOW BID PERHAPS THE BEST WAY TO -- TO DISPOSE OF TOXIC WASTE. IN THIS CASE, AUSTIN ENERGY EARLIER TODAY GOT ME THE PROCEDURES THAT THEY FOLLOWED. I'M PLEASED TO KNOW THAT AS PAR OF THE ENTIRE PROJECT, THEY WILL BE SHIPPED TO OR INCINERATED AT -- THEY HAVE TO, BUT SHOWED ALL OF THE APPROPRIATE REGULATORY AGENCY APPROVALS, WHICH THESE SITES HAVE. IN THIS CASE AUSTIN ENERGY REQUIRES COPIES OF THE LAST THREE YEARS OF REGULATORY INSPECTIONS FOR EACH OF THOSE FACILITIES, EVEN THOUGH THEY ALREADY HAVE THEIR PERMITS, AND THERE'S NOTHING IN THE INSPECTIONS THAT LEAD US TO BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE NOT AN APPROPRIATE FACILITY. AS WELL WE ALSO REQUIRE THE EMPLOYEE TRAINING RECORDS OF THOSE FIRMS THAT HANDLE OUR WASTE FOR US. AND IN THIS CASE, REALLY, IT'S LESS OF AN ISSUE OF ME BEING CONCERNED THAT SOMEHOW WE MIGHT HAVE SOME LIABILITY AS THE ORIGINATORS OF THIS WASTE IS THAT WE ARE JUST DOING THE RIGHT THING FOR COMMUNITY AROUND THE COUNTRY HAS HAPPEN TO BE BURDENED WITH SITES THAT DEAL WITH HAZARDOUS WASTES LIKE THE GOLDEN TRIANGLE IS. SO I'M VERY PLEASED AND WE SHOULD BE PLEASED AS CITIZENS TO KNOW THAT AUSTIN ENERGY HAS THE POLICIES IN PLACE THAT WHEN WE AWARD A LOW BID TO SOMEBODY THAT HANDLE OUR TOXIC WASTE, IT'S MUCH MORE BEYOND THAT. NOT JUST WHO IS THE CHEAPEST DISPOSAL COMPANY. WE MAKE SURE THAT TO THE BEST OF OUR ABILITY THESE FACILITIES ARE -- ARE PROPERLY MAINTAINED, REGULATED, INSPECTED, AND ULTIMATELY WILL DO THE RIGHT THING FOR OTHER CITIZENS ACROSS THE STATE OR COUNTRY. I THINK WE CAN PUT ITEM NO. 41 BACK ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: I THINK YOU ALSO INDICATED THAT THE PROCESS THAT AUSTIN ENERGY FOLLOWS IS TO MAKE SURE THAT -- THAT THE ORD IS ABLE TO DO THIS WORK APPROPRIATELY AND DO THE PROCESSING. MR. GARZA, I GUESS YOU CAN NOD YOUR HEAD. OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMENT? LET ME AGAIN GO THROUGH, THERE HAVE BEEN A COUPLE OF ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN ADDED TO THE CONSENT AGENDA. ITEM NO. 11, CONSENT FOR POSTPONEMENT INDEFINITELY. 12, 13, 14, 15, POSTPONED TO JANUARY 17TH, 16TH, 17TH, -- 16, 17 FOR SECOND AND THIRD, 18 FOR SECOND AND THIRD READING, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41 WITH A -- WITH COMMENTS BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, 42, 43, 44, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56, -- 56, THAT'S PULLED, RIGHT? 57 FOR POSTPONEMENT UNTIL THE 17TH, 58, 59, AND ITEM NO. 60 FOR POST ENDMENT UNTIL THE 17TH. -- POSTPONEMENT UNTIL THE 17TH. FURTHER DISCUSSION BY THE COUNCIL? 61 IS POSTPONED UNTIL JANUARY 17TH. I'M SORRY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE CONSENT AGENDA PLEASE INDICATE BY SAYING AYE.

MAYOR, I DON'T HAVE A MOTION OR A SECOND ON THE CONSENT.

MAYOR GARCIA: I THOUGHT WE HAD THAT MOTION ALREADY. FIRST A MOTION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, IS THERE A MOTION? MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH. I WILL SECOND THAT MOTION. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

OPPOSED, NO., MOTION CARRIES, THIS WENT ON A LITTLE BIT LONGER THAN -- AND I LOST TRACK OF IT. OKAY.

ALVAREZ: MAYOR? ONE OF THE ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, JUST A BRIEF COMMENT ABOUT IT. ITEM 56, WE ARE JUST CALLING ATTENTION TO THE -- TO THE COUNCIL OF A -- OF THE SENATE, I GUESS A -- AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION THAT WAS -- THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE LEGISLATURE AND THEN APPROVED BY THE VOTERS IN NOVEMBER THAT ALLOWS MUNICIPALITIES TO DONATE OUTDATED AND SURPLUS FIREFIGHTING EQUIPMENT --

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER, THAT ONE WAS PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN.

ALVAREZ: THAT WAS PULLED?

MAYOR GARCIA: YES. WE WILL BE -- THIS --

WYNN: THIS COULD BE A PERFECT SECONDON WAS ARE WE DOING OR DONATING.

MAYOR GARCIA: WE ARE JUST ACKNOWLEDGING.

ALVAREZ: JUST ANING, BECAUSE IN PREVIOUS YEARS WE HAVE DONATED FIREFIGHTERS AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL EQUIPMENT TO ONE OF OUR SISTER CITIES AT LEAST IN SALT DEAL I. WE ALSO HAD TO SELL THAT EQUIPMENT TO SALTILLO. LAST YEAR OR A YEAR AND A HALF AGO, THERE WAS A FIRE TRUCK THAT HAD BEEN CRASHED OR WRECKED AND WE WERE ABLE TO SELL THAT TO SALTILLO FOR A -- FOR A PRETTY REASONABLE PRICE. GIVEN ALL OF THE WORK THAT NEEDED TO BE DONE TO THE -- TO TAKE PARTICULAR TRUCK AND THERE'S OTHER KINDS OF EQUIPMENT THAT WE ARE SORT OF -- HAVE CONSIDERED OR THAT CURRENTLY ARE NOT UTILIZED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND IT'S JUST ONE WAY OF TRYING TO HELP A SISTER CITY OUT. BUT OTHER CITIES THAT MAYBE DON'T HAVE THE LEVEL OF RESOURCES THAT WE MIGHT IN THIS PARTICULAR COUNTRY AND TO DO SOMETHING WITH A PRODUCT THAT WE ARE EITHER GOING TO DISCARD THAT NO ONE CAN REALLY UTILIZE HERE OR JUST TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR. SO MYSELF AND THE MAYOR DID CO-SPONSOR THIS ITEM. I JUST WANTED TO MAINLY JUST TO -- TO --

MAYOR GARCIA: I GUESS THAT YOU ARE MAKING A MOTION TO APPROVE, RIGHT?

ALVAREZ: YES, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: IF THAT'S OKAY WITH YOU --

WYNN: SECOND.

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

AYE.

OPPOSED, NO. WE HAVE A TIME CERTAIN ITEM, WHICH IS A MEETING OF THE AUSTIN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION. AND LET ME FIRST FIND THE ITEM ON THE AGENDA HERE. MR. HILGERS. FIRST I WILL RECESS THE MEETING OF THE COUNCIL. AND CALL TO ORDER THE 1:45 TIME CERTAIN BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING OF THE HOUSE -- OF THE AUSTIN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION. WE HAVE FOUR ITEMS, I WILL RECOGNIZE MR. HILGERS, WELCOME, SIR.

THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. AHFC AGENDA ITEM NO. 1 IS SIMPLY TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CALLED MEETING ON DECEMBER 13TH, 2001.

MAYOR GARCIA: CHAIR WILL ENTERTAIN A NOTHING ON THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.

GOODMAN: SO MOVED.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH. DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. MOTION CARRIES. AS MENTIONED IN THE EARLIER DISCUSSION, AHFC ITEM NO. 2 IS PULLED FROM THE AGENDA FOR NEXT WEEK.

MAYOR GARCIA: NEXT WEEK OR THE 31ST?

IT NEXT WEEK IF WE CAN GET THE DOCUMENTS THAT WE ARE REQUIRING FROM H.U.D. IF NOT IT WILL BE THE 31ST.

I THINK THE CHANGES AND CORRECTIONS INDICATED JANUARY 17TH. OKAY. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MANAGES TO POSTPONE THIS ITEM FOR THE 17TH.

SO MOVE.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY CHG. SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

OPPOSED, NO. MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF 7 TO 0.

NEXT TWO ITEMS HOPEFULLY WE WILL BE ABLE TO TAKE ACTION ON TODAY. ITEM NO. 3 TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE NEGOTIATION AND EXECUTION OF A RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM LOAN IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1,275,750 TOnononono GARDEN TERRACE HOUSING CORPORATION, AN AFFILIATE OF FOUNDATION COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE GARDEN TERRANCE APARTMENTS, AN 85 UNIT, SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY RENTAL FACILITY AT 1015 WEST WILLIAM CANNON DRIVE. I HAVE SOME FACTS ABOUT THAT TRANSACTION, MR. PRESIDENT, THAT I WILL GO THROUGH AND THEN BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS IF THAT'S ACCEPTABLE.

MAYOR GARCIA: SURE, GO AHEAD.

THE GARDEN TERRACE HOUSING CORPORATION IS AN AFFILIATE OF FOUNDATIONS COMMUNITIES WHICH HAS SUCCESSFUL DEVELOPED AND OPERATED AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING FOR LOW INCOME FAMILIES IN AUSTIN FOR OVER 12 YEARS. GARDEN TERRACE APARTMENTS WILL BE DEVELOPED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CAPITAL AREA HOMELESS ALLIANCE, WHICH WAS ESTABLISHED IN 1977 IN RESPONSE TO THE COMMUNITY ACTION NETWORK'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR ADDRESSING ITS 1997, I BELIEVE, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR ADDRESSING HOMELESSNESS IN AUSTIN AND TRAVIS COUNTY. CAHA CURRENTLY MANAGES THE AUSTIN RESOURCE CENTER FOR THE HOMELESS, WHICH PROVIDES 3500 HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS PER YEAR WITH NUMEROUS SUPPORT SERVICES. THIS VERY IMPORTANT TRANSACTION OFFERS THE CITY OF AUSTIN THE OPPORTUNITY TO SUPPORT THE FIRST SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT OF ANY MAGNITUDE. THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT ACHIEVEMENT FOR THE HOUSING CONTINUUM THAT YOU HAVE ESTABLISHED AS THE FOUNDATION OF YOUR HOUSING POLICY. IT IS -- IT WILL BE AN INTEGRAL COMPONENT IN THE COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY THAT WE HAVE TO PROVIDE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES AT ALL LEVELS OF THE CONTINUUM TO FOSTER SELF SUFFICIENCY. FOUNDATIONS COMMUNITIES HAD EXTENSION -- EXTENSIVE COMMUNICATION WITH THE NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES. LETTERS WERE MAILED TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE PROPOSED SITE, NOTIFYING NEIGHBORS OF THE HOUSING FACILITIES. THEY NOTIFY NINE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS. AND THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION APPROVAL WAS OBTAINED ON OCTOBER 9TH OF 2001. THE FACILITY WILL OFFER 85 SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY RENTAL UNITS SERVING INDIVIDUALS EARNING AN INCOME NO MORE THAN 50% OF THE MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME OR ABOUT 22,650 DOLLARS PER YEAR. OF THE 85 UNITS, NINE WILL BE MADE ACCESSIBLE TO INDIVIDUALS WITH MOBILITY, SIGHT AND HEARING DISABILITIES. RENTS WILL RANGE FROM 325 TO $399. UPON COMPLETION, THE GARDEN TERRACE FACILITY WILL BE OPERATED AND MANAGED BY THE CAPITAL AREA HOMELESS ALLIANCE IN CONJUNCTION WITH COORDINATED SUPPORT SERVICES PROGRAMS. THIS PROGRAM -- PROJECT IS FUNDED THROUGH OUR RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, BY THE AUSTIN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION, SUPPORTED WITH HOUSING TRUST FUND DOLLARS. LAST MONTH GARDEN TERRACE HOUSING CORPORATION RECEIVED H.U.D. APPROVAL FOR AN ADDITIONAL HOMELESS ASSISTANCE GRANT UNH.U.D.'S 2000 AND 2001 SUPER NOTICE OF FUNDABILITY GRANT PROGRAM FOR UP TO $2.9 IN RENT SUBSIDIES FOR 50 UNITS FOR A PERIOD OF 120 MONTHS. IN ADDITION, THE GARDEN TERRACE HOUSING CORPORATION HAS RECEIVED APPROVAL OF AN ADDITIONAL 1.5 MILLION DOLLARS IN GRANT FUNDING AND $206,637 IN PRIVATE FINANCING FOR THE PROJECT. WITH THAT, I WOULD BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THE APPLICANT OR THE -- THE FOLKS INVOLVED IN DEVELOPING THIS PROJECT ARE HERE IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS OF THEM AS WELL.

MAYOR GARCIA: I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION. IS THIS WHEN THEY ARE FINISHED WILL COST ABOUT 35,000 PER UNIT.

YES.

MAYOR GARCIA: HOW BIG OF A UNITS IS THAT, HOW MANY SQUARE FEET?

ABOUT 225 SQUARE FEET PER UNIT. THIS IS A FORMER NURSING HOME FACILITY.

MAYOR GARCIA: SO IT'S GOING TO BE SLIGHTLY OVER $110 A SFOOTD, MORE OR LESS?

YES, SIR.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT CONSISTENT WITH COSTS --

YES, SIR, PART OF THOSE COSTS, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THAT DIRECTLY, BUT WE ARE TALKING OF REHABING A FACILITY THAT HAS ASBESTOS, SO THERE WILL BE SOME OF THOSE KIND OF COSTS AND REHABILITATION COSTS THAT ARE MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE THE KIND OF QUALITY CONSTRUCTION THAT WILL ENSURE ITS LONG-TERM OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE AND SUSTAINABILITY.

THE DEVELOPMENT FEE DOES THAT GO TO THE CORPORATION THAT'S DOING IT.

I WILL BE GLAD TO LET MR. MORO TO EXPLAIN HOW THE FINANCINGING STRUCTURE WORKS. WALTER?

MAYOR GARCIA: DO YOU ALL GET A [INAUDIBLE]

IN THE TOTAL PROJECT A $200,000 DEVELOPER FEE, THAT WOULD ONLY BE AVAILABLE IF WE ARE SUCCESSFUL WITH PRIVATE FUNDRAISING MUCH OUR COMMITMENT TO THE PROJECT IS TO GO FORWARD AND IF WE ARE SUCCESSFUL WITH FUNDRAISING WE MAY EARN THAT FEE. OTHERWISE WE MIGHT NOT.

MAYOR GARCIA: BUT THIS FEE IS NOT BEING PAID TO ANYBODY OTHER THAN YOU GUYS, RIGHT? SO YOU COULD USE IT IN THE PROJECT?

CORRECT.

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU ARE NOT BUYING THIS FROM ANYBODY ELSE OUTSIDE FOUNDATION COMMUNITIES?

THE NURSING HOME WAS OWNED BY A PRIVATE CORPORATION.

MAYOR GARCIA: I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT -- I'M TALKING ABOUT THE DEVELOPER FEE ONLY.

I BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE CORRECT.

MAYOR GARCIA: IF IT'S PAID, IF YOU ARE ABLE TO RAISE THE MONEYS AND THAT MONEY IS PAID, IT WOULD BE PAID TO THE FOUNDATION COMMUNITIES SO USE TO PROVIDE MORE HOUSING, IS THAT CORRECT.

CORRECT. I MIGHT ALSO ADD WITH AN SRO PROJECT IT'S HARD TO COMPARE SQUARE FOOTAGE BECAUSE THE UNITS ARE VERY, VERY SMALL. WITH THE RENT EVEN AT 325 ALL BILLS PAID, FULLY FURNISHED, THAT'S OVER A DOLLAR A FOOT IN SQUARE RENT WHICH IS VERY, VERY HIGH. IN SQUARE FOOT COMPARE SONS ARE -- COMPARISONS OR HARD TO DO. IT'S BETTER ON A PER UNIT BASIS.

SURE. IF YOU HAVE SRO'S YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE MORE COMMON AREAS.

CORRECT. ALMOST 50% OF THE BUILDING IS COMMON AREA.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. FURTHER QUESTIONS? ARE REWADE TO TAKE ACT, THE MAYOR PRO TEM APPEARS TO HAVE A QUESTION?

GOODMAN: NO.

MAYOR GARCIA: OH, OKAY, ANYTHING ELSE.

MAYOR GARCIA: I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON ITEM NO. 3.

GOODMAN: MOVE APPROVAL.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY VICE-PRESIDENT GOODMAN, SECONDED BY MEMBER GRIFFITH. DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED, NO., MOTION CARRIES.

AHFC ITEM NO. 4 IS TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE NEGOTIATION AND EXECUTION OF A RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM PAYMENT LOAN IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $71,900 TO COMMUNITY PARTNERS FOR THE HOMELESS -- PARTNERSHIP FOR THE HOMELESS FOR THE ACQUISITION OF NINE UNITS OF TRANSITIONAL HOUSING FOR LOW INCOME HOMELESS VETERANS. COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS FOR THE HOMELESS HAS SUCCESSFULLY DEVELOPED AND OPERATED TRANSITIONAL HOUSING FOR HOMELESS VETERANS IN AUSTIN FOR OVER 11 YEARS. WITH APPROVAL OF THIS ITEM, THE COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS FOR THE HOMELESS WILL ACQUIRE THREE SINGLE FAMILY PROPERTIES FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS. THE PROPERTIES WILL BE COMPROMISED OF NINE UNITS OF TRANSITIONAL HOUSING FOR HOMELESS VETERANS. THROUGH THIS ACQUISITION, CPH'S TRANSITIONAL HOUSING STOCK WILL BE INCREASED TO 25 UNITS, WHICH WILL ALLOW THEM TO PROVIDE HOUSING AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES TO OVER 40 VETERANS ANNUALLY. IN ADDITION THE REQUESTED RENTAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE, CPH RECEIVED PRIOR APPROVAL FROM THE VET RAN ADMINISTRATION FOR AN ADDITIONAL $113,100 IN FUNDING FOR THE ACQUISITION. SO THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THIS PROJECT WOULD BE $185,000, OF WHICH OUR FUNDS WOULD BE $71,900.

MAYOR GARCIA: QUESTIONS FO MR. HILGERS? IF NOT I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM NO. 4.

GOODMAN: SO MOVE, MAYOR, I MEAN PRESIDENT.

MAYOR GARCIA: BY VICE-PRESIDENT GOODMAN. SECONDED BY MEMBER ALVAREZ. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED, NO. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU, MR. AILGERS.

THANK YOU, SIR. THE NEXT ITEM, COUNCIL, IS A TIME CERTAIN ITEM FOR 2:30. THAT IS -- ITEM NO. 6060, APPROVE A RESOLUTION CREATING AND APPOINTING THE MAYOR'S COMMITTEE ON K THROUGH 12 EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE. FIRST MOTION TO ADJOURN THE AUSTIN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION, MOTION BY BOARD MEMBER SLUSHER, I WILL SECOND THAT THAT. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

NOW I WILL CALL BACK TO ORDER THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL. AND I MAY WAIT ON ITEM NO. 6 ON BECAUSE NOT ALL OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE THAT WANTED -- OWE ITEM NO. 60 BECAUSE NOT ALL OF THE MEMBERS ARE HERE. I SEE PLUMBER COMING IN. CAN WE GO TO THE ACTION ITEMS THAT WE TOOK -- THAT WE HAD DISCUSSIONS ON IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, MR. CITY MANAGER? THIS WOULD BE ON ITEM NO. 6, NEGOTIATE APPEARED EXECUTE ALL DOCUMENTS RELATED TO -- TO ACQUIRING APPROXIMATELY 95 ACRES IN TRAVIS COUNTY IN THE BULL CREEK MACRO SITE ON WHITECLIFF DRIVE JUST WEST OF SPICEWOOD SPRINGS ROAD IN WESTERN TRAVIS COUNTY. DURING THE DISCUSSION OF THIS ONE AND I THINK ITEM NO. 7, WHICH WE CAN TAKING TOGETHER BECAUSE THOSE ITEMS ARE RELATED.

THEY ARE RELATED.

7 IS AMEND ORDINANCE NUMBER 010910-09 THE 2001-2002 OPERATING BUDGET OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT TO COVER INCREASED AND HE DID ITURES FOR THE 95 ACRE ACQUISITION. MS. JUNE KNEE PLUMBER FOR REAL ESTATE SERVICES.

FIRST I WANTED TO START OUT FOR THE BALANCE CON NIECE CANYON LANDS WITH A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY. THIS PROJECT IS TO ACCOMPLISH 30,428 ACRE WHICH WE HAVE ACQUIRED 26,229. OF THAT THE CITY IS OWNER OF 42% OF WHAT IS OWNED, TRAVIS COUNTY IS OWNER OF ABOUT 7%, PRIVATE ENTERPRISE, LCRA, NATURE CONSERVANCY, OTHERS COMPROMISE ABOUT 36%, AND SO ABOUT 13%, 14% IS UN-- NOT YET ACCOMPLISHED. THIS 95 ACRES IS IN THE BULL CREEK MARK SITE. THE BULL CREEK MACR ON-SITES OF ALL HAS BEEN NUMBER ONE, THE MOST IMPORTANT MACRO SITE FOLLOWINGING WITH CYPRESS CREEK MACRO SITE. IT'S 95 ACRES, LOCATED REAL CLOSE TO SPICEWOOD SPRINGS ROAD AND 360. OFF OF WHAT'S CALLED WHITE CLIFF DRIVE. YOUR SPELLER IS CALLED SPICEWOOD 95. THEY ACTUALLY COMPROMISE ABOUT SIX DIFFERENT LEGENDS AND GENTLEMEN WHO PURCHASED THIS BACK IN 1982. WE ARE HAVING THE OPPORTUNITY OF ACQUIRING THIS TRACT BUT WE ARE KIND OF PUTTING TOGETHER SOME GRANT FUNDS AND OTHER FUNDS. YOUR TOTAL APPRISED -- APPRAISED PURCHASE PRICE IS $2.4 MILLION. WE ARE GOING TO APPLY 300,000 FROM THE BOHLS RANCH TRANSACTION, THE CC AND G WHERE THEY NEEDED TO ACCOMPLISH A 5 TO 1 MITIGATION RATIO. THEIR $300,000 ACCOMPLISHES 42 ACRES OF WHAT WE CALL OFFSITE MITIGATION AFTER OF THE SPICEWOOD 95 ACRE TRACT. THAT BRINGS US TO 2.1 MILLION. THAT IS ACTUALLY WHAT FISH AND WILDLIFE ACKNOWLEDGES AS THE PURCHASE PRICE AND THEY PROVIDE US WITH A 75% MATCH. THAT'S $1,575,000 THAT WE WILL RECEIVE THROUGH TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE AS THE FISH AND WILDLIFE SECTION 6 GRANT. SO WE WILL PROVIDE THE CITY OF AUSTIN 525,000 DOLLARS FROM PARTICIPATION CERTIFICATES TOWARDS THIS ACQUISITION. IT HAS BEEN AN IMPORTANT TRACTFUL WE HAVE LOOKED AT THIS TRACT FOR QUITE SOME TIME. IT IS IMPORTANT FOR US FOR OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE, ALSO, TO BE ABLE TO COMPLETE THAT PORTION OF THE PRESERVE. ANY QUESTIONS IN PARTICULAR? COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

SLUSHER: MS. PLUMBER, COULD YOU COME AROUND AND SHOW US WHERE THAT -- WHERE THIS TRACT IS ON THE HAPPEN? -- ON THE MAP?

THERE'S A MIC OUT THERE, MS. PLUMBER.

HERE IS LOOP 360, SPICEWOOD SPRINGS ROAD, HERE IS THE 95 ACRE TRACT HERE. KIND OF AN OBLONG PIECE. IT IS WITHIN THE BULL CREEK MACRO SITE. JUST TO IDENTIFY THAT, THAT'S 360, 2222 AND 620. THIS AREA IS THE BULL CREEK MACRO SITE.

SLUSHER: WHILE YOU ARE THERE, WOULD YOU IDENTIFY WHAT THE DIFFERENT COLORS ARE ON THE MAP?

YES, SIR. THE LEGEND HERE WILL WALK YOU -- CITY OF AUSTIN IS THIS COLOR HERE, KIND OF WHAT I WOULD CALL A LIGHT GREEN. TRAVIS COUNTY IS MORE OF YOUR LIMEY GREEN COLOR. LCRA UP IN HERE IS KIND OF I'M NOT SURE HOW ON DESCRIBE IT. PRIVATE LAND, YELLOW FUTURE FUTURE. MATTER CONSERVANCY IN THIS BLUE COLOR HERE, TRAVIS AUDUBON SOCIETY, RED IS DEVELOPED AND UNAVAILABLE.

SLUSHER: OKAY. YOU SAID THE CITY HAS ABOUT 42%.

YES, SIR. TO BE ACTUAL, 12,940 ACRE.

SLUSHER: COUNTY ABOUT 7%.

7%, 2,289 ACRE.

LCRA?

I PUT THEM INTO A CATEGORY OF OTHER. LCRA, NATURE CONSERVANCY AND PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT COMPRISES 11,000 ACRES OF YOUR TOTAL ACREAGE.

SLUSHER: OKAY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK ON THIS.

MAYOR GARCIA: SO THE TOTAL FISCAL NOTE ON ITEM NO. 6 WOULD BE 2.-- 2.4 MILLION?

NO, SIR. I WILL READ IT EXACTLY FOR YOU AS IT IS ON THE RESOLUTION.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY.

IT'S AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED 2.4 MILLION, WHICH INCLUDES 1,575,000 FROM THE FISH AND WILDLIFE GRANT, WHICH REQUIRES A 25% MATCH EQUALING 525,000, AND WE ARE USING 300,000 OF OFFSITE MITIGATION FUNDS WHICH WERE PROVIDED AS PART OF THE BOHL'S RANCH TRANSACTION, A TOTAL BUDGET AMENDMENT OF 525,000 FOR THIS 2.4 MILLION TRACT OF LAND.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. I THINK COUNCILMEMBER WYNN THAT'S WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT, THESE FUNDS WERE NOT BUDGETED BUT WERE AVAILABLE? CORRECT? OKAY. COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH?

GRIFFITH: ARE YOU RAID FOR A MOTION?

MAYOR GARCIA: UNLESS THERE ARE OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MS. PLUMBER. NO. I AM READY FOR THE MOTION.

GRIFFITH: MOVE APPROVAL.

MAYOR WATSON: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH TO APPROVE ITEMS BOTH 6 AND 7.

SECOND.

MAYOR GARCIA: SECONDED BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM. DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.? OPPOSED, NO., MOTION CARRIES, BOTH ITEMS NUMBER 6 AND NUMBER 7. OKAY. WE WILL GO TO THE ITEM TIME CERTAIN AT 2:30, THAT ITEM IS ITEM NO. 60, CO-SPONSORSHIP FROM COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH AND COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS. I WILL READ THE OPERATIVE PARTS OF THE RESOLUTION. THEN I WILL IN$ODUCE SOME OF THE MEMBERS THAT ARE HERE. THEN WE HAVE TWO SPEAKERS. MS. BENOLD SAYS SHE WAS AGAINST RESOLUTION NUMBER 2. AND I GUESS IF THAT MEANS BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED. BUT SHE DOESN'T WANT TO SPEAK. AND IT'S JOYCE LYNCH HERE. [ONE MOMENT PLEASE FOR CHANGE IN CAPTIONERS] THE COMMITTEE SHALL ELECT ITS OWN PRESIDING OFFICERS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. BE IT FURTHER WE SOLVED THAT THE MAYOR'S COMMITTEE AND K-12 EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE WILL PRESENT THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL NO LATER THAN MAY 2002 AND TO THE AUSTIN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES DURING THE FIRST MEETING OF THE NEWLY ELECTED BOARD OF TRUSTEES. THAT'S THE RESOLUTION THAT WE HAVE. AND MS. LYNCH, IF YOU COULD COME UP. WELCOME. INCIDENTALLY, MS. BENOLD, LIKE I INDICATED EARLIER, SHE SAID SHE WAS AGAINST RESOLUTION NUMBER 2.

MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBERS, MY NAME IS JOYCE LYNCH AND I AM THE PARENT OF TWO STUDENTS IN AISD. FOR TWO YEARS I WAS PRESIDENT OF THE AUSTIN COUNCIL OF PTA'S AND IT WAS IN THAT CAPACITY THAT I WORKED WITH YOU, MR. MAYOR, ON THE BLUE RIBBON TASKFORCE THAT MAYOR WATSON FORMED TO HELP THE DISTRICT WITH THE INTERVIEWING SUPERINTENDENT CANDIDATES A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO. I FEEL THAT THAT WAS A VERY HELPFUL COMMITTEE. I FEEL THAT THIS COMMITTEE WOULD NOT BE A HELPFUL COMMITTEE. IT IS BASED ON MISS INTERPRETATIONS, MITION INFORMATION AND MISUNDERSTANDING. AND I BELIEVE ALL OF YOU HAVE RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM DR. FORGIONE RESPONDING TO SOME OF THE POINTS THAT ARE IN THE RESOLUTION AND TRYING TO CORRECT SOME OF THE ERRORS THAT IT CONTAINS. AISD KNOWS ABOUT THE PROBLEMS THAT EXIST IN THE DISTRICT AND THEY ARE WORKING TO CORRECT THOSE. I SERVE ON SEVERAL COMMITTEES WHICH ARE WORKING ON VARIOUS ASPECTS OF OPERATIONS IN AISD TO TRY TO HELP IMPROVE THE EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY AND PERFORMANCE OF STUDENT IN AISD. AND PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE, ESPECIALLY IN THE LAST TWO YEARS SINCE DR. FORGIONE CAME. BUT I FEEL THAT THIS COMMITTEE WOULD BE PART OF A DIVISIVE EFFORT THAT COULD CAUSE SOME SETBACKS FOR AISD, AND I'M THINKING PARTICULARLY OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY BOND ISSUE THAT IS COMING UP IN A COUPLE OF WEEKS. IT PUTS AISD FROM THE VERY BEGINNING IN A BAD LIGHT, AND IT'S POSSIBLE THAT THE COMMITTEE COULD COME OUT WITH A REPORT THAT SAYS EVERYTHING IS FINE AT AISD. I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT'S GOING ON HAPPEN. I THINK IT'S STARTOGA NEGATIVE NOTE AND I THINK IT LOOKS VERY BAD FOR THE DISTRICT AND COULD HAVE AN INFLUENCE ON THE HEALTH AND SAFETY BOND ISSUE WHICH WE VITALLY AND VERY DEFINITELY NEED TO HAVE PASSED. I FEEL THERE ARE BETTER WAYS FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND ITS CITIZENS TO HELP AISD IN ITS EFFORTS TO EDUCATE ALL OF OUR STUDENTS. AND I WOULD JUST LIKE TO LET YOU KNOW THAT I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS RESOLUTION.

.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MS. LYNCH. LET ME SAY THAT THIS RESOLUTION IN NO WAY SHOULD BE TIED TO THE BOND ISSUE. AS A MATTER OF FACT, I TALKED TO ONE OF THE CO-SHARES OF THE BOND ISSUE AND I TOLD HER YESTERDAY THAT I WAS GOING TO COME OUT PUBLICLY IN SUPPORT OF THAT BOND ISSUE. IT IS ACTUALLY SHAMEFUL FOR THE AUSTIN SCHOOL DISTRICT AND ANY SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THE STATE OF TEXAS TO HAVE THAT MANY STUDENTS ATTENDING SCHOOL IN A SCHOOL THAT HAS THE MOLD LEVELS AS THE SCHOOLS HAVE. SO I TOLD EVERYBODY, INCLUDING THE TWO PEOPLE THAT CALLED ME LAST NIGHT, THAT I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THAT. THIS COMMITTEE IS AIMED AT ADDRESSING DEFICIENCIES THAT HAVE BEEN WIDELY PUBLICIZED BY THE JUST FOR KIDS FOUNDATION AND ALSO TO ADDRESS A SITUATION THAT HAS BEEN IN THE DISTRICT FOR OVER 20 YEARS. WHEN I WAS ON THE SCHOOL BOARD, AND I THINK YOU REMEMBER THOSE TYPES, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WAS 60 TO 75% WHITE, 30 TO 35% MINORITY. THAT HAS CHANGED. AND THE 20 YEARS THAT CHANGED THAT WERE THE YEARS FOLLOWING DID HE SEGREGATION. AND YOU REMEMBER THOSE FIRST YEES WERE QUITE TUMULTUOUS. WE ELECTED MANY SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS BECAUSE OF THEIR POSITION ON BUSING. AND THERE WERE MANY, MANY INSTANCES WHERE THE DISTRICT WAS CONFRONTING QUITE A CHAOTIC SITUATION TO THE POINT WHERE THE TEXAS HE HAD INDICATION AGENCY SENT A MONITOR TO TILL SIT IN ON ALL BOARD MEETINGS. YOU REMEMBER THOSE DAYS. AND THAT HAS SETTLED. AND INCIDENTALLY, THESE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE NOT GOING TO DR. FORGIONE. DR. FORGIONE SENT ME A THREE-PAGE LETTER EXPLAINING SOME OF THE THINGS THAT YOU SAID. THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE. BECAUSE DR. FORGIONE WORKS FOR THE SCHOOL BOARD. HERE WE'RE TALKING TO THE BOARD MEMBERS SAYING THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT WE SEE AT OUR LEVEL WHERE THE KIDS THAT DO NOT PERFORM WELL IN THE SCHOOLS WIND UP AS OUR CUSTOMERS IN OUR PARKS WHEN THEY SHOULD BE IN SCHOOLS, WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND WE SEE IT FROM A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE FROM THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. WE WANT TO SEND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD AND WE -- I THOUGHT IT WAS APPROPRIATE THAT WE DO IT NOW AS WE SEE SIX SEATS ON THAT SCHOOL BOARD COMING UP FOR ELECTION. I'VE TALKED TO SOME OF THE CANDIDATES THAT ARE RUNNING FOR ELECTION AND THEY AGREE WITH ME THAT IF WE COULD GIVE THEM OUR PERSPECTIVE AND IF WE COULD ADD THE MAYOR'S TO THE VOICES IN THE COMMUNITY THAT HAVE EXPRESSED CONCERNS ABOUT THE REPORTS OF JUST FOR KIDS AND ALL THE REPORTS THAT HAVE COME OUT, THAT IT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT THEY COULD USE. AND THAT'S WHA TALKING ABOUT. I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT SENDING DIRECTIVES TO DR. FORGIONE. THAT'S THE JOB OF SOMEBODY ELSE NINE MEMBERS THAT SERVE ON THE BOARD. SO I WOULD HOPE THAT THE COMMITTEE -- INSTEAD THE COMMITTEE WILL HAVE PUBLIC HEARINGS, THAT YOU WOULD COME TO THE COMMITTEE AND TALK TO THEM ABOUT THE THINGS, THE CONCERNS THAT YOU HAVE. BECAUSE THIS IS BEING DONE FOR THE RIGHT REASONS. THIS IS BEING DONE BECAUSE THE MAYOR'S OFFICE, AT THIS TIME OCCUPIED BY SOMEBODY WHO SPENT SIX YEARS ON THE SCHOOL BOARD, IS RECEIVING INFORMATION THAT SAYS YOU NEED TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE. SO MY HOPE IS THAT YOUR NEGATIVE ATTITUDE THAT EXISTS IN YOUR MIND RIGHT NOW CAN CHANGE TO POSITIVE. AND THAT THAT FORCE CAN THEN BE USED TO SHAPE THE POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE NEED TO SEND TO THE NEW BOARD MEMBERS. THANK YOU. ALSO, ANOTHER MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE THAT JUST JOINED US, MR. RAFAEL QINT KNEE I CAN'T, A BOARD MEMBER OF THE AUSTIN COMMUNITY COLLEGE AND ALSO. -- ANY OTHER COMMENTS? YOU WANT TO COME UP? WHERE IS THE EFFORT TO DO EDUCATIONAL REFORM. WELCOME.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND IT IS A PRIVILEGE AND HONOR TO BE APPOINTED TO THIS EDUCATION COMMITTEE. WHOA DO NOT SEE IT AS A NEGATIVE, I CERTAINLY DO NOT. AND I AM HEAVILY INVOLVED IN EDUCATIONAL ISSUES. I AM INVOLVED ALSO IN SEVERAL COMMITTEES IN AISD, AND I FEEL THAT IT IS OUR RIGHT AS WELL AS OUR DUTY TO BE INVOLVED IN THE EDUCATION OF AISD STUDENTS. AS THE NUMBERS SHIFT WE NEED TO CHANGE OUR THOUGHTS TO HOW WE DELIVER THE SERVICES TO THESE STUDENT. I JUST WANT TO SHARE SOME OF THE INFORMATION WITH YOU. AND THIS IS A SEVEN-YEAR REVIEW OF THE GRADUATION RATES IN AISD. IN 1994-95, 2.57 OF THE HISPANIC STUDENT POPULATION IN AISD GRADUATED. TODAY FROM THAT POPULATION OF 48%, ONLY THREE PERCENT GRADUATE, WHILE ALSO AT THE SAME TIME IN 94-95, THE STUDENT POPULATION, 5.1% GRADUATE AND TODAY 6.4% GRADUATE. SO WE HAVE A CRISIS. AS A CITY, NOT ONLY AS A DISTRICT AND THAT'S WHY WE DO FEEL THAT WE SHOULD ALL BE INVOLVED IN THE EDUCATIONAL ISSUE. WE SHOULD ALL BE BRAINSTORMING TOGETHER AND WE SHOULD ALL COME TOGETHER AS A TEAM TO FIND SOLUTION SOS THAT WE CAN HAVE A HIGHER GRADUATION RATE ALL ACROSS THE BOARD. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THIS APPOINTMENT.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MS. WARE. I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER CARDS OF ANYBODY, EXCEPT MR. LEVEE, A PRINCIPAL WHEN I WAS ON THE INTORD MANY YEARS AGO.

AND I WAS A LOT TALLER THEN TOO. AS OF 2 H 55 I WAS PRINCIPAL OF GALLET ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND I'M SURE AIL BE THERE TOMORROW. THE MAYOR -- IT'S DIFFICULT TO SAY NO TO MR. GARCIA, AS ALL OF YOU ON THE BOARD KNOW. AND HE APPROACHED US WITH THE IDEA THAT WHAT COULD WE DO JUST THE WHOLE DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW TO LOOK AT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, TALK TO PEOPLE AND SAY HEY, THIS IS -- THESE ARE SOME OF THE SUGGESTIONS WE'D LIKE TO GIVE TO THE MAYOR, THE MAYOR WILL CONSIDER THEM AND PRESENT THEM. IT WAS NOT DONE TO TAKE THE PLACE OF THE SCHOOL BOARD. DR. FORGIONE HAS REALLY DONE AN OUTSTANDING JOB THE LAST FEW YEARS SINCE HE'S BEEN HERE, BUT THE AUSTIN SCHOOL DISTRICT HAS GONE THROUGH SOME DIFFICULT TIMES. I'VE GOT A DAUGHTER IN THIS SCHOOL DISTRICT, AND DUE TO SOME VERY SPECIAL TEACHERS SHE'S HAVING A SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL CAREER. AND WE NEED THAT TO HAPPEN FOR EVERY CHILD. WE'RE NOT TAKING THE PLACE OF THE SCHOOL BOARD. THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IS FILLED WITH MANY COMPASSIONATE, CARING AND PROFESSIONAL PEOPLE AND WE'RE JUST ADDING SOME HELPING HANDS WHERE WE CAN. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU MR. LEVY. HE BROUGHT A VERY ENLIGHTENED LETTER TO THE AMERICAN-STATESMAN TALKING ABOUT HOW AT GALLET ELEMENTARY, THEY DON'T SPEND ANY TIME PREPARING THEIR STUDENTS TO TAKE THE TAAS, SPECIFICALLY TO TAKE THE TAAS. THAT THEY EDUCATE THE STUDENTS AND THOSE STUDENTS THEN WITH THAT EDUCATION ARE ABLE TO PASS THE TEST TO WHERE I THINK GALLETT IS AN EXEMPLARY SCHOOL. WE WOULD WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT IN EVERY SCHOOL. ONE OF THE TEACHERS THAT I APPOINTED, AND I DON'T KNOW WHETHER HE'S HERE RIGHT, AT THAT PARTICULAR SCHOOL WHERE MY WIFE WAS A TEACHER, THEY SPEND AN INORDINATE AMOUNT OF TIME TEACHING THE CHILDREN HOW TO PASS THE TAAS TEST, THE TAAS TEST. I DON'T THINK THAT GOVERNOR BUSH AND NOW PRESIDENT BUSH EVER INTENDED FOR SCHOOLS TO BE SPENDING THAT MUCH TIME TEACHING STUDENTS HOW TO TAKE A TEST. I THINK THE IDEA BEHIND THE TAAS TEST WAS TO TEST BASED ON WHAT THE STUDENTS LEARN IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF GOING THROUGH THE EDUCATIONAL PROCESS. SO I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO ALL THE SEVEN CITIZENS OF AUSTIN WHO ACCEPTED THE CHALLENGE. AND LIKE I SAY, THIS IS A SHORT TIME FRAME. AND WE WILL BE TALKING TO THE SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS AFTER THE ELECTION AND CARRYING THEM THE MESSAGE THAT WILL BE COMING FROM THE COMMITTEE. AND THEY'RE GOING TO PRESENT THE FINDINGS HERE FIRST AND THEN I WOULD I WILL JOIN THEM AT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT TO PRESENT OUR FINDINGS TO THE SCHOOL BOARD. AGAIN, IT'S A REPORT TO THE SCHOOL BOARD, NOT TO THE SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT. WE DON'T INTEND -- I DON'T INTEND TO GIVE DIRECTION TO THE SCHOOL SPRFT. HE HAS NINE BOSSES JUST LIKE THE CITY MANAGER HAS SEVEN BOSSES. SO I HOPE EVERYTHING WORKS VERY WELL AND I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR SERVING AND THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE CHALLENGE OF ADDRESSING THIS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT ISSUE. COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS?

THOMAS: YES, MAYOR, IF I COULD SAY SOMETHING. FIRST OF ALL, I COMMEND YOU FOR TAKING THE STEP TO FORM THIS COMMITTEE FOR THE EDUCATION. I CAN SAY I WAS SURPRISED WHEN I READ YOUR RESOLUTION ABOUT HOW THE L.B.J. SCHOOL GAVE THE REPORT ABOUT THE DIFFERENT SCHOOL RESOURCES AND DIFFERENT SCHOOLS. I'M A PRODUCT OF AISD AND I WAS VERY APPALLED, VERY UPSET TO HEAR THAT BECAUSE I CAN REMEMBER THAT BACK IN THE '60S WHEN I WAS IN SCHOOL. I THINK WE'RE IN 2002, AND I THINK THAT WHAT THE MAYOR IS TRYING TO DO AND COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH AND I TO SUPPORT ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM IS TO COME TOGETHER IN A -- AND WORK TOGETHER. I DON'T THINK WE WANT TO TELL THE SCHOOL BOARD AND I DON'T THINK THE SCHOOL BOARD WANTS TO TELL US WHAT TO DO, BUT I THINK THE SCHOOL BOARD THAT WE HAVE AND THE COMMITTEE HA HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED COME TOGETHER AND WE CAN IRON OUT SOME OF THE PROBLEMS WE DO HAVE. THERE'S NO QUESTION WE HAVE A PROBLEM AT THE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT IN AUSTIN. AND THIS IS THE GREAT CITY OF TEXAS, CAPITOL CITY OF TEXAS AND WE WANT TO HAVE THE BEST SCHOOLS IN TEXAS. IT LOOKS PRETTY BAD WHEN OUR SCHOOL SYSTEM IS NOT IN THE RATINGS AS OTHER SCHOOLS IN THE STATE OF TEXAS. AND MY UNDERSTANDING JUST LOOKING AT SOME OF THE INFORMATION I'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK OVER, THE OTHER SCHOOLS ARE DOING THIS SAME MESSAGE AND IT HAS WORKED, SO I APPLAUD YOU FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD AND I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH THE COMMITTEE.

THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS. FURTHER DISCUSSION? I'LL ENTERTAIN IS MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE RESOLUTION.

THOMAS: SO MOVE.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS MOVES. I'LL SECOND THE MOTION. DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE? MOTION CARRIES WITH COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH, COUNCILMEMBER WYNN TEMPORARILY OFF THE DIAS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COMMITTEE MEMBERS, FOR SERVING. OKAY. WE'RE BACK TO THE DISCUSSION AGENDA. THE NEXT ITEM IS ITEM NUMBER 32. COULD WE ASK COUNCILMEMBER WYNN IF HE'S READY TO DISCUSS THIS ITEM? INCIDENTALLY, COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH IS GOING TO BE VOTING AYE SO ITEM NUMBER 60. SHE'S A CO-SPONSOR OF THAT PARTICULAR ITEM. COUNCILMEMBER WYNN WILL BE SHOWN AS BEING OFF THE DIAS. ITEM 32 IS TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A 12-MONTH SUPPLY AGREEMENT A SCHAEFER CONCRETE, PFLUGERVILLE, TEXAS TO PROVIDE READY MIX FOR THE WATER AND WASTEWATER UTILITY. AND COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, SPELLED WYNN -- THERE WAS A MAGAZINE ARTICLE THAT SPELLED HIS NAME NGUYEN AND I TOLD HIM THAT I DIDN'T THINK HE WAS VIETNAMESE. [INAUDIBLE].

.

MAYOR GARCIA: ALL THE ITEMS THAT ARE PULLED ARE HIS. THIS IS A WILL WYNN DAY. WE WILL WYNN. COUNCIL, THE CITY ATTORNEY HAS INDICATED THAT WE CAN ACT ON ITEM NUMBER 5, WHICH IS APPROVE A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH PATTON AND ASSOCIATES TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF PROFESSIONAL FEES BY UP TO $30,000 FOR A TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $72,000. THOSE CORRECTIONS HAVE BEEN READ INTO THE RECORD. FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF 40,000 OR 30,000 IN THIS CASE AVAILABLE IN THE 2001-2002 APPROVED BUDGET FOR THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND WATERSHED PROTECTION AND REVIEW THE ENTERPRISE FUND. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THAT ITEM.

MOVE APPROVAL.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM. SECONDED. DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE OPPOSED NO. MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF 7-0 WITH ALL THE COUNCILMEMBERS IN THE CHAMBERS. COUNCILMEMBER WYNN? ARE YOU READY?

WYNN: YES.

MAYOR GARCIA: I'LL RECOGNIZE YOU ON YOUR ITEMS YOU PULLED.

WYNN: ESSENTIALLY ITEMS NUMBER 32 AND 45 ARE VERY SIMILAR, AND IN MY OPINION THEY RELATE TO DIRECTLY TO ITEM NUMBER 39. ITEM. ALL THREE OF THESE ITEMS ARE CRS CONTRACTS FOR CONCRETE PURCHASES FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN. MY QUESTION ON ITEM NO. 3 32 AND 45 ESSENTIALLY WERE ANSWER BID STFF RECENTLY AND ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE HAVE IS ITEM NUMBER 32 WE HAVE OUR WATER AND WASTEWATER UTILITY BUYING READY MIX CONCRETE FOR A BID AND THE LOW BIDDER. ITEM NUMBER 45 WE HAVE OUR PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT BUYING READY MIX CONCRETE, A BID. MY OBVIOUS QUESTION THERE WAS WHY DO WE -- WHY DON'T WE WHERE AT ALL POSSIBLE COMBINE PURCHASES LIKE THIS AND ARGUABLY GET SOME ECONOMIES OF SCALE? THERE WAS SOME SPECIFICS ABOUT WHY THOSE TWO DEPARTMENTS HAVE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT NEEDS AND ETCETERA. THE REAL ISSUE FOR ME IS ITEM 39, WHO STARTED JUMPING AROUND LIKE THIS.

MAYOR GARCIA: DO YOU WANT TO GET 32 AND 45 OUT OF THE WAY OR DO YOU WANT TO GO THE OTHER WAY?

WYNN: WELL, SO I WILL MOVE APPROVAL OF ITEMS NUMBER 32 AND 45. I DO THINK IT'S -- I THINK IT SENDS A POOR SIGNAL WHEN ON THE SAME WEEK WE HAVE PURCHASES OF THE EXACT SAME PRODUCT IN APPROXIMATELY THE SAME AMOUNT FROM TWO DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS, BUT I UNDERSTAND IN HINDSIGHT THE RATIONALE BEHIND, BUT I'LL MOVE APPROVAL OF 32 AND 45. THEY ARE THE LOW BIDS. BY STATE LAW WE -- .

MAYOR GARCIA: THERE'S A MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN FOR ITEMS 32 AND 45. IS THERE A SECOND? SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH. I HAD ONE QUESTION. I THINK ON ITEM 39 THE ISSUE WAS SOME ALLEGED ENVIRONMENTAL VIOLATIONS BY THE RECOMMENDED AWARD. WAS THE STUDY DONEO SEE THAT THE ONES IN 32 AND 45 HAD ANY KIND OF VIOLATIONS? ALLEGED VIOLATIONS.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL, I'M SUE BRUBAKER. I DON'T BELIEVE -- [INAUDIBLE]. I THINK THE ONLY ONE THAT HAS BEEN INVESTIGATED IS RAINBOW.

MAYOR GARCIA: IS THAT THE ONLY ONE? WE DON'T HAVE ANY RECORD OF VIOLATIONS AGAINST THE OTHERS? MIKE, DO WE ROUTINELY CHECK FOR THOSE KINDS OF THINGS?

MAYOR, WE HAD A COMPLAINT ON THIS PARTICULAR SITE AND WE SENT THE ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTORS THERE.

MAYOR GARCIA: ON 39. BUT I'M TALKING ABOUT 32 AND 45.

NOT UNLESS WE GET A COMPLAINT.

MAYOR GARCIA: SO WE OPERATE ON A COMPLAINT BASIS.

THAT'S CORRECT, UNLESS THERE'S NEW CONSTRUCTION, OF COURSE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. FURTHER QUESTIONS, FURTHER COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM? WE'RE ASKING CONSIDERING ITEM NUMBER 32, WHICH IS CONCRETE AND ITEM NUMBER 45, SOUTHERN MATERIALS, INC.. MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH. FURTHER DISCUSSION? LET'S SEE IF THERE'S ANY -- LET'S SEE IF THERE'S ANY -- NO, NOBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE? OPPOSED NO. MOTION CARRIES. 39, COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

.

WYNN: THANK YOU, MAYOR. WHY I WANTED TO HAVE THAT BRIEF DISCUSSION ABOUT 32 AND 45 IS TO IDENTIFY AND SIGNAL HOW OFTEN AND FREQUENT IT IS THAT WE ARE PURCHASING CONCRETE. OBVIOUSLY IT'S A RAW BUILDING MATERIAL AND WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF BUILDING A CITY. ITEM NUMBER 39, IF IT IS THAT WE OPERATE ON A COMPLAINT BASIS, OBVIOUSLY THERE HAVE BEEN A TREMENDOUS NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE CONTRACTOR OR SUPPLIER FOR THE CONTRACT FOR ITEM NUMBER 39. THIS IS A SITUATION WHERE WE'RE TOLD THAT THE LOW -- THIS IS A BID SITUATION. THIS PARTICULAR CONTRACTO IF I READ MY BACKUP CORRECTLY, CAME IN ABOUT $15,000 OR SIX PERCENT BELOW THE SECOND LOW BID. I'M GOING TO ARGUE THAT WE PROBABLY SPENT $15,000 OVER THE LAST FEW MONTHS GOING OUT TO THAT SITE AND TRYING TO DETERMINE ALL OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES RELATED TO THEIR SITE IN DEL VALLE ALONG THE COLORADO RIVER. FURTHERMORE, I WOULD SURMISE THAT IF I WAS IN THE CONCRETE BUSINESS AND MY DPOES DISPOSAL PROCESS SIMPLY WAS I BACKED MY TRUCKS UP TO THE COLORADO RIVER AND DUMPED MY CONCRETE, I COULD WIN SOME LOW BIDS TOO. I WOULD BE THE LOW BID ON ANY NUMBER OF PROJECTS IF MY OVERHEAD SIMPLY MEANT DUMPING CONCRETE INTO THE COLORADO RIVER. I'M GOING TO ASK A FEW QUESTIONS AND HAVE STAFF TALK TO ME A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT WE'VE LEARNED ABOUT THAT SITE IN DEL VALLE ALONG THE COLORADO THAT RAINBOW OPERATES OUT OF BEFORE I MAKE A MOTION, BUT I'M GOING TO SORT OF JUST TIE MY COMMENTS LATER INTO THE FACT THAT WE'RE BUYING AN AWFUL LOT OF CONCRETE. WE COULD HAVE COMBINED SOME CONTRACTS AND HAD A DIFFERENT OUTCOME IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION. I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT WE'RE NOT -- WE'RE NOT THINKING AHEAD VERY WELL AND WE'RE NOT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT A LOT OF OTHER FACTORS WHEN WE AWARD SOME OF THESE PARTICULAR PURCHASES ON SIMPLY A LOW BID BASIS. I SEE MS. BRUBAKER OBVIOUSLY WANTS TO RESPOND AND I GUESS MY INITIAL QUESTION IS WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED ABOUT THAT SITE OUT THERE? AND I THINK IT'S PATHETIC WHAT WE SEE VISUALLY. AND, YOU KNOW, IT SEEMS TO ME ONE OF THE ROLES THAT WE PLAY AS A PUBLIC PURCHASER OF ANY RAW MATERIALS IS, YOU KNOW, WE CAN HAVE AN IMPACT BY PERHAPS CONSIDERING THINS DIFFERENTLY THAN THE PRIVATE SKTER MAY. IN IN FACT THE PRIVATE SECTOR IS SOLELY CONCERNED ABOUT PRICE, SO BE IT. IN OUR CASE WE NEED TO BE VERY COGNIZANT OF PRICE AND WE NEED TO BE AS PRUDENT AS WE ALWAYS CAN BE, BUT WE PLAY A DIFFERENT ROLE. WE PLAY A ROLE OF PROTECTING OUR ENVIRONMENT AND PROTECTING OUR CITIZENRY AND WHAT I KNOW OF THAT SITE WHERE THIS PARTICULAR SUPPLIER ORIGINATES HIS CONCRETE IS DISMAL AND I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR WHAT WE'VE LEARNED ABOUT IT IN THE LAST FEW WEEKS.

COUNCILMEMBER, IF I MAY COMMENT FIRST OF ALL ABOUT AGGREGATING THE REQUIREMENTS INTO A SINGLE BID, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THIS IS A MATERIAL IN KIND OF PRODUCTION PROCESS THAT DUE TO THE VARIETY OF TYPES OF CONCRETE WE BUY, THE WAY WE EITHER HAVE IT DELIVERED OR WE PICK IT UP, IT DOESN'T LEND ITSELF TO A VOLUME DISCOUNT. IT ISN'T ALL THE SAME KIND, IT ISN'T ALL AT THE SAME RATE OF USE. SOME OF IT WE GO AND WE PICK UP AND MIX OURSELVES, SOME OF IT WE HAVE DELIVERED AND SOME OF IT IS DELIVERED BY THE COMPANY TO THE JOB SITE. ON THE ONE FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER, THAT IS ALL DELIVERED ON A CALL-IN BASIS. THEY HAVE A 24-HOUR CALL-IN BASIS WHERE WE CALL, WE SAY LOOK, I NEED THIS FOR BACKFILL. THAT IS NOT THE SAME TYPE CONCRETE AS THE CONCRETE THAT IS ON THE PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT. PUBLIC WORKS HAS THEIR OWN TRUCKS, THEY GO PICK THE PRODUCT UP AND THEN THEY MIX IT AND USE IT AND IT'S A DIFFERENT TYPE OF CONCRETE. THE CONCRETE YOU'RE BUYING FROM RAINBOW MATERIAL -- AND LET ME SAY THIS ABOUT THAT KIND OF CONCRETE. BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT IS QUALITY. THIS IS THE STRUCTURAL CONCRETE. RAINBOW'S RECORD IN QUALITY IS EXCELLENT, ABSOLUTELY EXCELLENT. THIS CONCRETE IS WHAT IS ON OUR RUNWAYS, THIS COMPANY'S CONCRETE. THIS COMPANY'S CONCRETE IS IN OUR FACILITIES AT THE NEW AIRPORT AND IT IS THIS PARTICULAR CONTRACT IS TO DO OUR SAND HILL PLANT AS WELL AS SOME OF OUR SUBSTATION PADS. SO WE DO TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION. I KNOW THAT MR. HEIGHTS CAN ADDRESS WITH YOU THE ISSUE OF THE INVESTIGATION, THE RESPONSE BY THE COMPANY TO THAT, AND I WOULD SECOND WITH YOU THAT IT LOOKS TERRIBLE, BUT I THINK FOR THE RECORD YOU ALL SHOULD REALIZE THAT THIS COMPANY HAS NOT BEEN USING THAT SITE FOR ABOUT -- ONLY ABOUT THE LAST FOUR YEARS. DOCKING HAS BEEN DONE, ENCOURAGED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER, WHO IS NOT RAINBOW MATERIALS, FROM MANY, MANY OTHER SOURCES. SO THE CONCRETE YOU SEE DOWN BY THE RIVER WITH THE FERNS AND TREES GROWING OUT OF IT WAS NOT DUMPED AND IS NOT THE RESULT OF THE ACTIVITIES OF RAINBOW CONSTRUCTION. I'M NOT SAYING THAT THAT MITIGATES THE RESPONSIBILITY, NOR I DON'T THINK THEY'VE SAID THAT. I THINK THEY'VE BEEN VERY UP FRONT IN SAYING WE'RE GOING TO DO WHAT WE NEED TO DO AND I THINK MR. HEIGHTS WITH ADDRESS THAT FOR YOU. BUT I WOULD URGE YOU TO CONSIDER AWARD TO THIS FIRM. THE OWNER/OPERATOR OF THIS COMPANY IS A PH.D. STRUCTURAL ENGINEER, HE TEACHES AT U.T. AND HE'S RECOGNIZED WORLDWIDE FOR HIS KNOWLEDGE IN STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING. AND THIS IS A STRUCTURAL CONCRETE. SO IT'S ALSO A MINORITY-OWNED FIRM. IT'S ONE WE'VE GROWN FROM THE BEGINNING AND THEY'VE BEEN ABLE TO DO AN AWFULLY GOOD JOB IN MEETING THE DEMANDS OF THE COMMUNITY. SO BASED ON THAT WE RECOMMENDED TO GO AHEAD WITH THE AWARD. MIKE, WHY DON'T YOU TALK TO THEM MORE ABOUT THE INVESTIGATION?

WYNN: I'M SORRY, MAYOR PRO TEM, MS. BRUBAKER, I HAVE A FEW MORE QUESTIONS FOR YOU BEFORE MR. HEIGHTS COMES UP. I RECOGNIZE THAT THE EXPERTISE BEHIND THE OWNERSHIP OF THIS PARTICULAR SUPPLIER, BUT I'VE GOT TO BELIEVE THAT WHEN WE BUY STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, AS IMPORTANT AS IT IS, WE HAVE VERY SPECIFIC, SCIENTIFIC SPECS FOR DELIVERY OF THAT CONCRETE, AND THAT IS WHOEVER IS THE SECOND, THIRD, FOURTH, FIFTH BIDDERS ALSO ARE MEETING THE POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH, THE STRUCTUAL STRESS CAPACITY OF THE CONCRETE, THEY HAVE THE SAME SIZE AGGREGATE PRESUMABLY THAT WE HAVE IN OUR SPECS. SO RESPECTFULLY I DON'T BUY THE ARGUMENT THAT THIS CONCRETE IS BETTER THAN THE SECOND BID, IF IN FACT OUR BID PROCESS HAD SPECS THAT CALLED FOR VERY SPECIFIC DLIRY OF A VERY SPECIFIC PRODUCT. SO IF YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT THE SECOND, THIRD, FOURTH AND FIFTH BIDDERS' CONCRETE ISN'T AS GOOD AND DOESN'T MEET YOUR SPECS, THAT'S ONE ISSUE.

I'M NOT TELLING YOU THAT.

WELL, MY STRONG SUSPICION IS THAT ALL THIS -- THIS IS A COMMODITY AND THIS CONCRETE, AS LONG AS IT MEETS OUR SPECIFICATIONS FOR WHATEVER THE AREA MAY BE, THE STRENGTH OF THE CONCRETE, SIZE OF THE AGGREGATE, WHATEVER, THEN I RESPECTFULLY DON'T BUY THAT ARGUMENT. A QUESTION I HAVE TO YOU THEN -- AND UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, THAT WE DO THIS A LOT. WHAT ARE SOME IMPLICATIONS OF NOT AWARDING A LOW BID? AND THAT IS WHAT OTHER THINGS BESIDES LOW BID CAN WE LOOK AT AS THE PURCHASER OF STRUCTURAL CONCRETE?

SEE, I THINK THE PRICE IS NEVER THE ONLY THING WE LOOK AT ON A LOW BID AWARD. WE HAVE SPECIFICATIONS, TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS ON ISSUES LIKE CONCRETE, GRAVEL, AGGREGATE, ANYTHING WE BID, THAT ARE NATIONAL STANDARDS AND PEOPLE HAVE TO MEET THEM. THEY HAVE TO HAVE THE EXPERIENCE IN MANY INSTANCES, THEY HAVE TO HAVE THE FINANCIAL CREDENTIALS TO DO IT. SO THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT ARE ROLLED INTO A SPECIFICATION. WHAT IS THE DETERMINING FACTOR, ASSUMING YOU'VE MET ALL OF THAT CRITERIA AND CAN PROVIDE ALL OF THAT CRITERIA, IS THE PRICE, BECAUSE THE ARGUMENT IN THE PUBLIC PURCHASING ARENA HAS ALWAYS BEEN IF ALL ELSE IS EQUAL, WHY SHOULD YOU PAY MORE FOR IT? SO THAT'S ALWAYS BEEN THE ARGUMENT THAT HAS DRIVEN, I THINK, THAT LOW BID CONCEPT. IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU HAVE TO TAKE INFERIOR PRODUCTS OR YOU CAN'T SPECIFY TO THE EXTENT YOU FEEL NECESSARY TO DO THAT. AND ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS............ REQUIREMENTS -- AND I DON'T WANT YOU TO THINK THAT WE DID NOT RESPOND TO THAT BECAUSE ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS IN OUR BID DOCUMENTS IS THAT OUR BIDDERS MUST SUPPLY COMPLY WITH LOCAL STATE AND FEDERAL LAW. WHEN I WAS INFORMED BY MR. HEIGHTS THAT THERE WAS A POTENTIAL VIOLATION OF A NON- -- A NON-LICENSED SITE, I SENT A LETTER TO THIS COMPANY, GAVE THEM 10 DAYS TO RESPOND TO US WITH A COMPLETE DOCUMENTATION OF THE STATUS OF THE LAND THEY WERE USING, THEIR CERTIFICATION OF THEIR COMPANY AND WHAT THEY WERE DOING WITH THE CITY AND THESE OTHER AGENCIES. AND I WAS AMAZED AT HOW QUICKLY THEY DID RESPOND. THEY CAME IN, THEY GAVE US VERY COMPLETE DOCUMENTATION, BUT THEY SAID WE'RE NOT GOING TO USE THAT, WE'RE -- WE HAVE NOT USED THAT PIECE OF LAND SINCE WE WERE CONTACTED BY THE CITY NOT TO -- RIGHT NOW THEY'RE USING PERMITTED SITES. WE'VE CHECKED ON THAT. SO I THINK WE'VE CERTAINLY NOT JUST IGNORED THE FACT THAT THERE WAS AN ISSUE, NOR HAVE THEY IGNORED RESPONDING TO US.

COUNCILMEMBER, I'M MIKE HEIGHTS, DIRECTOR OF WATERSHED PROTECTION AND REVIEW. I'LL JUST GIVE YOU A VERY BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF THE DIFFERENT ACTIVITIES THAT WERE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SPILL AT THIS PARTICULAR SITE. TNRCC ISSUED A NOTICE OF VIOLATION IN JUNE THE 14TH. THE CITY OF AUSTIN ISSUED A STOP WORK ORDER ON JUNE 20TH. AT THAT TIME THEY ASKED THAT THEY WOULD CEASE AND WITH THE FILL AND BLOCK OFF THE AREAS FOR ACCESS. THEY WOULD INSTALL EROSION CONTROLS AND THEY WOULD OBTAIN A SITE PERMIT. ON DECEMBER 21ST THEY DID SUBMIT TO US A SITE PLAN. THAT SUBMISSION WAS INCOMPLETE AND THEY'RE GOING TO RESUBMIT ON JANUARY -- ACTUALLY, THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE SUBMITTED ON JANUARY 7TH. SO THEY'RE MAKING EVERY EFFORT TO GET IN COMPLIANCE AND TO HAVE A SITE PLAN IN ACCORDANCE TO OUR REGULATIONS AND THEY'RE CEASING AND DESIFTING ACTIVITIES IN THAT SITE UNTIL IT'S DONE. AND BY COMPLIANCE, ARE WE ALSO TALKING ABOUT CLEANUP? WHAT'S THE DISCUSSION THERE?

WELL, WE'RE LOOKING AT -- I CERTAINLY HAVE NOT SEEN THE RESUBMISSION ON THE SITE PLAN TO SEE WHAT EXACTLY THEY'RE ADDRESSING INTO THE CREEK -- INTO THE RIVER ITSELF. THAT'S A DUAL JURISDICTION. IN REALITY IT'S MOSTLY THE TNRCC'S JURISDICTION AND NOT THE CITY OF AUSTIN'S. SO WE NEED TO DETERMINE THAT. THE SPILL ITSELF, HOWEVER, WHICH WAS FOUND THROUGH LCRA, THEY SAID AN ANALYSIS DID NOT INDICATE ANY DISSOLVED METALS IN THE WATER OR SEDIMENT DOWNSTREAM FROM THE PLANT AS A RESULT OF THAT.

WYNN: AND LET ME ALSO JUST CLARIFY. I DON'T -- I WOULD HOPE THAT WE AS A CITY DO OUR BEST TO INVESTIGATE ANY MAJOR DID HE GRA ADDITION LIKE THIS AND I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT BECAUSE WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A CONTRACT WITH RAINBOW THAT WE MIGHT BE INCURRING MORE EXPENSE. IN FACT, I THINK IT'S THE OPPOSITE. WHATEVER EXPENSE WE'RE GOING TO INCUR TO INVESTIGATE SITES LIKE THIS, WE INCUR THAT. THAT'S PART OF OUR ROLE AS A GOVERNMENT. SO I'M NOT TYING THE FACT THAT AWARDING THIS CONTRACT TO THIS PARTICULAR SUPPLIER INCREASES OUR INVESTIGATION COSTS, WE SHOULD BE INVESTIGATING THAT SITE REGARDLESS OF WHO WE CONTRACT WITH. I'LL BE HAPPY TO YIELD THE FLOOR, BUT I'M NOT VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THIS ACTION.

GOODMAN: COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ?

ALVAREZ: I HAD A COUPLE MORE QUESTIONS. YOU MENTIONED THE TNRCC HAD ISSUED A NOTICE OF VIOLATION IN JUNE.

THAT'S CORRECT.

ALVAREZ: AND THEN YOU MENTIONED THE THREE ACTIVITIES THAT THE CITY REQUESTED TO STOP THE SPILL, TO INSTALL TEMPORARY CONTROLS AND HAVE A SITE PLAN.

THAT'S CORRECT. AL IN JUNE THE CITY ALSO RED TAGGED THEM OR WHATEVER WE DO IN ORDER TO -- WHAT IS IT THAT THE CITY DID IN ORDER TO CITE THE COMPANY? WHAT VIOLATIONS OF CITY RULES TOOK PLACE?

OKAY. THE STOP WORK ISSUED BY OUR ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTION INCLUDED THAT THEY WERE DEVELOPING WITHOUT A PERMIT, THAT THEY HAD INADEQUATE EROSION SEDIMENTATION CONTROLS. THEY HAD INADEQUATE TREE PROTECTION. THAT THE FILL WAS IN EXCESS OF FOUR FEET. THEY WERE WITHIN THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE. AND THAT'S WHAT WE LISTED ON THE RED TAG. SO THE SITE PLAN THEY COMMIT SCHMIDTED TO US IS TO ADDRESS ALL OF THOSE ISSUES. AND AS I SAID EARLIER, THEY DID CEASE AND DID HE ACTIVITY DESIST, SO A PERMIT IS GOING TO BE ISSUED.

ALVAREZ: YOU SAID THEY WERE COMPLYING WITH THE OTHER REQUESTS THAT THE CITY HAD MADE?

THAT'S CORRECT.

ALVAREZ: AND MS. BRUBAKER, IS THAT THE PERSON WHO SPOKE BEFORE? I WAS GOING TO REFERENCE SOMETHING SHE SAID. SHE MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT SOMEBODY WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT FILL SPILL IN THE COLORADO RIVER. DID ANY AGENCY MAKE MAKE A DETERMINATION TO THAT EFFECT?

COUNCILMEMBER, CONCRETE IS KIND OF HARD TO DETERMINE WHERE IT CAME FROM. AS YOU KNOW, THERE WAS NO SERIAL NUMBERS OR ANY TYPE OF ACTIVITY THAT WE CAN REALLY TRACE IT BACK, BUT RAINBOW HAS COME TO -- COME TO THE TABLE AND THEY, LIKE I SAID, CEASE AND DESIST WORK AND THEY'RE DOING A PERMIT TO CORRECT IT.

ALVAREZ: BUT THE PERMIT WAS FOR THE FILL ACTIVITY THAT WAS GOING ON?

FOR THE OVERALL SITE PLAN. ALL THE OTHER ISSUES THAT I INDICATED THAT WAS IN VIOLATION FOR THEM TO WORK ON THAT AREA TO GET IN COMPLIANCE.

ALVAREZ: THEN YOU MENTIONED THE LCRA ANALYSIS THAT INDICATED THAT THERE WAS NO DEGRADATION OF WATER QUALITY? WHO WAS THAT?

YEAH, LCRA -- THAT WAS THE FINDINGS OF LCRA. THE TNRCC, IT WAS JUST THEY WERE DOING AN UNAUTHORIZED DISCHARGE. AND TNRCC HAS ASKED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEY WHICH WAS SUBMITTED SEPTEMBER 4TH TO LCRA. AT THAT TIME THEY THOUGHT THAT WAS INSUFFICIENT, BUT THEY ASKED IF FO A NEW SUBMISSION.

ALVAREZ: AND WHAT IS AN ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEY?

IT'S WHAT IS ACTUALLY ON THE SITE AND WHAT IMPACT THESE ACTIVITIES HAVE HAD ON THE SITE.

ALVAREZ: SO THE VIOLATION OR ALLEGED BY TNRCC WAS FOR WHAT PARTICULAR REGULATION?

FOR TNRCC IT WAS FOR UNAUTHORIZED DISCHARGE OF PROCESSED WATER, BUT IN ADDITION THEY ASKED FOR AN OVERALL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE?

ALVAREZ: BUT DID THEY FIND THAT THAT WAS OCCURRING OR NOT OR WHAT THE DISCHARGE WAS?

THEY JUST ASKED FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. AND I HAVE NOT -- I DO NOT HAVE ANY INFORMATION ON WHAT'S HAPPENED FROM THAT POINT.

ALVAREZ: HAVE THERE BEEN ANY SAJS SANCTIONS? THERE'S NO FINAL DETERMINATION AS TO THE VIOLATION?

NO. AND COUNCILMEMBER, AS A RULE, WHEN WE ISSUE A RED TAG, WE TRY TO WORK WITH THE DEVELOPER OR WITH THE -- WHATEVER ACTIVITY IS GOING ON AND GET COMPLIANCE. THAT'S OUR NUMBER ONE INTEREST. BEING PUNITIVE IS NOT OUR NUMBER ONE INTEREST?

NO, I UNDERSTAND FROM OUR POINT OF VIEW THE -- I GUESS THE EFFORTS THIS COMPANY HAS TAKEN, AND I ALSO -- BUT I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT OTHER AGENCIES HAVE DETERMINED IF THERE'S ANYTHING INAPPROPRIATE GOING ON.

TNRCC, LCRA, CITY OF AUSTIN, AND TRAVIS COUNTY.

ALVAREZ: OKAY. ARE YOU SAYING EACH OF THOSE ENTITIES HAVE SAID SOMETHING IS GOING ON INAPPROPRIATE?

AT THE TIME THAT WE FOUND THE SPILL, ALL OF THOSE AGENCIES WENT AND SURVEYED THE SITE. WE'VE HAD JOINT MEETINGS WITH ALL OF THOSE AGENCIES. THOSE THAT HAVE ISSUED STOP WORKS OR VIOLATIONS SO FAR HAS BEEN TNRCC AND THE CITY OF AUSTIN.

ALVAREZ: AND IN TERMS OF I GUESS THE REMEDIATION -- I GUESS TO ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES, I GUESS AT LEAST ON THE CITY'S PART THERE'S BEEN A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES?

THAT'S CORRECT.

ALVAREZ: I WAS JUST TRYING TO FIND OUT BECAUSE I KNEW THERE WAS SEVERAL DIFFERENT AGENCIES LOOKING AT THE SITUATION AND SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT APPEARED THAT AT LEAST IN TERMS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION THAT THAT HAS BEEN MINIMAL OR IT'S NOT -- NONE AT ALL, I GUESS. BUT THEN AGAIN YOU HAVE THE ISSUE OF HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH THE PARTICULAR SITUATION IDENTIFIED AT THAT TIME.

RIGHT.

ALVAREZ: OKAY. THANKS.

SLUSHER: MAYOR PRO TEM? MR. HEIGHTS, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. SO FROM WHAT YOU WERE -- WE CAN -- WE CAN'T DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT RAINBOW WAS POURING CONCRETE INTO THE RIVER FROM THE HILLSIDE?

NO, COUNCILMEMBER, WE CAN'T SAY WHETHER ALL OF THE DISCHARGE IN THAT AREA CAME FROM RAINBOW, BUT RAINBOW IS THE PARTY THAT'S COME FORWARD AND IS IN FACT TRYING TO GET A SITE PLAN SO THEY CAN REMEDY THE SITUATION.

SLUSHER: BUT WHEN THEY AGREED TO CEASE AND DESIST, THEN WHAT WERE THEY CEASING AND DESISTING FROM DOING?

THEY CEASED PUTTING ADDITIONAL FILL ON TO THE SITE. THEY AGREED TO BLOCK OFF ACCESS TO THE SITE AND THEN THEY ADDED THE EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROLS WHILE THEY WERE GOING THROUGH THE PERMIT PROCESS.

SLUSHER: OKAY. I MEAN, IT SEEMS SAFE TO SAY THEY WOULD PROBABLY BE ENGAGED IN THESE PRACTICES IF NOT FOR THE COMPLAINT OF THE CITIZENS?

COUNCILMEMBER, I CAN'T SAY WHAT THEY WOULD HAVE CONTINUED TO DO.

SLUSHER: OKAY. BUT THEY WERE FILLING IN -- THEY WERE DUMPING AT THIS SITE AT THAT TIME WHERE THEY NOW AGREE TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM DOING.

THEY HAVE AGREED TO CEASE AND DESIST.

SLUSHER: BUT THEY WERE UTILIZING IT AT THAT TIME.

THERE'S SOME QUESTION ABOUT THAT, WHO WAS DOING WHAT. I DON'T KNOW. I THINK SUE MIGHT HAVE MORE INFORMATION ON THAT THAN I DO.

SLUSHER: DO YOU WANT TO TRY THAT ONE, MS. BRUBAKER?

WHICH ONE?

SLUSHER: I'M TRYING TO DETERMINE, AND MAYBE WE CAN'T DETERMINE IT BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE CONCRETE, AS MR. HEIGHTS EXPLAINED EARLIER, BUT EXACTLY WHAT RAINBOW IS CEASING AND DESISTING FROM DOING.

THEY HAD BEEN USING A PIECE OF PROPERTY -- AND THIS IS THE PIECE OF PROPERTY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. IT IS ADJACENT TO A PIECE OF LEASED PROPERTY THAT HAS THEIR OPERATION ON IT. THEY HAVE BEEN REQUESTED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER TO DUMP THEIR CLEAN FILL ON THAT. THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY IN QUESTION USED TO BE AN OLD GRAVEL PIT. AND THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, IF YOU LOOK AT AERIAL PICTURES OF THAT FOR PROBABLY THE LAST 20 YEARS OR SO, THERE'S BEEN -- THEY'VE BEEN ENCOURAGING CONTRACTORS TO GO AHEAD AND DUMP CLEAN FILL ON IT TRYING TO REFILL THAT PROPERTY. AND IN 1997 RAINBOW STARTED....... STARTED -- WAS ASKED TO GO AHEAD AND USE IT IF THEY WANTED TO, AND THEY DID. SO THEY STARTED USING IT. AND THEY HAVE DUMPED THEIR CONCRETE ON IT LIKEWISE. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE PICTURES OF IT AND YOU LOOK AT THE CONCRETE THAT'S IN THE WATER, THEIR POINT AND PROBABLY YOUR POINT IF YOU WENT AND VISITED IT, IS YOU'RE GOING TO SEE LITTLE TREES THAT ARE THIS HIGH GROWING UP OUT OF THAT CONCRETE. AND SO IT'S PROBABLY PRETTY SAFE TO CONCLUDE THAT THAT ISN'T THE CONCRETE THAT CAME FROM RAINBOW. IT'S BEEN BEING USED BY A LOT OF DIFFERENT PEOPLE BY THE KNOWLEDGE AND ENCOURAGEMENT OF THE LANDLORD. SO THEY'RE NOT USING IT RIGHT NOW, THEY'RE GOING TO THE LOSIER PIT, WHICH IS A LICENSED SITE, AND THAT'S WHERE THEY'RE TAKING THEIR TRUCKS TO RIGHT NOW. THEY'RE WORKING TO TRY TO GET THAT SITE LICENSED, AGAIN WITH THE KNOWLEDGE AND PERMISSION OF THE LANDOWNER BECAUSE IT'S ADVANTAGEOUS TO THEM BECAUSE OF THE PROXIMITY TO THEIR OPERATIONS.

SLUSHER: SO SOME OF THAT -- SOME OF IT'S REAL CLOSE TO THE RIVER. IT'S LARGE ENOUGH WHERE IT WOULDN'T AFFECT THE RIVER?

IT'S A BIG SPACE. IF YOU LOOK AT IT, IT'S UP LIKE THIS AND A LOT OF THAT HAS BEEN FILLED UP. AND THEN IT SLOPES DOWN GOING TO THE RIVER. AND THIS HAS BEEN BUILT UP OVER, YOU KNOW, SEVERAL YEARS, PROBABLY TWO DECADES OR SO OF MATERIALS BEING FILLED IN.

SLUSHER: CONCRETE BEING EMPTIED OUT OF THE TRUCK?

IT LOOKS LIKE PROBABLY CONCRETE AND OTHER KINDS OF BUILDING MATERIALS.

SLUSHER: AND THOSE PRACTICES CONTINUED AFTER RAINBOW TOOK -- THEY DIDN'T START THOSE PRACTICES, BUT THEY CONTINUED AFTER RAINBOW TOOK OVER?

I THINK WHEN RAINBOW STARTED USING IT, THEY'VE HAD THE RIGHT TO EGRESS ON IT AND I DON'T THINK THEY'VE HAD ANYBODY ELSE USING IT. SO I THINK THEY HAVE USED THAT AS A MEANS OF DISPOSING OF THEIR FILL.

SLUSHER: ON THE HILLSIDE LEADING DOWN TO THE RIVER?

YEAH. THEY'VE BEEN PUTTING THEIRS UP ON THE FACE, BUT THEY'RE PROPERTY MAY HAVE SOME RUNOFF. I DON'T KNOW. I'M LIKEIKE, IT'S HARD TO SAY WHOSE CONCRETE IS IN THE RIVER, BUT THERE IS A LAYER OF CONCRETE AT THE EDGE OF THE RIVER THAT SUGGESTS THAT IT'S RATHER OLD, BEEN THERE A LONG TIME.

SLUSHER: OKAY. THANK YOU.

GOODMAN: COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ?

ALVAREZ: ONE MORE QUESTION FOR MR. HEIGHTS.

YES, COUNCILMEMBER.

ALVAREZ: I GUESS YOU KNOW WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE SITUATION WITH THE NEIGHBORING LANDOWNER THAT HAS THE PIT IN HIS PROPERTY. I MEAN, HE'S BEEN TRYING TO FILL THAT FOR A WHILE I SUPPOSE AND AT SOME POINT MAKE IT DEVELOPABLE. SO I GUESS IN THE CASE OF -- WHAT DID YOU SAY THEY WERE DOING? THE FILL ACTIVITY THEY WERE ENGAGED IN WITHOUT THE SITE PLAN PERMIT, WHO THEN IS RESPONSIBLE FOR GETTING THAT? IS IT RAINBOW MATERIALS THAT'S PROVIDING THE FILL OR IS IT THE LANDOWNER THAT'S TRYING TO DO SOMETHING TO THEIR PROPERTY?

COUNCILMEMBER, THE LANDOWNER, WHO HAS A LEASE WITH RAINBOW, AND SO HAS BRUBAKER SAYS, OVER THE YEARS THEY WERE TRYING TO GET SOME OF THESE LARGE PITS FILLED. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE THIS PIT HAS -- WAS FILLED UP AND THEN IT SLOPED AWAY TOWARD THE RIVER.

ALVAREZ: OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO SEE AGAIN IF THIS WAS SOMETHING RAINBOW NEEDED TO GET OR THE ACTUAL LANDOWNER. THE SITE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS NOT ACTUALLY ZONED BY RAINBOW MATERIALS?

RIGHT. ANY IMPROVEMENTS HE DOES OF COURSE WOULD HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY THE LANDOWNER IN AGREEMENT WITH THEIR LEASE.

GOODMAN: ARE THERE ANY MORE QUESTIONS, COUNCILMEMBERS?

GRIFFITH: YES, THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM. MS. BRUBAKER, THE CREDENTIAL THAT YOU MENTIONED THAT THE OPERATORS OF THIS COMPANY HAVE MADE WHAT I HAVE BEEN SEEING IN THE WAY OF PHOTOGRAPHS AND HEARING FROM THE COMMUNITY EVEN MORE ASTOUNDING THAN BEFORE I LEARNED ABOUT THAT, TO BUILD ON WHAT COUNCILMEMBER WYNN HAS POINTED OUT, THE COSTS THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT ARE NOT JUST HARD DOLLAR COSTS, THEY'RE ALSO THE ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS THAT HE TALKED ABOUT AND THE HUMAN AND COMMUNITY COSTS THAT HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT TO US MANY TIMES THIS WEEK BY THE SIT SENS THAT LIVE IN THE AREA. ALSO, I DON'T KNOW IF ANY OTHER CONCRETE COMPANY THAT'S OPERATING IN THAT AREA AND IT'S NOT HARD FOR ME TO GET TO IN TERMS OF AT LEAST, AT THE VERY LEAST, PARTIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE DEGRADATION THAT IS BEING PICTURED AND POINTED OUT. ALSO, THERE SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN NO EFFORT THROUGH THE YEARS EVER AT CLEANUP, SO EVEN THOUGH THERE'S BEEN SOME RESPONSIBILITIES TAKEN AND ACCEPTED, IT'S CERTAINLY NOT GOING TO BE ENOUGH FOR ME TO BE SUPPORTIVE OF THIS OPPORTUNITY.

GOODMAN: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

WYNN: MS. BRUBAKER, I'M NOT GOING TO BE SUPPORTIVE OF THIS CONTRACT WITH RAINBOW MATERIALS. MY QUESTION TO YOU THEN IS SHOULD MY MOTION BE TO IN FACT APPROVE THE SECOND LOW BID HERE OR DO YOU RECOMMEND THAT MY MOTION SIMPLY BE TO DENY THIS CONTRACT AND ALLOW YOU AND AUSTIN ENERGY AND EVERYBODY ELSE TO FIGURE OUT, YOU KNOW, OTHER OPPORTUNITIES? NOW THAT IT'S ALREADY BEEN BID AND ON PUBLIC NOTICE AND WHATNOT, WHAT'S YOUR RECOMMENDATION TO ME?

WELL, YOU CERTAINLY HAVE THE RIGHT TO REJECT OR ACCEPT ANY BID, AND SO BEFORE YOU IS THE -- THE ACTION NEITHER REJECTS THE BID OR ACCEPTS THE BID. IF YOU REJECT THE BID BEFORE YOU, WE WOULD GO BACK OUT AND REBID IT.

WYNN: MY QUESTION IS WE'VE DONE THAT AND THERE'S A SECOND BID IN OUR BACKUP, MEANING -- IT SEEMS TO ME IF I WAS THAT SECOND BIDDER AND FOR WHATEVER REASON WE REJECT A BID OR WE SOMEHOW ARE WE EXPOSING OURSELVES TO THAT SECOND BIDDER BY SAYING LOOK, I DID EVERYTHING RIGHT, MY CONCRETE MEETS YOUR SPECS, GRANTED I WAS A FEW THOUSAND DOLLARS HIGHER THAN YOUR LOW BID. WHY WOULD WE NOT JUST AWARD THE CONTRACT TO THE SECOND BIDDER TONIGHT?

I THINK THE CITY ATTORNEY IS COMING. I THINK AGAIN THE ACTION BEFORE YOU IS TO REJECT IT OR ACCEPT IT. IN THE PROCESS, IN THE LEGAL PROCESS THAT WOULD THEN ENSUE, YOU HAVE TWO BIDDERS THAT QUALIFY IN ALL RESPECTS, AND ONE BIDDER HAD THE LOWEST PRICE. IF YOU REJECT THE BID, THAT MEANS THAT'S THE END OF THAT PROCESS AND WE WOULD REBID IT AGAIN. THE FIRST BIDDER IS NOT -- I MEAN, IF YOU'RE REJECTING THE BID, YOU'RE JUST REJECTING THE BID AND YOU'RE NOT DISQUALIFYING A BIDDER AND SAYING THEY DIDN'T MEET THE SPECIFICATIONS. SO I THINK THAT THERE IN IT ALMOST PUTS US INTO A POSITION OF REBIDDING.

SLUSHER: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, MAY I TRY SOMETHING? MS. BRUBAKER, IT LOOKS LIKE THE REJECTION HERE IS THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS AND THE APPEAR RANT ENVIRONMENTAL PRACTICES OF THE COMPANY. WOULD WE BE -- WOULD WE HAVE LEL STANDING TO PUT INTO OUR FUTURE CONCRETE CONTRACTS THAT SOME SORT OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE STANDARDS WHERE IF IF WE REJECTED THIS BID AND THEN WE COULD REBID WITH STRICTER STANDARDS THAT THE COMPANIES NEED TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT AND THEN THEY WOULD NOT BE -- THEY WOULD NOT BE QUALIFIED -- I'M LOSING THE WORD. I'VE HEARD IT A THOUSAND TIMES.

RESPONSIVE.

THANK YOU. THEY WOULD NOT BE RESPONSIVE IF THEY WERE NOT OPERATING SOUNDLY FROM AN ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES.

I THINK YOU COULD PUT IN THERE A PROVISION THAT IF THERE'S ANYTHING PENDING, ANY KIND OF PENDING ACTION.

LET ME -- THAT THERE BE A BASIS FOR SAYING -- THE PENDING BASIS WOULD BE THE ACTION FOR A NONRESPONSIVE BID. I THINK YOU WOULD NEED TO DO THAT. I ALSO THINK THAT SUE'S EXACTLY RIGHT. AND I'M NOT OWE THE CITY ATTORNEY, BUT I THINK YOU HAVE A BID THAT THE STAFF HAS DETERMINED IS RESPONSIVE AND MEETS THE CRITERIA OF THE BID, AND THE COUNCIL, AS THE COUNCIL HAS THE RIGHT TO DO, IF THEY DISAGREE WITH THAT, THE PROPER COURSE IS TO REJECT THE BIDS, HAVE THE STAFF GO BACK AND REPACKAGE SO THAT IT'S VERY CLEAR WHAT THE CRITERIA WILL BE FOR SELECTION AND DETERMINATION OF WHAT IS A RESPONSIVE BID AND WHAT IS NOT A RESPONSIVE BID. IT ALLOWS EVERYBODY ON THAT EQUAL FOOTING TO COME FORWARD AND PUT FORWARD THEIR BEST PRICE AND THE CRITERIA........ CRITERIA -- CONSISTENT WITH THE CRITERIA THAT WE'VE ESTABLISHED, AND I THINK THAT IS THE CLEANEST WAY TO DO IT IF THAT'S THE DESIRE OF THE CITY COUNCIL. COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ MAYOR?

ALVAREZ: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ?

ALVAREZ: IN LOOKING AT THIS, OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE AN ISSUE IN REGARDS TO ENVIRONMENTAL KPLIENTION, AND I THINK THERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE LEVEL OF, YOU KNOW, I GUESS OF WRONGDOING OR ALLEGED WRONGDOING HERE. SPECIFICALLY, I MEAN, THE CITY MANAGER HAS OUTLINED WHAT DO WE CONSIDER WHEN WE ISSUES CONSIDER ISSUES OF MINORITY CONTRACTORING WHERE WE GO THROUGH A PROCESS, THERE'S A LOW BID, ALL OF THEM SUBMITTED A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MINORITY PARTICIPATION AND THERE'S A DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THEY HAVE FULFILLED THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE -- OF THE SOLICITATION AND WHETHER THEY'RE EVEN I GUESS ELIGIBLE, I GUESSd TO A CERTAIN DEGREE. AND SO IT SEEMS IN TERMS OF CONSISTENCY, YOU KNOW, WE WE HAVE A COMPANY HERE THAT IS A MINORITY COMPANY, BUT REALLY THERE'S A COMPANY HERE WHERE THERE'S AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION. AND THERE'S BEEN SOME REPRESENTATIONS MADE AND THAT'S HAD SOME INFORMATION PROVIDED HERE THAT MAYBE WE REFUTES SOME OF THAT, MAYBE IT DOESN'T. THERE'S CERTAINLY SOME QUESTIONS THERE. BUT THE REAL QUESTION IS I THINK CONCRETE PLANTS ARE NOT VERY DISSIMILAR FROM EACH OTHER, SO WHAT I'M -- WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE, AND I THINK THE COUNCIL SHOULD CONSIDER, IS IF THIS IS WHAT THE COUNCIL -- ONE OF THE ISSUES THE COUNCIL WANTS TO CONSIDER, LOOK AT ALL THE DIFFERENT CONCRETE PLANTS. WHY ARE YOU GOING TO TAKE THIS ONE ISOLATED EXAMPLE AGAINST WHERE THERE MAY BE OR MAY NOT BE SOME LEGITIMATE PROBLEMS THERE AND NOT LOOK AT THE OTHER THREE COMPANIES OR TWO OR THREE COMPANIES IN THIS CONTRACT OR IN THE OTHER TWO CONTRACTS, AS COUNCILMEMBER WYNN POINTED TO, TO LOOK AT THEIR ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS. WHY DON'T YOU GO DO SITE VISITS, LOOK AT ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS, LOOK AT COMPLIANCE RECORDS? AT LEAST WHEN WE LOOK AT THE MINORITY REQUIREMENTS, WE'RE LOOKING AT EVERYTHING AND COMPARING IT. AND HERE WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE TAKING THIS ONE INCIDENT, YOU KNOW, AND SAYING, OKAY, THEY DON'T DESERVE IT, BUT MAYBE THIS OTHER COMPANY DOES, BUT YOU HAVEN'T EVEN LOOKED AT WELL, MAYBE THEY'RE EVEN A WORST ACTOR OR -- ASSUMING THAT THERE'S ANY NEGLIGENCE HERE, BUT JUST HAVING OBVIOUSLY LOOKED AT A LOT OF THE CONTRACT AND ISSUES THROUGH THEM, THE WMBE COMMITTEE, IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE TREATING EVERYBODY EQUALLY. FOR ME THAT'S MY CONCERN IS WHY ARE WE NOT LOOKING AT THIS ACROSS THE BOARD IN TREATING ALL THE COMPANIES THE SAME WAY.

MAYOR GARCIA: WE HAVE FIVE PEOPLE WHO SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. CAN WE GO AHEAD AND HEAR FROM THEM AND THEN CONTINUE THE QUESTIONS? JIM WALKER? HE DOESN'T WISH TO SPEAK, BUT WANTS ME TO READ INTO THE RECORD. WE NEED TO RESOLVE THE EXISTING AND OUTSTANDING VIOLATIONS PENDING WITH THIS COMPANY BEFORE EXECUTING OUR EXTENDING CONTRACTS WITH THEM. AND I THINK THAT PROBABLY SOMEBODY FROM THE OFFICE STAFF, FROM THE STAFF OF THE CITY MANAGER CAN ADDRESS THAT QUESTION BECAUSE I THINK THEIR ENVIRONMENTAL ALLEGATIONS HAVE BEEN RESOLVED. MS. ROBIN SNYDER OR MR. ROBIN SNYDER.

MISS. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS ROBIN SNYDER. I'M THE DIRECTOR OF TEXAS CAMPAIGN FOR ENVIRONMENT. AND I WANT TO THANK COUNCILMEMBER WYNN FOR PULLING THIS ITEM AND FOR THE VARIOUS COUNCILMEMBERS WHO HAVE MADE COMMENT ON THIS ISSUE. I'D LIKE TO TAKE YOU ON A TOUR OF THAT SITE SOME DAY. I WENT MYSELF PERSONALLY AND WAS HORRIFIED BY THAT WALL OF CONCRETE THAT REACHED ALL THE WAY TO THE COLORADO RIVER. THE CITY DID NOT APPROVE -- PULL THIS CONTRACT -- A CONTRACT WITH RAINBOW IN JUNE AND THEY SHOULD NOT APPROVE IT TODAY. UNFORTUNATELY, YOU WOULDN'T FIND IT IN YOUR BRIEFING PACKET, BUT YOU WOULD FIND IT IN TODAY'S CHRONICLE THAT THE ELECTRIC UTILITY COMMISSION VOTED UNANIMOUSLY AGAINST AWARDING THIS CONTRACT TO RAINBOW. UNFORTUNATELY, STAFF DID NOT INCLUDE THAT IN YOUR PACKET. THERE IS NOT EVEN AS FAR AS WE KNOW A PLAN IN PLACE TO CLEAN UP THIS SITE. AND AS WE'VE LEARNED WITH THE EAST AUSTIN TANK FARM, A PLEDGE TO CLEAN UP DOES NOT A CLEAN UP MAKE. IT IS NOT JUST A SPILL. IMPERSONALLY, AFTER HAVING SEEN THAT SITE, AM OFFENDED BY PEOPLE WHO WOULD CALL THIS A SPILL. THIS IS A WALL OF CONCRETE ON THE HILLSIDE GOING ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE COLORADO RIVER. THERE ARE OTHER ISSUES AS WELL, BUT AS FAR AS WHETHER OR NOT RAINBOW WAS INVOLVED IN DUMPING CONCRETE OVER THE HILL, I WANT TO REFER YOU FOLKS, AND I'LL PASS THESE OUT TO YOU. IN THE AUSTIN CHRONICLE AFTER THIS STORY INITIALLY BROKE IN JUNE, PA FORMER RAINBOW EMPLOYEE NAMED TOM WILLIAMS SAID THAT THE RAINBOW WOULD DUMP FOUR OR FIVE TRUCKS EACH DAY OF APPROXIMATELY 10 YARDS OF CONCRETE OVER THE SIDE OF THAT HILL. SO THAT'S ONE EMPLOYEE TALKING, OF COURSE, IT'S NOT NECESSARILY VERIFIED, BUT I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY WAY WE CAN SAY OR BE ASSURED THAT RAINBOW HAD NO ROLE IN DUMPING THE CONCRETE ON TO THE HILLSIDE. IN THE ARTICLES AROUND THIS ISSUE, LOCAL RESIDENTS HAVE COMPLAINED, AND I'VE SEEN THEM, THE STUFF FROM THIS FACILITY, THE CONCRETE ABILITY ITSELF IS VERY BAD AND AGGRAVATES VAITS PEOPLE'S HEALTH OVER THERE. IN ADDITION, I HAVE DONE A STUDY OF THE COMPLAINTS, STATEWIDE STUDY OF COMPLAINT DATA WITH THE TNRCC AND I PUT FOUR YEARS OF COMPLAINT DATA ON THE WEB FROM 1995 TO 1995 AND MORE CURRENT INFORMATION WILL BE PUT UP SHORTLY. WHEN THE ISSUE CAME UP, I LOOKED AT RAINBOW'S COMPLAINTS DATA. THEY HAVE A VARIETY OF SITES, NOT JUST THE DEL VALLE SITE. AND GENERALLY WHEN THERE WAS A COMPLAINT, ABOUT 18% OF THE COMPLAINT INVESTIGATIONS RESULT IN VIOLATIONS. HOWEVER, IN RAINBOW'S CASE IT WAS OVER 80% OF THE COMPLAINTS RESULTED IN VIOLATIONS. SO THERE'S A LOT OF ISSUES HERE. I'D LOVE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.

MAYOR GARCIA: YES, I WAS GOING TO DO THAT. THESE COMPLAINTS ARE MADE TO.. TO -- THEY ARE COMPLAINTS, RIGHT?

THEY, THEY ARE COMPLAINTS MADE TO TNRCC.

MAYOR GARCIA: DID THEY INVESTIGATE THE COMPLAINTS?

THESE ARE IN GENERAL COMPLAINTS AGAINST RAINBOW, NOT NECESSARILY ABOUT THE DEL VALLE FACILITY, BUT YES, THEY INVESTIGATED THOSE COMPLAINTS AND -- .

MAYOR GARCIA: I'M SPECIFICALLY TALKING ABOUT -- BECAUSE THIS IS COMING OUT OF DEL VALLE AND I THINK THERE WERE SOME ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OR SOME REPORTED VIOLATIONS OUT OF THAT FACILITY.

RIGHT.

MAYOR GARCIA: I THINK THE ALLEGED DUMPING OR WHATEVER WAS DONE OUT OF THAT FACILITY, CORRECT?

RIGHT.

MAYOR GARCIA: AND THAT WAS REPORTEDDED TO THE TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION COMMISSION; IS THAT CORRECT?

THEY GOT WIND OF IT THROUGH THE MEDIA WHEN THE MEDIA WAS GIVEN A TOUR OF THE FACILITY AND THEY RESPONDED TO THE MEDIA.

MAYOR GARCIA: SO THERE WAS NOBODY THAT REPORTED IT?

NO, THE KIDS USED IT AS A PLAYGROUND. THEY THOUGHT IT WAS KIND OF COOL.

MAYOR GARCIA: SO THE MEDIA FOUND OUT ABOUT IT -- .

THROUGH THE DEFERTS OF ACTIVISTS THE MEDIA FOUND OUT ABOUT IT.

MAYOR GARCIA: AND TNRCC DID THE INVESTIGATE -- .

AND CONSTITUENT AND THE COUNTY.

MAYOR GARCIA: WHAT WAS THE RESULT OF THAT INVESTIGATION?

MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IN THE ARTICLE THAT I'VE JUST HANDED OUT TO YOU SAYS THAT THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO BE GETTING A PERMIT. THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO BE PUT THE STUFF IN A LANDFILL, NOT JUST DUMPING IT IN A GRAVEL PIT AND THEY FAILED TO DO SO. THERE HASN'T BEEN ANY RESOLUTION, NO FINE, NO PLAN OF ACTION HAS BEEN SET. AS FAR AS WE KNOW THEY SUBMITTED A PLAN THAT WASN'T ACCEPTABLE, THAT'S WHAT WE WERE JUST TOLD, THAT THEY SUBMITTED AN INCOMPLETE PLAN AND THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO RESUBMIT ON JANUARY 7TH, AND THE STAFF WASN'T VERY CLEAR ABOUT WHETHER THEY HAVE RESUBMITTED IT AS OF JANUARY SEVENTH ARNOT AND WHETHER IT'S COMPLETE OR NOT. WE DON'T KNOW.

MAYOR GARCIA: THE CITY?

YEAH.

MAYOR GARCIA: WHAT ABOUT TNRCC?

THEY'RE SUBMITTING IT TO TNRCC IS WHAT MR. HEIGHTS SAID AND THE CITY IS KIND OF TAKING A MORE MINOR ROLE AT THIS POINT AND LETTING TNRCC TAKE THE LEAD.

MAYOR GARCIA: ONE OF THE POINTS THAT COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ BROUGHT UP, AND THIS IS JUST FOR PURPOSES OF THE FUTURE, BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN IN MANY PUBLIC SITES WHERE THERE'S PILES OF CONCRETE AS EVIDENCED THAT WHAT THEY DID IS SOMEBODY WENT AND DUMPED CONCRETE IN A HIGHWAY PROJECT OR IN A HOUSING PROJECT OR IN AN INDUSTRIAL PROJECT, AND BEFORE THEY CAME BACK TO THEIR PLANT, THEY WENT OVER AND EMPTIED, CLEANED UP THEIR TRUCKS.

ILLEGAL DUMPING.

MAYOR GARCIA: ILLEGAL DUMPING.

MAYOR GARCIA: AND I THINK ONE OF THE PLACES THEY DID ILLEGAL DUMPING WAS AT THE GUS GARCIA PARK. WHEN WE WENT TO CLEAN IT UP I FOUND MOUNDS OF THAT STUFF.

MOUNT GARCIA.

MAYOR GARCIA: YEAH. NOW THE QUESTION IS WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO TO STOP THAT KIND OF THING? I DON'T LIKE THE IDEA -- I MEAN, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THAT'S A WASTE MATERIAL OR A BY PRODUCT OR WHATEVER THAT NEEDS TO HAVE DISPOSITION.

ABSOLUTELY.

MAYOR GARCIA: DON'T WE HAVE RULES FOR THAT?

THERE ARE LAULS LAUS ON THE BOOKS, BUT THEY'RE OBVIOUSLY NOT BEING ENFORCED ENOUGH. AND I THINK YOU'RE -- COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ'S SUGGESTION AND COUNCILMEMBER WYNN'S SUGGESTION THAT WE HAVE A POLICY REGARDING HOW THE CITY CONTRACTS, THAT IF THE CITY IS HAVING CONTRACTS, WE SHOULDN'T BE AWARDING CONTRACTS TO PEOPLE WHO ARE BREAKING THE LAW. AND YOU NEED TO FIGURE OUT EXACTLY HOW DO YOU EVALUATE THAT AND WHAT THE CRITERIA ARE, BUT THERE WAS A PLAN TO HAVE FEDERAL POLICY LIKE THAT, THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WOULD NOT CONTRACT WITH A COMPANY IF IT WAS BREAKING ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS, LABOR LAWS AND OTHERS, BUT UNFORTUNATELY, THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION SCUTTLED THAT LAST MONTH.

MAYOR GARCIA: WELL, THAT GETS ME TO POINT THAT I WAS TRYING TO GET TO. HAS THIS COMPANY BROKEN THE LAW?

ABSOLUTELY.

MAYOR GARCIA: HAS IT?

THEY'RE DUMPING ILLEGALLY INTO THAT -- .

MAYOR GARCIA: WHO HAS MADE THAT DETERMINATION?

THE TNRCC MADE IT BASICALLY IN -- IT WAS QUOTED IN ONE OF THE PRESS THINGS I JUST HANDED OUT.

MAYOR GARCIA: HAVE THEY ISSUED ANY KIND OF SANCTION?

IT'S NOT CLEAR -- WELL, LET'S SEE. THE CITY ISSUED THE STOP ORDER AND THE NOTICES OF VIOLATION.

MAYOR GARCIA: IS THAT WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT, MIKE?

YES.

[INAUDIBLE].

WHAT T -- WHEN TNRCC ISSUED A NONCOMPLIANCE ORDER, IT TYPICALLY DOESN'T STOP THE BUSINESS FROM GOING FORWARD, BUT IT ALLOWS THE BUSINESS AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE. AND THEN THERE'S A CONSEQUENCE OF SOMETHING HAPPENING SHOULD IT COME TO PASS THAT THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO MEET THE CODES AND/OR THE REGULATIONS. SO THEY'RE IN THAT PROCESS -- I'M ASSUMING THAT'S WHAT MIKE WAS TALKING ABOUT. THEY'RE IN THAT PROCESS WITH TNRCC AND WORKING THROUGH SOME COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT. BUT THEY DON'T SAY YOU NEED TO STOP THAT BUSINESS UNTIL YOU'RE IN COMPLIANCE. IT SAYS THIS IS THE TIME FRAME IN WHICH YOU WERE TO BE COMING INTO COMPLIANCE. THE SAME THING WHEN WE ASK THEM TO COME IN FOR A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, THEY ARE IN THE PROCESS OF DOING THAT. THEY HAVE STOPPED WHAT THEY WERE DOING PENDING THE SITE APPROVAL PERMIT, BUT AGAIN THAT DOESN'T STOP THEM FROM DOING BUSINESS IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN BECAUSE THEY HAVE ACCESS TO CONCRETE AND POURING CONCRETE AND THAT KIND OF THING.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU. AND THANK YOU MS. SNYDER.

OKAY. I MEAN, YOU ISSUED A STOP WORK ORDER. I WAS SITTING IN THE COURT PROCEEDINGS EARLIER TODAY REGARDING THE LONGHORN PIPELINE STOP WORK ORDER AS WELL. I THINK THE CITIZENS OF AUSTIN WOULD BE HORRIFIED IF YOU'RE FIGHTING A -- YOU HAVE A STOP WORK ORDER GOING ON THE ONE HAND AND YOU'RE GIVING CONTRACTS TO THE COMPANY ON THE OTHER HAND. AND I'M GLAD THAT IT SEEMS TO BE AN EMERGING CONSEQUENCE TO NOT AWARD THIS -- CONSENSUS TO NOT AWARD THIS CONTRACT.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU. MEREDITH WELCH DEVINE. DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK, BUT IS REGISTERED AGAINST. LEE CAROL? LEE?

[INAUDIBLE].

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU WANT TO DONATE YOUR TIME TO MIKE LIZARD?

HE WANTS ME TO GO IN FRONT OF HIM.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. MR. MIKE LIZARD? WELCOME MR. LIZARD MAY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MAYOR. IT'S THE FIRST TIME I'VE BEEN HERE AND WITH YOU AS MAYOR. IT'S A GREAT FEELING. AND I JUST WANTED TO COME. I PREVIOUSLY WORKED ON THIS ISSUE FOR THE CONCERNED CITIZENS OF SPICEWOOD ABOUT A PLANT THAT RAINBOW WAS ATTEMPTING TO LOCATE THERE. I THEN WORKED IN THE STATE LEGISLATURE ON BEHALF OF THE CONCERNED CITIZENS OF SPICEWOOD AND I WILL BE HONEST, A YEAR AGO I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT A CONCRETE BATCH PLANT WAS AND I HAD NO IDEA WHAT THE THREAT WAS TO THE ENVIRONMENT, BUT IF YOU TALK TO SMITTY OR ERROR BIN OR SPARKY OR ANY OF THE FOLKS WHO WORKED UP THERE THIS PAST YEAR, IT WAS LITERALLY ONE OF THE BILLINGEST ISSUES IN THE STATE LEGISLATURE THIS YEAR AND HAD A LOT TO DO WITH THE SUNSET PROVISIONS OF THE TNRCC BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT A HUGE AIR QUALITY PROBLEM IN THE STATE, BUT THEY CAN BE IF RUN IMPROPERLY KIND OF A LOCALIZED POLLUTION MENACE. TYPICALLY ON AIR QUALITY. AND THERE HAVE BEEN COMPLAINTS -- THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINTS THAT BROUGHT THE CONCERNED CITIZENS AND OTHER ALLIES OF THE SIERRA CLUB AND TEXAS CAMPAIGN FOR THE ENVIRONMENT WAS THE AIR QUALITY PROBLEMS THAT WERE REPORTED TO THEM BY THE NEIGHBORS RIGHT NEXT DOOR. IF YOU SAW ANY OF THE NEWS REPORTS, THERE'S SOME PEOPLE WHO LIVE RIGHT NEXT TO TO THIS PLANT WHO KPLAICHBD OF BEING DUSTED ON A REGULAR BASIS. WELL, CONCRETE DUST CONTAINS CRYSTALIZED SILICON. AND THAT IS CLASSIFIED AS A CAR SIN GENERAL BY THE INTERNATIONAL AGENCY OF RESEARCH ON CANCER. AND ESPECIALLY FOR PEOPLE WITH EXISTING RESPIRATORY DIFFICULTIES IT CAN BE VERY HAZARDOUS TO THEIR HEALTH. IN THE COURSE OF INVESTIGATING THIS, LOCAL ATTORNEYS I'M SURE YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH, STEWART HENRY WENT DOWN THERE AND IF YOU CAN IMAGINE STEWART HENRY TRYING TO CLIMB THIS HILL, I'LL SURE THERE WAS A LOT OF CURSING AND STUFF HAPPENING AT THAT POINT, WHAT BUT WHAT THEY FOUND THERE IS TRULY AMAZING. I SUGGEST THAT YOU GO VISIT IT. AND IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT THIS CONCRETE WAS COMING DIRECTLY FROM RAINBOW. IT COMES DOWN IN STREAMS. AND PEOPLE TALK ABOUT GOING TO THE COLORADO RIVER, BUT I WENT DOWN THERE AND IT GOES INTO THE COLORADO RIVER. YOU CAN PUT YOUR HAND DOWN IN THE WATER AS FAR AS YOU WANT AND IT'S CREATED A FALSE CONCRETE BOTTOM TO THE COLORADO RIVER THERE. IT DOESN'T GO TO THE RIVER, IT'S IN THE RIVER. AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE STREAMS AND STUFF, IT'S CLEARLY COMING FROM THE PLANT. I THINK, THOUGH, THAT COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER PROBABLY CAME UP WITH WHAT I CAME HERE TO SPEAK ABOUT TODAY, IS WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO HAVE THESE PROBLEMS AND I THINK ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE CERTAINLY WITH CITY REGULATIONS, MAYBE WITH STATE REGULATIONS, SHOULD JUST BE PART OF THE BIDDING PROCESS. AND ESPECIALLY WHEN PEOPLE HAVE OUTSTANDING VIOLATIONS WITH THE CITY OR STATE THAT I KNOW THEY'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO DO BUSINESS, BUT SHOULD THEY BE DOING BUSINESS WITH THE TAXPAYER DOLLARS IS I GUESS THE QUESTION, WHEN THEY WERE OUT OF COMPLIANCE. AND THESE FOLKS ARE SERIOUSLY OUT OF COMPLIANCE AND WILL BE FOR A WHILE. [BUZZER]. SO I HAVE BEEN TO THE SITE. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I AM AWARE OF IT.

MAYOR GARCIA: I WILL ASK YOU THE SAME QUESTIONS THAT I ASKED PREVIOUS SPEAKERS. WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THE VIOLATION AS FAR AS SANCTIONS? DO YOU KNOW?

WELL, THE TNRCC DID AN INVESTIGATION IMMEDIATELY AND I CAN TELL YOU WHAT HAPPENED. KXAN FILMED THIS AND THEY MADE IT THEIR TOP STORY FOR SEVERAL NIGHTS. AND THEY WENT TO THE TNRCC THAT DAY, SHOWED THEM THE FILM AND SAID WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT? THAT'S HOW THE TNRCC FIRST FOUND OUT ABOUT THIS. THE TNRCC THEN WENT DOWN AND INVESTIGATED AND FOUND THAT THEY WERE OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH A VARIETY OF REGULATIONS THAT ARE JUST OVER MY HEAD TO BE HONEST. HOWEVER, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE REGIONAL OFFICE IN THE TNRCC AND THAT SOMETIME EARLY THIS YEAR THEY WILL BE COMING OUT WITH APPROVAL OF THE CLEANUP PLAN AND WITH A FINE FOR THE VIOLATIONS. AND I HAVE TALKED TO STAN REESE IN THE CITY DEPARTMENT AND HE SAID THAT BASICALLY -- I MEAN, IF YOU GO OUT THERE YOU'LL SEE THERE'S TREES AND VEGETATION. THE EASIEST WAY TO CLEAN IT UP WOULD BE TO GET BULLDOZERS AND TAKE OUT THE WHOLE HILL, BUT NOBODY IS GOING TO WANT THAT TO HAPPEN. SO YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GET PEOPLE TO START AT THE BOTTOM AND INDIVIDUALLY JACKHAMMER AROUND THE TREES AND SUCH. IT'S GOING TO TAKE A LONG TIME. BUT THE TNRCC DID FIND VIOLATIONS. THE LCRA DID NOT, HOWEVER, AS MS. BRUBAKER SAID, YOU CAN'T REALLY TELL. I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT CONCRETE'S THAT OLD, BUT YOU CAN'T TELL WHEN IT WAS WET AND HIT THE WATER. AND THAT'S WHEN THE POLLUTION EVENT WOULD HAPPEN. UNBEKNOWNST TO ME UNTIL VERY RECENTLY, CONCRETE OFTEN HAS A VARIETY OF HEAVY METALS AND STUFF FROM THE CEMENT PROCESS AND STUFF. IT'S A HAZARDOUS MATERIAL. AND SO WHEN THAT WET CONCRETE HIT THE RIVER, THAT'S WHEN THE POLLUTION EVENT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED. SO IF YOU GO OUT THERE SIX MONTHS LATER OR A YEAR LATER OR TWO YEARS LATER AND TEST THE WATER, YOU'RE CLEARLY NOT GOING TO FIND ANY EVIDENCE OF THE POLLUTION BECAUSE IT'S MOVED ON DOWN THE RIVER, BUT TNRCC AND THE CITY BOTH FOUND IT AND THEY ARE STILL OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH BOTH CITY AND STATE LAW TO MY KNOWLEDGE.

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU ALSO MENTIONED THE AIR POLLUTION, THE CAR SIN GENERALS THAT ARE BEING EMITTED. IF YOU GO ON 71 AND YOU GO TOWARDS 183, CAPITAL AGRICULTURE GRE GATES IS JUST AROUND THE CORNER, SO TO SPEAK AND THAT IS THE SOME KIND OF PLANT. IT'S A CONCRETE PLANT. AND THE PEOPLE FROM EAST AUSTIN HAVE BEEN COMPLAINING ABOUT THAT PLANT AND THE CITY BUYS FROM THAT PLANT ALL THE TIME. IS THERE ANY -- .

I DON'T ENOUGH ABOUT THEIR PLANT, BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT MR. CAROL, WHO LIVES IN SPICEWOOD, AND OTHER FOLKS WENT DOWN THERE AND THEY TOOK PICTURES OF AIR QUALITY PROBLEMS AT THE PLANT WHERE YOU CAN SEE THE DUST PLUMES COMING OFF OF IT. YOU CAN ALSO SEE IN THE GRASS ALL THE AROUND THE PLANT WHERE THE CONCRETE HAS BEEN JUST BASICALLY MASHED INTO THE GRASS AND STUFF. IT CREATES THESE PATSDS THAT LOOK LIKE DIRT PATHS, BUT IF YOU TOUCH THEM YOU CAN SEE IT'S ACTUALLY HARDENED CONCRETE DUST. THERE'S CLEARLY EMISSIONS COMING FROM THAT PLANT AND THEY'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO IS ANY EMISSIONS LEAVING THE GROUND AND TO ME IT SURE LOOKED LIKE THEY DID.

MAYOR GARCIA: IF YOU DRIVE ON 183 SOUTH AND YOU GET CLOSE TO THAT VALLEY AREA BEFORE YOU GET ON THE BRIDGE TO GO TO THE AIRPORT, THOSE EMISSIONS ARE COMING OUT OF THAT OTHER PLANT. AREN'T THOSE PLANTS PERMITTED? PERMITTED BY TNRCC?

I KNOW, MAYOR, YOU RECENTLY HAD A JOB DOWN AT THE LEGISLATURE AS WELL. AND THE PROBLEM IS MONITORING. THE PROBLEM IS THAT ONCE THESE PLANTS GET THEIR PERMITS TO OPERATE, NO ONE COMES BY AND SEES IF THEY'RE COMPLYING. YOU RELY ON CITIZEN COMPLAINTS.

MAYOR GARCIA: WE PRESUMABLY.......... PRESUMABLY -- WE CLOSE SOME OF THOSE LOOP HOLES AND GAVE THEM SOME MONEY. BUT YOU'RE SAYING THAT THEY'RE STILL NOT THERE.

I WON'T SAY THAT BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW THAT FOR A FACT. BUT I WILL SAY THAT IN THE END THE PAST OBVIOUSLY I THINK MOST OF US UNDERSTAND THAT TNRCC IS OVERWORKED, UNDERSTAFFED AND THEY MAINLY DEAL IN PERMITTING, BUT NOT MONITORING FACILITIES LIKE THIS.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. [ONE MOMENT, PLEASE, WHILE CAPTIONERS CHANGE] DR.

THEN WE DID GO DOWN TO THE DEL VALLE SITE TO DO A PROTEST IN FRONT OF THEIR SITE. AT THIS POINT WE NOTICED THAT THE BACK PARTED OF THAT SEEMED TO BE PRETTY COVERED WITH CONCRETE. SO I WENT BACK ON MY OWN AND GOT PERMISSION FROM THE NEIGHBORS THAT LIVE ON THE SIDE TO GO DOWN BEHIND THROUGH THEIR PROPERTY AND TAKE A LOOK BEHIND THERE. I WAS THE ONE THAT TOOK THE INITIAL PICTURES OF THE -- AGAIN, I'M VERY OFFENDED BY THE WORD SPILL. THIS IS NOT A SPILL. THIS IS AN ONGOING, CONTINUOUS EVENT THAT'S HAPPENING OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME. AND VERY MUCH OF IT VERY RECENT. I HAVE WORKED WITH CON CREATED A LOT. I'M BUILDING -- CONCRETE A LOT, I BUILDING MY OWN HOUSE, I HAVE DONE MY OWN CONCRETE WORK. WHEN YOU CLEAN UP YOUR WHEEL BARREL OR CONCRETE MIXING, CONCRETE TRUCK YOU MAKE KIND OF A SLURRY IS WHAT ENDS UP HAPPENING, THEY WERE DUMPING THE REMAINS OF WHAT THEY HAD LEFT FROM JOBS AT THE BACK OF THE SITE, VERY OBVIOUSLY, IT'S A SLURRY, NOT YOUR PRESCRIBED CONCRETE MIX. BECAUSE THERE'S FAR TOO MUCH WATER. THAT SLURRY NEVER REALLY COMPLETELY HARDENS. MY RESPONSE TO THE LCRA TESTING OF THE RIVER WOULD BE GO DOWN THERE WHEN IT'S RAINING. WHICH THEY NEVER DO. THAT'S NEVER DONE. THEY DON'T GO OUT AND TEST IN THE RAIN. BUT GO TEST WHEN IT'S RAINING OR WE HAD ONE OF OUR HEAVY RAINS THAT WE HAVE, SEE WHAT KIND OF RUNOFF IS GOING INTO THE RIVER. BECAUSE OF THIS DOESN'T COMPLETELY HARDEN. IT'S HARD, BUT IT WILL WASH DOWN. I HAVE BEEN DOWN THERE THREE, MAYBE FOUR TIMES NOW. IT MAKES ME SICK, MORE EVERY TIME I GO DOWN THERE. THIS IS -- OBVIOUSLY A VERY DEFINITELY A RULT OF CONTINUOUS SLURRY DUMPING FROM CLEANING UP TRUCKS AND FROM THE REMAINS OF CONCRETE FROM JOBS. SO WE DECIDED AT THE POINT IN TIME THAT I INITIALLY DISCOVERED THIS, THAT WE WOULD WAIT. WE DIDN'T CALL THIS TO THE ATTENTION OF TNRCC OR THE CITY OR ANYONE AT THAT IMMEDIATE TIME. UNTIL WE UNDERSTOOD THAT THEY WERE ABOUT TO GET THE CONTRACT IN JUNE, WHEN YOU HAD YOUR CITY COUNCIL MEETING IN JUNE [BUZZER SOUNDING]. SO THAT'S WHEN THE PRESS GOT INVOLVED, THAT'S HOW THIS ALL CAME ABOUT. AND I WOULD BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

LET ME ASK YOU ONE QUICK QUESTION. DID YOU INDICATE THAT YOU WORKED IN CONCRETE COMPANIES?

I WORKED CAN CONCRETE AS A CONSTRUCTION WORKER FOR YEARS. WHEN I WAS YOUNGER.

MAYOR GARCIA: WHAT DO THE CONCRETE COMPANIES DO WITH THE SLURRY?

MY UNDERSTANDING FROM TALKING TO CONCRETE COMPANIES OVER IN OUR AREA NEAR MARBLE FALLS, THEY EITHER HAVE -- LAND THAT -- LAND OWNERS WANTING THEM TO FILL IN AND THEY HAVE A PERMIT TO DO THAT OR THEY TAKE IT TO PRESCRIBED LANDFILL AND DO AWAY WITH IT THERE RATHER THAN DUMP IT ILLEGALLY.

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU DON'T KNOW SPECIFICALLY WHAT THEY DO?

NO, I COULD NOT TELL YOU WHAT EACH ONE OF THEM DOES SPECIFICALLY. I KNOW THERE'S A VARIETY OF THINGS DONE.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COUNCIL, THAT'S ALL THE SPEAKERS THAT WE HAVE ON THIS ITEM. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF? ANY MOTIONS?

WYNN: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

WYNN: BASED ON ADVICE FOR LEGAL, I WILL HOLD MY TONGUE AND SIMPLY MOVE THAT WE REJECT THIS BID.

SECOND.

MAYOR GARCIA: THERE'S A MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN TO REJECT THE BID. IS THERE A SECOND FROM COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS? YES. OKAY.

SLUSHER: MAYOR? > MY ADVICE IS THAT WE PULL IT -- PULL THE ITEM SO THAT WE CAN DETERMINE WHETHER WE COULD GO TO THE SECOND AND THIRD BIDDERS. AT THIS POINT IN TIME WE DON'T KNOW. SO THE ADVICE WOULD BE TO PULL THE ITEM BECAUSE IF IT'S REJECTED THEN WE WILL PROBABLY HAVE TO GO AND REBID. THAT WILL TAKE SOME TIME.

WYNN: I SIT CORRECTED.

MAYOR GARCIA: DO YOU WANT TO MOVE TO POSTPONE?

WYNN: I WILL MOVE POSTPONEMENT. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR THAT --

MAYOR GARCIA: I ALLOW THE STAF TO LOOK AT THIS -- AT THE ISSUES THAT THE CITY MANAGER BROUGHT UP?

GARZA: MAYOR AND COUNCIL I THINK -- I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THE CITY ATTORNEY, BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE ARE GOING TO NEED TO HAVE IS THAT WE HAVE USED THIS PRODUCT AND THERE HAS BEEN ACQUISITION OF RESOURCES FROM RAINBOW FOR DIFFERENT CITY PROJECTS AND A PORTION OF THIS ITEM THAT YOU HAVE ON THE AGENDA IS FOR RATIFICATION AT A MINIMUM WE NEED TO HAVE THE AUTHORIZATION TO PAY RAINBOW'S -- RAINBOW MATERIALS FOR WHAT IN FACT WE HAVE USED. WE CAN TAKE THE PIECE THAT YOU ARE SAYING PROSPECT ACTIVELY YOU WANT US TO GO BACK AND EVALUATE, WE GO BACK AND EVALUATE THE THINGS THAT YOU WANT US TO EVALUATE PRIOR!O ANY FUTURE CONTRACTS BEING BROUGHT BACK TO COUNCIL OR WHETHER IN FACT WE REBID THE WHOLE THING.

MAYOR GARCIA: IN ESSENCE, CITY MANAGER, THERE WAS CONCRETE BOUGHT FROM THEM WITHOUT COUNCIL ACTION. YOU ARE ASKING US TO RATIFY SO THEY CAN BE PAID.

MAYOR GARCIA: YES, SIR.

MAYOR GARCIA: CAN THAT --

GARZA: YES, SIR.

MAYOR GARCIA: CAN THAT BE INCLUDED IN YOUR MOTION?

WYNN: I GUESS HOW MUCH THE POSTED ITEM -- APPARENTLY WE ARE PURCHASING A CONTRACT NOT TO EXCEED $96,000. FOR A TOTAL CONTRACT NOT TO EXCEED $288,000. HOW MUCH OF THIS 96,000 HAVE WE ALREADY USED?

IT'S THE 96,000 THAT IS THE RATIFICATION IN WHICH CHANGED THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT UP TO THAT 200,000. THEN WE HAD ASKED THAT YOU GO AHEAD AND APPROVE THE ADDITIONAL CONTRACT --

MAYOR GARCIA: APPROPRIATE --

FOR THE 240,000 PER EXTENSION. SO THE 96 JUST RAISED THE CURRENT -- WE HAVE A CURRENT CONTRACT IN FORCE WITH THEM. WE ARE NOT -- WE ARE NOT USING A CONTRACT THAT DIDN'T EXIST. IT DOES EXIST. IT WAS NOT EXTENDED BECAUSE WE PUT EVERYTHING ON HOLD PENDING THE OUTCOME OF THE INVESTIGATION. WE WENT AHEAD AND USED THE CONTRACT, BUT WE DID NOT HAVE THE EXTENSION AUTHORIZED. SO THERE WAS A -- WE HAVE USED THAT SAME ORIGINAL CONTRACT PRICE. NOW WE NEED TO PAY FOR THAT SIX MONTHS USE SINCE THE JUNE ACTION. SO IT WAS ABOUT 96,000 DOLLARS NEEDS TO BE RATIFIED FOR PAYMENT. THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO DO.

WYNN: FRANKLY, I FIND IT A LITTLE FRUSTRATING THAT WE ARE NOW RAT FLYING IN ARREARS ON A CONTROVERSIAL SUPPLIER LIKE THIS. MY -- IT CONCERNS ME THEN THAT BECAUSE WE HAVE THIS CONTRACT IN PLACE, THAT APPARENTLY STAFF HAS NO PROBLEM WITH EXCEEDSING THE MANAGER'S SPENDING LIMIT THAT WE CONTINUE TO DO THIS, SO IN FACT, YOU KNOW, I WILL MOVE THAT WE PAY RAINBOW MATERIAL FOR CONCRETE THAT WE HAVE USED AND I MOVE THAT WE TERMINATE ANY EXISTING CONTRACT WE HAVE WITH RAINBOW MATERIALS IMMEDIATELY -- IMMEDIATELY AND THEN WE -- EFFECTIVE POSTPONE THEN THE SECOND HALF OF THIS POSTED ITEM UNTIL STAFF CAN ANALYZE WHAT THE SITUATION MIGHT BE LEGALLY WITH THE SECOND BIDDER.

LET ME JUST ASK ONE OTHER QUESTION. WHAT ABOUT THE SMALLER CONTRACTS WITH RAINBOW? BECAUSE WE HAVE SOME THAT ARE NOT COUNCIL LIMIT AND ARE NOT EVEN FORMAL BID LIMIT. THESE ARE SOME THAT HAVE BEEN SPOT CONTRACTS DONE FOR PARKS TO DO SOME OF THEIR WORK AND SOME OF THAT -- ARE YOU SAYING ALL RAINBOW CONTRACTS --

MAYOR GARCIA: I DON'T THINK WE CAN DO THAT IN THIS ACTION ITEM. BECAUSE THIS IS NOT POSTED TO DO THAT. SO THE -- THE COUNCILMEMBER'S MOTION IS THAT WE PAY RAINBOW WHAT WE OWE THEM, BUT UNDER THIS CONTRACT THAT WE DO NOT BUY ANYTHING FROM THEM ANYMORE.

OKAY.

MAYOR GARCIA: AND THAT ON THE $240,000, WHICH GETS THE CONTRACT TO $960,000, THAT WE POSTPONE ACTION SO THAT YOU ALL CAN GO BACK AND LOOK TO SEE IF -- WHAT IT IS THAT YOU NEED TO DO. BECAUSE THE CITY ATTORNEY HAD TOLD ME THAT THEY NEED TO DO THAT. IS THAT -- DOES THAT STATE THE MOTION?

MAYOR, YES, SIR.

I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER.

SLUSHER: I CERTAINLY AGREE WITH WHAT COUNCILMEMBER WYNN IS TRYING TO DO. I WANT TO MAKE SURE WHAT ALL OF THE IMPACTS ARE. NOW, THE WAY I UNDERSTAND IT, THE REASON THE RATIFICATION IS BEFORE US TODAY IS BECAUSE WHEN THIS CONTRACT CAME UP, THE CONTRACT WITH RAINBOW CAME UP SEVERAL MONTHS AGO, IT WAS POSTPONED BECAUSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS AND THEN THEY WENT ON A MONTH TO MONTH AT THAT TIME. THAT'S CORRECT, ISN'T IT? OKAY. AND WHAT WOULD THIS DO TO THE SAND HILL PLANT CONSTRUCTION?

GARZA: I WOULD IMAGINE IT WOULDN'T AFFECT IT. WE WOULD HAVE TO REBID AND GET CONCRETE FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE. WE WOULD HAVE TO STOP WHATEVER IT IS THAT WE ARE DOING, IF IT IS CONCRETE THAT WE ARE STILL NEEDING.

SLUSHER: SO IF WE CUT OFF THE CONTRACT TODAY, WITH RAINBOW, THAT'S GOING TO MEAN STOPPING CONSTRUCTION ON THE SOUTH HILL PLANT.

WE HAVE TO MAKE AN ASSESSMENT IN TERMS OF WHAT THIS CONTRACT WAS SUPPLYING. BUT WE DON'T HAVE AUTHORIZATION TO SPEND AGAINST IT. WE WILL HAVE TO FIND SOME OTHER WAY TO DEAL WITH THAT OR REBID --

SLUSHER: IS THAT SOMETHING LIKE TOMORROW YOU CAN'T BRING THE TRUCK IN TOMORROW BECAUSE THEN THE CONSTRUCTION HAS SLOWED DOWN -- [INAUDIBLE]

MAYOR GARCIA: CITY MANAGER AUTHORIZATION UP TO $40,000 TO BUY THAT CONCRETE UNTIL WE GET A CONTRACT BACK TO US, RIGHT?

SLUSHER: OKAY. WELL, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE NOT HAVING ANY UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES ON OUR UTILITY PLANT CONSTRUCTION, WHICH IS EXCEEDING ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS BY THE WAY.

TO THE EXTENT THAT WE CREATE ANY UNSAFE SITUATION, WE WILL NOT USE ANY CONCRETE. BUT IF -- BY VIRTUE OF STOPPING WE CREATE AN UNSAFE SITUATION, WE WILL HAVE TO CONTINUE ON AN EMERGENCY BASIS. I WILL REPORT THAT TO THE CITY MANAGER IMMEDIATELY. BUT THAT'S -- THAT'S THE SITUATION THAT I WOULD FORESEE THAT WE WOULD NOT WANT TO GET INTO.

DOES THIS GET US INTO THAT ACTION THAT THE COUNCIL HAS ON THE TABLE?

I AM NOT AWARE THAT IT WILL AT THIS TIME. WE WILL ASSESS THAT.

SLUSHER: BUT THIS IS NOT GOING TO RESULT IN A SLOWDOWN OF THE CONSTRUCTION ON THE SAND HILL PLANT?

IT POTENTIALLY WILL CAUSE SOME SLOWDOWNS. I NEED TO JUST ASSESS THE EFFECT IT WILL HAVE -- IT WILL HAVE AN EFFECT BECAUSE WE HAVE TO HAVE CONCRETE. WE JUST NEED TO ASSESS WHETHER WE CAN GET A CONTRACT FROM ANOTHER SOURCE, WHETHER WE HAVE THE CONTRACTS IN PLACE, THAT ENABLE US TO ACCESS THAT -- THAT CONCRETE, I NEED TO JUST SIMPLY GO BACK, ASSESS THAT, REPORT RIGHT BACK TO THE CITY MANAGER AND GET BACK TO YOU IMMEDIATELY.

SLUSHER: OKAY. BUT THERE ARE OTHER PROVIDERS OF THIS PRODUCT, AS WE CAN TELL.

AS I UNDERSTAND IT PERSONALLY, THEY DO ALLOW US TO PROCEED ON EMERGENCY BASIS AS LONG AS WE ALL RIGHT TO THE CITY MANAGER, THAT HE FORWARDS THE INFORMATION TO YOU ALL. SO -- SO I WOULDN'T ALLOW THE PROJECT TO EITHER -- TO CREATE AN UNSAFE SITUATION OR TO PLACE AN UNNECESSARY BURDEN, EXPENSE ON THE CITY, SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THIS ACTION. I WOULD WANT TO REPORT BACK AND MOVE FORWARD IF THE SITUATION REQUIRES IT.

SLUSHER: OKAY. LET'S GET A -- CAN I GET A SUMMARY OF THE EXACT MOTION THAT'S ON THE TABLE NOW?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO PROVIDE A SUMMARY OF THAT MOTION?

WYNN: YES, THANK YOU, MAYOR. I BELIEVE THE MOTION WOULD BE AS POSTED ON ITEM NO. 39, TO RATIFY IN ARREARS THE SIX-MONTH EXTENSION OF THE SUPPLY AGREEMENT WITH RAINBOW MATERIALS, UP TO THE $96,000 THAT HAS BEEN SPENT. PERIOD.

SLUSHER: THEN WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE -- ARE WE REJECTING THE BID OR POSTPONING A DECISION ON THAT?

WYNN: I GUESS MY QUESTION IS DO WE ACTUALLY NEED TO POSTPONE THE SECOND HALF OF THIS ACT OR BY NOT TAKING ACTION IS IT EFFECT 12 POSTPONED.

IT WILL BE POSTPONED. IF THERE IS A WAY TO -- TO LEGALLY COME BACK WITH A SECOND AND THIRD BIDDER, IT WILL JUST APPEAR IN A FUTURE AGENDA. IF IT HAS TO BE REBID, I WOULD THINK STAFF WOULD KNOW THAT IT NEEDS TO BE REBID.

SLUSHER: ALL RIGHT. I WOULD ADD A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO BEGIN FOR THE STAFF TO BEGIN DEVELOPING NEW STANDARDS FOR CONCRETE -- FOR CONTRACTS THAT REQUIRE CONCRETE TO REFLECT ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE AND THAT WE HAVE LOOKED AT THE ENVIRONMENTAL PRACTICES OF THE COMPANIES. I THINK THAT IT MAY NOT BE QUITE AS EASY AS IT SOUNDS, BECAUSE AS MAYOR GARCIA WAS POINTING OUT, THERE ARE OTHER -- THERE'S SOME POLLUTION INVOLVED IN CREATING CONCRETE. I THINK MR. BLIZZARD POINTED THAT OUT AS WELL. SO I -- WE MIGHT NOT BE -- WELL, HERE'S ONE THAT DOESN'T POLLUTE, HERE'S ONE THAT DOES, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO PROBABLY JUST GO BY WHETHER THEY ARE IN COMPLIANCE OR NOT, BUT I WOULD INSTRUCT THE STAFF AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT IF IT'S ACCEPTED TO GET TO WORK ON DEVELOPMENT OF THOSE STANDARDS.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN IS THAT AN ACCEPTABLE AMENDMENT, FRIENDLY AMENDMENT?

WYNN: YES, IT IS.

ALVAREZ: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: JUST A SECOND. COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS IS THAT A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT?

THOMAS: YES.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ?

ALVAREZ: I WOULD FURTHER ADD THEN, EXTENDING ON WHAT COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER SAID, IS THAT IF WE ARE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND POSTPONE IT AND BRING IT BACK, IS THAT WE ASSESS ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE. TO ME IT SEEMS LIKE THAT'S THE ONLY WAY THAT YOU ARE GOING TO BE FAIR TO ALL OF THE COMPANIES INVOLVED. I WOULD OFFER THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

MAYOR GARCIA: IS THAT A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

WYNN: YES, IT IS.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS, THAT A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT?

THOMAS: YOU MEAN THE SECOND AND THIRD? RIGHT. I GO ALONG WITH THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: ALL RIGHT. DOES EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND THE MOTION?

SLUSHER: LET ME ASK THE CITY ATTORNEY. SEE, I WAS LOOKING AT -- I DO THINK WHAT I JUST SAID ABOUT THERES ALL OF THE CONCRETE COMPANIES PROBABLY PLUTO A CERTAIN EXTENT. -- POLLUTE TO A CERTAIN EXTENT. BUT IT LOOKS LIKE TO ME THIS ONE MAY BE OVER THE EDGE AS COMPARED TO THE REST OF THEM. I AGREE WITH COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ, WE SHOULD TRY TO FIND THAT OUT. BUT I WANT TO -- THAT WAS NOT PART OF THE BID. OF THE SPECS. ON THE BID. SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T GET IN ANY KIND OF TROUBLE BY ADDING THAT IN AS AN EVALUATION BEFORE WE AWARD THE CONTRACT. IF WE WERE REJECTING IT, THEN ON THE FUTURE BIDS WE WANT TO HAVE STRONGER ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS, I THINK THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

THEY MAY BE. MOST OF OUR CONTRACTS, ALL OF THE CONTRACTS PROBABLY AS A CLAUSE SAYS THAT CONTRACTORS HAVE TO COMPLY WITH STATE AND FEDERAL LAW, ALL RELEVANT LAWS. SO TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY ARE IN VIOLATION OF A LAW THAT'S BEEN ESTABLISHED, THEN WE WOULD HAVE A BASIS WITHIN THE SPECIFICATIONS TO -- TO TAKE ACTION. BUT IF WE WANT TO GO FURTHER THAN THAT, IN CREATING SOME OTHER KIND OF STANDARDS, THAT PROBABLY WOULDN'T EXIST IN OUR -- IN OUR BID SPECIFICATIONS TODAY.

SLUSHER: SO THAT'S THE SPIRIT OF YOUR AMENDMENT; IS THAT CORRECT, COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ?

ALVAREZ: YES, THAT'S CORRECT.

SLUSHER: OKAY, THANK YOU. OKAY, THAT'S ALL THAT I HAVE.

GOODMAN: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYOR PRO TEM?

GOODMAN: THERE'S ONE MORE THING THAT WE MIGHT LIKE TO HAVE. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE AMENDED ON TO THIS MOTION, BUT EVERY SO OFTEN FOLKS DO WONDER ABOUT THE STANDARDS AND CONSTRAINTS FOR AWARDING CONTRACTS. IN THIS CASE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT VIOLATIONS OF ORDINANCE OR OTHER REGULATIONS. BUT WE DO KNOW, TOO, THEN ON OCCASION THERE HAVE BEEN BUSINESSES WE HAVE BEEN HANDED THE RECOMMENDATION ON FOR THE FIRST OUR MOST COMPLIANT BIDDER WHO HAD A TRACK RECORD WITH US THAT WAS NOT ONE THAT NECESSARILY GAVE YOU CONFIDENCE IN THE FACT THAT SOMETIMES THEY WERE EVEN SUING US. SO IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO LAY OUT ALL OF THE LEGAL CONSTRAINTS, THAT AS A PUBLIC GOVERNMENT IN A PURCHASING PROCESS WE HAVE TO COMPLY WITH OURSELVES IN AWARDING BID -- TO BID RESPONSES.

WE WILL ADVISE COUNCIL ON THOSE ISSUES.

GOODMAN: I THINK THE PUBLIC WOULD LIKE TO KNOW, TOO.

ALVAREZ: MAYOR? I GUESS I'M WONDERING, SO WHEN WE SEE THIS AGAIN, IT'S GOING TO COME IN THIS SAME FORM WITH THESE SAME BIDS AND THE ORDER -- I MEAN, I GUESS THE RANKING OR WHATEVER THAT THINK RECEIVED IN -- THAT THEY RECEIVED IN TERMS OF THE BID ITSELF, OR IS STAFF GOING TO MAKE AT SOME POINT A DETERMINATION THAT IT'S GOING TO BE REBID WITHOUT BRINGING IT BACK. LET ME TRY TO ADDRESS THAT.

GARZA: I STRONGLY BELIEVE, ONCE THE STAFF AND I KNOW THAT THE LAW DEPARTMENT WANTS TO GO THROUGH A REVIEW OF THIS, BUT I STRONGLY BELIEVE ONCE WE HAVE DETERMINED THAT THE BIDDER IS RESPONSIVE, ON A STRAIGHT UP COMPETITIVE BID PROCESS, THAT THERE IS NOT AN OPTION TO GO TO THE SECOND BIDDER, WHAT WE GO TO IS AN OPTION OF REJECTING ALL OF THE BIDS AND BEGINNING AGAIN. OTHERWISE YOU THROW THE BIDDING PROCESS INTO A BIT OF CHAOS BECAUSE IT'S A CATCH AS CATCH CAN DEPENDING ON THE CONTRACT. WE WILL ALLOW THE REVIEW TO GO THROUGH, WE WILL MAKE A DETERMINATION AND REPORT BACK TO COUNCIL WHERE THAT IS. BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO FIND OUT WHEN THEY GO THROUGH THE REVIEW. THE SECOND THING --

ALVAREZ: BUT IT WILL COME BACK TO US.

GARZA: AT THIS POINT WE WILL BRING IT BACK, THEN THE COUNCIL WILL CHOOSE TO REJECT THE BIDS, WE WILL START ALL OVER. THE SECOND THING IS THAT UNDER THE -- THE MAYOR INDICATED THE MANAGER'S AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO PURCHASES. I BELIEVE THE CONTRACTUAL AUTHORITY AT AUSTIN ENERGY IS 100,000. SO THOSE -- BECAUSE THAT'S THE AUTHORITY THAT THE DIRECTOR HAS FOR THAT AND SO WE WILL HAVE TO GO BACK AND EVALUATE IN TERMS OF HOW THEY DEAL WITH SOME OF THEIR PROJECTS. WE WILL HAVE TO COME BACK AND REPORT TO COUNCIL HOW OTHER PROJECTS COULD BE IMPACTED BY NOT HAVING A SUPPLIER OF CONCRETE. FINALLY, THAT THE EVALUATION OF ALL OF THE -- OF THE BIDS, HAS TO BE ON THE BASIS OF WHICH CRITERIA YOU HAVE ESTABLISHED IN YOUR BID PROCESS. YOU CAN'T CREATE A NEW CRITERIA AND SAY BY THE WAY I'M GOING TO HOLD THIS CRITERIA FOR ALL OF YOU THAT MAY NOT BE THE FAIREST WAY TO APPROACH THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND THIS MOTION? READY TO VOTE IN ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. OPPOSED, NO. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NOW, I HATE TO ANNOUNCE THIS, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT I'M GOING TO GET BOOED, BUT I'M GOING TO DO IT ANYWAY. FIRST OF ALL, ITEM Z-15, THOSE OF YOU THAT ARE HERE FOR ITEM Z-15, THAT HAS BEEN POSTPONED AT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST UNTIL JANUARY THE 31ST. LINDA FINDLEY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THAT ONE. MESS FINDLEY WE WILL NOT BE TAKING UP THAT ITEM TODAY. ITEM Z-3 AND Z-4, I DON'T HAVE ANYBODY SIGNED UP ON THOSE ITEMS, BUT BOTH OF THOSE ITEMS ARE ALSO POSTPONED UNTIL JANUARY 31ST. NOW THAT'S NOT THE PART THAT I FELT THAT I WAS GOING TO GET BOOED ON. THE PART THAT I AM GOING TO GET BOOED ON IS THAT ITEM Z-1 HAS -- HAS 53 SPEAKERS. AND I THINK I CAN LOOK AT EVERYBODY'S FACE AND CONFIRM THAT WE DO HAVE 53 SPEAKERS. BUT WE ALSO -- YES, SIR?

WE ARE NOT GOING TO ALL SPEAK.

MAYOR GARCIA: I UNDERSTAND. BUT YOU ARE GOING TO GIVE THE TIME TO SOMEBODY ELSE.

[INAUDIBLE].

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. HERE'S THE DILEMMA THAT I HAVE. I HAVE A BUNCH OF HIGH PRICED LAWYERS, WE ARE UP TO 94 NOW, SORRY ABOUT THAT. IT'S NOT 53, IT'S 94. I HAVE A BUNCH OF HIGH PRICED LAWYERS SITTING IN THAT ROOM OVER THERE, THAT ARE GOING TO BRIEF THE COUNCIL ON AN ISSUE THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS AND I WILL ASK THE CITY ATTORNEY ABOUT HOW LONG THAT'S GOING TO TAKE. IN THIS MEETING, THE FIRST ONE FOR THE YEAR 2002, WE HAVE BEEN RIGHT ON TIME ON EVERYTHING, SO THIS IS GOING TO BE A DEVIATION FROM THAT. [ LAUGHTER ].

IT DEPENDS ON THE NUMBER OF QUESTIONS. BUT I THINK IT COULD TAKE UP TO 30 MINUTES.

MAYOR GARCIA: IF YOU ALL DON'T MIND WAITING FOR 30 MINUTES, RIGHT. THAT WAY YOU CAN LET THE TRAFFIC GO DOWN [ LAUGHTER ]. GET HOME LEISURELY. ALSO, MS. RAWLINGS, THERE WAS A -- THERE WAS A DISCUSSION GOING ON AT CITY HALL TODAY THAT YOU ALL MAY HAVE BEEN TALKING WITH THE APPLICANT AND THAT YOU ALL COULD MAKE YOUR PRESENTATIONS IN AN PINPOINT FORECASTED MANNER.

YES. -- IN AN ABBREVIATED MANNER.

WE TALKED ABOUT 45 MINUTES A SIDE. WE HAD A PROBLEM ORGANIZING BECAUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE CAME IN AT ONE TIME, STARTING SIGNING CARDS, WE HAD A LITTLE CHAOS. WE WERE HOPING ACTUALLY IF WE COULD GET THE CARDS FROM YOU, WE COULD PROBABLY ORGANIZE THEM DOWN, BECAUSE NOT EVERYONE IS GOING TO SPEAK. WE CAN CERTAINLY STICK -- TRY TO STICK TO THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: I HEARD 15 MINUTES A SIDE. COULD WE SETTLE ON 30?

MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT 45, BUT WE WERE GOING TO TRY TO SHOOT FOR 30 IF WE COULD.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. HERE'S THE CARDS. WHY DON'T YOU GO THROUGH THEM WHILE WE GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH FOR ALLOWING US TO SAVE A LITTLE MONEY FOR THE CITY. I WILL RECESS THE MEETING OF THE COUNCIL AT THIS TIME AND WE WILL RECONVENE FOLLOWING CONSIDERATION OF -- OF ITEM NO. 2 IN THE EXECUTIVE SESSION, WE WILL GO INTO A CLOSED SESSION, CHAPTER 551 OF THE TEXAS GOVER9ENT CODE FOR PRIVATE CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEYS, -- IF YOU COULD JUST HOLD OFF FOR JUST A SECOND ON YOUR DISCUSSIONS SO I CAN ANNOUNCE THIS,E CAN GET OUT OF HERE FAST. PRIVATE CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY UNDER SECTION 551.071, DISCUSS LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO LONGHORN PARTNERS PIPELINE VERSUS THE CITY OF AUSTIN, ALSO THE ETHYL SPILLER CASE. WE ARE RECESSED, WE WILL BE BACK FOLLOWING --

MAYOR, WOULD IT BE AT ALL POSSIBLE TO LET -- THERE WERE A COUPLE OF CHILDREN WHO WANTED TO SPEAK AND THEN GO HOME. JUST A COUPLE. WOULD IT BE FOR BUILDING TO LET THE COUNCIL HEAR FROM THEM? BEFORE YOU BREAK? AND THEN WE CAN CLEAR OUT A LOT OF PEOPLE I THINK.

MAYOR GARCIA: UM ... WHAT HAPPENS ROCHELLE IS THAT WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH A WHOLE PRESENTATION OF ALL OF -- ALL OF THE ZONING CASES THAT ARE TIME CERTAIN AT 4:00. WE WILL MAKE THIS BRIEF AND WE WILL BE BACK.

OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.  

MAYOR GARCIA: EVERYBODY, HELLO THERE. SO THAT EVERYBODY CAN GET IN THE RIGHT MOOD TO DO THIS NEXT ITEM THAT EVERYBODY IS HERE TO DO, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A LITTLE MUSIC, YOU KNOW. THE IDEA BEHIND HAVING MUSIC IS TO TAME ALL OF THE MUSIC THAT WE HAVE INSIDE. THAT'S WHAT MAYOR PRO TEM MAX NOFZIGER SAYS WHILE HE WAS TALKING ABOUT HIRING MUSICIANS. THE LADY -- IS THAT THE SINGER? I WILL WAIT UNTIL THE SINGER THAT GETS BACK. FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT ARE NEW TO CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS, WE USUALLY AT THIS TIME OF THE DAY HAVE MUSIC AND TODAY WE HAVE THE BLUES SPECIALISTS, A BAND THAT WAS ESTABLISHED BY TWO OF AUSTIN'S BLUES LEGENDS, FOHEBE AND ERBIE BOWSER, THE BAND HAS BEEN TOGETHER FOR 12 YEARS, PERFORMING AT NUMEROUS FESTIVALS AND CLUBS AROUND THE WORLD. CURRENT BAND MEMBERS INCLUDE MEL DAVIS, THE SINGER, VOCALS, HARMONICS, LAWRENCE BELL PLAYING KEYBOARDS, WELCOME, SIR. ROB RICHARDSON, GUITAR AND VOCALS, RIGHT THERE. LEWIS THOMPSON THE PREMIER SAXOPHONIST IN AUSTIN, HE'S NOT HERE. [ LAUGHTER ]. WELDON GENTRY ON DRUMS. WITH A GREAT DEAL OF PLEASURE THAT I INTRODUCE TO YOU THE BLUES SPECIALIST, AND DECLARE THIS JANUARY 10TH AS BLUES SPECIALISTS TODAY IN AUSTIN. WELCOME, I PRESENT A PROCLAMATION TO THEM.

OUR --

THEY ARE GOING TO PLAY ONE SONG. WE ARE NOT GOING TO TAKE A LOT OF TIME.

[ (music) MUSIC MUSIC PLAYING (music)(music) ]> THE ASSEMBLIES SPECIALISTS.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU SO MUCH, LET'S DO A PROMO, WHERE ARE YOU GOING TO PLAY.

EVERY FRIDAY AT THE CONTINENTAL CLUB AT HAPPY HOUR. DURING HAPPY HOUR.

MAYOR GARCIA: WHERE ELSE?

YES INDEED. PRIMARILY THE CONTINENTAL CLUB AND THEN AT THE VICTORY GRIRL ON THE EAST -- GRILL ON THE EAST SIDE OF TOWN.

THERE YOU HAVE IT. THANK YOU SO MUCH, YOU ARE PART OF THE ECONOMIC ACTIVITY OF THIS COMMUNITY. WE APPRECIATE YOU COMING. [ APPLAUSE ]

MAYOR GARCIA: DID IT WORK? DID EVERYBODY GET NICE AND RELAXED? WE ALMOST HAVE A QUORUM OF THE COUNCIL. WE NEED ONE -- [ LAUGHTER ] -- ONE MORE COUNCILMEMBER. WELL, WE HAVE THREE. WE NEED ONE MORE, CAN SOMEBODY -- ARE YOU RUNNING FOR ELECTION, IS THAT IT? GET SOMEBODY ELSE HERE SO WE CAN HAVE A QUORUM. WE REALLY APPRECIATE YOU ALLOWING US TO HAVE THE MUSIC WHILE THE COUNCILMEMBERS GET ALL OF THE INFORMATION TOGETHER AND GET READY TO -- TO CALL THIS MEETING BACK TO ORDER. WE HAVE ONE MORE -- WE NEED ONE MORE PERSON. PAUL, DO WE HAVE IT? UNO MAS. I'M PRACTICING THIS BECAUSE IN CASE SANCHEZ AND MORALES -- [ LAUGHTER ] -- NEED SOMEBODY FOR THEIR DEBATE, I CAN ALWAYS GO TRANSLATE. I THINK SANCHEZ IS DOING THIS TRICK, BECAUSE MORALES DOESN'T SPEAK THAT GOOD OF SPANISH. WELL, I CAN SAY THOSE KINDS OF THINGS.

MAYOR GARCIA: THERE BEING A QUORUM OF THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS I'M GOING TO CALL THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING BACK TO ORDER. MS. GLASGO, HELLO, HAPPY NEW YEAR.

THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS, HAPPY KNEE YEAR TO ALL OF YOU -- NEW YEAR TO ALL YOU. IT'S MY PLEASURE TO BE HERE IN 2002. CONSENT STEMS, ZOWN ZOWN 100 LOCATED AT -- ITEM NO. Z2, IT WILL REMAIN GR, THE ONLY ACTION IS TO DELETE THE SITE PLAN AND THIS CASE IS READY FOR ALL THREE READINGS. ITEM NO. Z-3, C14-01-111, THIS CASE IS LOCATED IN U.S. HIGHWAY 183 NORTH, THE APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR POSTPONEMENT TO JANUARY THE 31ST. IN ORDER TO RESOLVE SOME -- SOME OWNERSHIP ISSUES THAT HAVE ARISEN. STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT POSTPONEMENT REQUEST. IT'S THE FIRST ONE. ITEM NO. Z-4, C14-97-148, ASSOCIATED WITH ITEM NO. Z-3, COVENANT AMENDMENT, REQUESTING A POSTPONE TO JANUARY THE 31ST, TO THE SAME REASONS I GAVE ON Z-3, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT POSTPONEMENT REQUEST. ITEM NO. Z-5 C14-01-136, THIS CASE IS LOCATED ON SOUTH LAMAR BOULEVARD. THE CHANGE IN ZONING FROM CS TO CS CAN A -- WITH A MIXED USE COMPONENT WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY, THIS REQUEST WAS RECOMMENDED BY THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION, READY FOR ALL THREE READINGS. ITEM NO. Z-6, C14-01-139, LOCATED 4305 AND 4307 WILLOW SPRING ROAD. CHANGE IN ZONING FROM SINGLE FAMILY 3 TO LIMITED INDUSTRIAL WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY AS RECOMMENDED BY THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION, READY FOR ALL THREE READINGS. ITEM NO. Z-7 C14-01-140, LOCATED AT 4306 AND 4308 WILLOW SPRINGS ROAD, ALSO BEING CHANGED FROM SINGLE FAMILY 3 TO LIMITED INDUSTRIAL WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY. IT IS RECOMMENDED BY THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION. THE CASE IS READY FOR ALL THREE READINGS. Z-8, C14-01-141, LOCATED AT 310 EAST ST. ELMO ROAD. 4312 AND 4324 WILLOW SPRINGS ROAD. CHANGE IN ZONING FROM SINGLE FAMILY 3 TO LIMITED INDUSTRIAL WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY. AS RECOMMENDED BY THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION, THE CASE IS READY FOR ALL THREE READINGS. ITEM NO. Z-9 C14-01-144, LOCATED AT 4500 NUCHOLSS CROSSING ROAD, THE CHANGE IN ZONING IS FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE FAMILY 3, MULTI-FAMILY 2 AND 3, TO SINGLE FAMILY 2 FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING, THIS CASE IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL FOR ALL THREE READINGS. ITEM NO. Z-10, LOCATED AT 810 EAST ALPINE ROAD, CASE --

MAYOR GARCIA: MS. GLASGO, LET ME -- OH, THIS PERSON IS NOT GOING TO SPEAK. Z-9 WE HAVE ONE PERSON SIGNED UP. BUT THEY DON'T WANT TO SPEAK. SO THAT --

GO BY CONSENT. OKAY. BACK TO ITEM NO. Z-10, C14-01-142 [SIC] THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A CHANGE FROM LIMITED INDUSTRIAL TO MULTI-FAMILY 6. THIS IS RECOMMENDED AND READY FOR ALL THREE READINGS.

MAYOR GARCIA: I HAVE A CARD ON THAT ONE.

GLASGO: Z-10.

MAYOR GARCIA: TERRY [INAUDIBLE].

I'M THE APPLICANT. I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK.

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU DON'T WANT TO SPEAK.

GLASGO: IT'S THE APPLICANT, CAN GO BY CONSENT THEN? WAS THAT IT, MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: YES.

GLASGO: Z11, DURING 14-01-153 CHANGE IN ZONING FROM LR TO SINGLE FAMILY 3, THIS IS RECOMMENDED AND IS READY FOR FIRST READING ONLY. Z-12 C14-01-155, LOCATED ON U.S. HIGHWAY 183 NORTH, THE CHANGE IN ZONING IS FROM INTERIM RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO GR WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY. THIS CASE IS READY FOR ALL THREE READINGS. ITEM NO. Z-13 C14-01-156, LOCATED ON AVENUE G, THE CHANGE IN ZONING IS FROM SINGLE FAMILY 3 TO P PUBLIC FOR A CITY PARK. THIS CASE IS READY FOR ALL THREE READINGS. ITEM Z-14 C14-01-159 LOCATED AT 3014AFTONSURE WAY, FROM SINGLE OFFICE TO ... READY FOR ALL THREE READINGS. ITEM NO. Z-15 THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY THE 7TH, ALL PARTIES AGREED TO THE POSTPONEMENT REQUEST. ITEM NO. Z-11 I'M TOLD WE HAVE AN ORDINANCE AND THAT CAN GO ON ALL THREE READINGS. THAT CONCLUDES THE CONSENT ITEMS, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY, LET ME SEE IF I HAVE ALL OF THIS CORRECT. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE ON CONSENT FOR ALL THREE READINGS: Z-2, Z-5, Z-6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, AND 14, THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE ON CONSENT FOR POSTPONEMENT ITEMS Z-3 JANUARY 31ST, Z-4 TO JANUARY 31ST AND ITEM Z-15 TO FEBRUARY THE 7TH. IS THAT CORRECT?

GLASGO: THAT'S CORRECT.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MS. GLASGO? ON ANY OF THESE ITEMS? IS THERE --

SLUSHER: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

SLUSHER: I DIDN'T HAVE THE TIME TO CONTACT YOU EARLIER THIS THE WEEK, THE WAY THEY ARE LISTED NOW DON'T HAVE THE ZONING -- WHAT THE -- WHAT IT'S BEING PROPOSED TO BE CHANGED FROM, TO ON THE AGENDA ANYMORE.

GLASGO: CORRECT.

SLUSHER: I LIKE IT BETTER THE OTHER WAY.

GLASGO: MS. MATTER TEE TERRY WILL SPEAK TO THAT. MS. MARTY TERRY WILL SPEAK TO THAT.

ACTUALLY, WE HAVE GOTTEN THAT MESSAGE FROM TINA. WE ARE MOVING TOWARD THE AUTOMATED THE AGENDA. WE ARE TRYING TO STREAMLINE THE AGENDA SO THAT IT FITS WITHIN THE AUTOMATED SYSTEM. AT THE SAME TIME WE WERE TRYING TO MAKE THE POSTINGS SO THAT THEY ARE MORE USER FRIENDLY FOR THE PUBLIC. WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO IN -- BECAUSE OF THE CONCERNS AT BOTH YOUR OFFICE AND COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ'S OFFICES HAS RAISED IS THAT WE WANT TO SEE IF THIS WILL WORK. WHAT WE ARE GOING TO TRY TO DO IS THAT THE FIRST SHEET OF THE BACKUP IS GOING TO -- THE COVER SHEET IS GOING TO BE CHANGED SO THAT IT CONTAINS ALL THE FROMS AND TOES, ALL OF THAT ADDITIONAL -- TOS, ALL OF THAT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT WE USED TO INCLUDE IN THE POSTINGS IN THAT VERY FIRST SLOT THAT YOU WILL HAVE THAT SHEET, YOU CAN PULL IT OUT AND YOU CAN USE IT. WHAT WE WERE RUNNING INTO IS SOME OF OUR POSTINGS WERE RUNNING INTO TWO PAGES LONG. WE HAD A LOT OF CONCERN ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE USER FRIENDLY TO THE PUBLIC. WHETHER THEY WOULD ADEQUATELY FIT WITHIN THE NEW AUTOMATED --

SLUSHER: LET ME MAKE A SUGGESTION ON THAT. IT WAS TRUE THOSE ONES THAT TOOK A PAGE OR TWO TO LIST ALL OF THE ZONING CHANGES THOSE WEREN'T VERY USEFUL. I DON'T THINK ANY OF US, YOU NEEDED A MAP TO FIGURE THAT ONE OUT. BUT WHERE IT'S JUST ONE TRACT, IF WE COULD GET THAT ON THERE, BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE CALLING US UP ON THE INTERNET OR THE PAPER AGENDA AND THEY DON'T HAVE A BACKUP LIKE WE DO. THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT -- THEY MIGHT EVEN SEE, YOU KNOW, AN ADDRESS NEAR THEM. IT DOESN'T SAY WHAT THE ZONING IS, WHAT IT'S GOING TO BE CHANGED TO. WHERE IF IT WAS A LONG LIST LIKE ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS, THEN YOU COULD REFER, THAT WAY -- THAT'S WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST GIVING IT A TRY.

LET US TRY AND WORK WITH YOU ON THAT. WE ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT INCONSISTENT POSTINGS AND INCONSISTENT POSTING LANGUAGE. WHAT THAT LEADS US TO. BUT LET US WORK WITH YOUR OFFICES ON THAT AND LET US TRY AND SEE IF WE CAN REACH SOMETHING THAT IS -- THAT HANDLES ALL OF THE CONCERNS AND MAKES EVERYTHING WORK SMOOTHLY. AND STILL COMPLY WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW.

MAYOR GARCIA: I HAVE THE SAME CONCERNS AS COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. SO -- SO I WOULD -- AGAIN, IT'S -- THE ISSUE OF COMMUNICATING TO THE PUBLIC. WE CAN ACCESS, BUT OTHER PEOPLE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO ACCESS THE INFORMATION.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH? GRIFTD THERE ARE TWO THINGS I THINK IT'S REALLY --

GRIFFITH: THERE ARE TWO THINGS I THINK IT'S REAL IMPORTANT TO HAVE THE POSTING. THAT IS WHAT THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AND WHAT THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS ARE. I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE, NO MATTER HOW LONG OR SHORT IT ENDS UP BEING.

MAYOR GARCIA: I THINK A THIRD ONE IS WHAT THE APPLICANT WANTED.

GRIFFITH: RIGHT. WHAT THE REQUEST WAS.

MAYOR GARCIA: THE REQUEST. OKAY. OKAY? SO MS. TERRY, YOU WILL WORK WITH COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER AND GRIFFITH AND EVERYBODY ELSE TO --

AND THE AGENDA OFFICE, WE WILL SEE WHAT WE CAN DO.

MAYOR GARCIA: AND THE AGENDA OFFICE. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THE CONSENT ITEMS.

SLUSHER: SO MOVE.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH. DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED, NO., MOTION CARRIES ON ALL OF THE ITEMS EXCEPT Z-1. I GUESS ALL OF YOU ARE HERE FORZY 1. I SAW A BUNCH OF YOUNG PEOPLE. HAVE THEY LEFT TO DO THEIR HOME WORK, ROCHELLE?

THEY ARE STILL HERE. WE WILL BRING THEM IN --

MAYOR GARCIA: WHEN ARE THEY GOING TO DO THEIR HOME WORK?

I THINK THEY ARE DOING IT.

MAYOR GARCIA: THIS IS PART OF THE HOME WORK. [ LAUGHTER ].

A QUICK PIZZA BREAK, A CIVICS LESSON.

MAYOR GARCIA: WE PASSED A -- A RESOLUTION TODAY ON EXCELLENCE IN EDUCATION, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL OF THOSE CHILDREN DO THEIR HOME WORK. [ LAUGHTER ].

GLASGO: ITEM Z-1 IS GOING TO BE PRESENTED BY GREG GUERNSEY. WE WILL GIVE YOU A BRIEF OVERVIEW AND THEN SAVE TIME TO THE% THAT WE HAVE BEFORE US.

MAYOR GARCIA: I APPRECIATE YOU ALL WORKING OUT THE TIME SO WE CAN ADDRESS THE ISSUES EFFECTIVELY.

GURENSEY:

GREG GUERNSEY AGAIN, NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AND ZONING, Z-1, C14-01-0072 AT 2701 TO 2717 GUADALUPE STREET AND 2804 TO 1816 HEMPHILL PARK. THE APPLICANT IS VILLAS ON GUADALUPE, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, THE AGENT MR. MIKE McCONE. THIS IS A REZONING REQUEST ON TWO DIFFERENT TRACTS OF LAND BOTH CURRENTLY ZONED CS, GENERAL COMMERCIAL SERVICES DISTRICT. THE FIRST TRACT PROPOSAL WAS FOR MF6 ZONING, THE SECOND TRACT IS FOR CS-MU ZONING. THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION DID MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE MF-6CO FOR TRACT 1 AND CS-MU-CO ZONING FOR TRACT 2 ON THE CONDITIONS THAT ARE STATED IN YOUR BACKUP, BUT THERE ARE DENSITY LIMITATIONS THAT WOULD ARE SIMILAR TO THE MF4 DISTRICT, PROVIDING PARKING AT A RATE OF 1.5 PARKING SPACES PER BEDROOM, TO LIMB THE HEIGHT TO 40 FEET ALONG -- LIMIT THE HEIGHT TO 40 FEET ALONG HEMPHILL PART, 29TH STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR A DEPTH OF 40 FEET TO 100 FEET OF OPEN SPACE PER UNIT, TWO INCHES REQUIRED TO THE PARKING GARAGE, ONE ON 29TH ONE ON [INAUDIBLE], THAT THE MULTI-FAMILY ZONING WRAP AROUND GARAGE ALONG 29TH STREET. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, WE WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM. AS I UNDERSTAND IT THERE'S SOME COUNTRIES TO LIMIT THE TIME PERIOD TO -- SOME CONSENSUS TO LIMIT THE TIME PERIOD. I THINK BOTH SIDES ARE IN AGREEMENT TO THAT TIME. I BELIEVE IT'S 45 MINUTES PER SIDE.

MAYOR GARCIA: 30 MINUTES.

30 MINUTES. WE SETTLED ON THAT. DON'T PUSH IT ANY FURTHER THAN YOU HAVE TO.

SLUSHER: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

SLUSHER: MR. GUERNSEY, I THINK THAT YOU SAID THAT ZAP APPROVED MF6, DIDN'T THEY RECOMMEND MF4.

THEY RECOMMENDED A LOT OF THE DENSITY LIMITATIONS.

NO.

NO?

MAYOR GARCIA: WE WILL GET TO THAT WHEN YOU GUYS SPEAK, OKAY. I WOULD APPRECIATE THE AUDIENCE REACTION TO BE KEPT.

I WILL INVESTIGATE THAT AND COME BACK TO YOU ON THAT.

SLUSHER: THANKS.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR GREG? OKAY. THE WAY WE ARE GOING TO DO THE CITIZENS PARTICIPATION IS THAT WE ARE GOING TO FIRST CALL THE APPLICANT AND HE WILL -- THEY WILL -- THEY ARE GOING TO TAKE 10 TO 15 MINUTES TO MAKE -- DO YOU WANT ME TO PUT 10 MINUTES ON THE CLOCK?

I WOULD PREFER IF WE LEFT IT AT 15. I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF THE SPEAKERS THAT ARE -- BECAUSE OF THE TIME --

MAYOR GARCIA: PUT 15 MINUTES ON THE TIME CLOCK. AND THEY WILL THEN RESERVE THE OTHER 15 MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL. MS. RAWLINGS, YOU WILL BE GIVEN 30 MINUTES AFTER THEIR PRESENTATION, UNLESS YOU WANT TO RESERVE SOME TIME FOR REBUTTAL TO THE REBUTTAL.

[INAUDIBLE - NO MIC].

I THINK WE WOULD PROBABLY LIKE TO RESERVE A LITTLE TIME FOR REBUTTAL.

MAYOR GARCIA: 20 MINUTES FOR YOUR PRESENTATION AND THEN 10 MINUTES FOR YOUR REBUTTAL TO THE REBUTTAL.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. CORRECTION. IT'S THEIR PRESENTATION, THEN YOU HAVE 30 MINUTES FOR YOUR PRESENTATION, AND THEN THEY REBUTT. YOU CAN'T REBUTT THE REBUTTAL. MR. McCONE, HEM, SIR.

WELCOME, HAPPY NEW YEAR. HI NAME IS -- MY NAME IS MIKE MCHONE, I REPRESENT VILLAS ON GUADALUPE LIMITED, I WANT TO THANK THE CITY MANAGER FIRST FOR -- AND HIS STAFF FOR ALL OF HIS YEARS OF SERVICE FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN. I HAD AN OPPORTUNITY ON DECEMBER THE 8TH TO SEE WHAT A GREAT CITY WE HAVE, REALLY. IT'S GOOD TO BE -- TO HAVE A GREAT CITY MANAGER, BUT IT'S PROBABLY A LOT EASIER JOB THAN MANY BELIEVE BECAUSE OF THE GREAT DEDICATED PERSONNEL THAT THE CITY OF AUSTIN HAS WORKING FOR IT. ONE OF THE PROVISIONS OF MOVING FORWARD WITH THE ZONING CASE WAS A PROVISION THAT WE RELOCATE THE ROY THOMAS HOUSE FROM 2812 HEMPHILL PARK TO 1510 SAN ANTONIO. WE ACCOMPLISHED THAT IN THE DRIVING RAIN OF DECEMBER THE 8TH WITH THE DEDICATED HELP OF THE AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT, OUR HERO OF THE DAY HAS TO BE KARL HOWER OF THE ELECTRIC UTILITY DEPARTMENT, WE HAD 25 BUCKET TRUCKS MOVING UP AND DOWN, MOVING SIGNALS OUT OF THE WAY, LIGHTS OUT OF THE WAY, AND IT WAS QUITE AN EXPERIENCE FOR SOMEONE LIKE ME TO HAVE WORKED WITH SUCH DEDICATED PEOPLE TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN. SO I WANTED TO THANK -- TAKE THIS TIME, MR. ZUCHER SENT A LETTER TO THE STATESMAN OFFERING HIS THANKS, BUT IT DIDN'T GET PRINTED, SO I WANTED TO TAKE THIS TIME IN THE PUBLIC FORUM TO THANK EVERYONE INVOLVED IN THAT. THIS IS AT THE 27TH AND GUADALUPE, STRETCHING FROM 27TH TO 29TH. 2.24 ACRE TRACT BOUNDED BY 29TH STREET, HEMPHILL PARK, GUADALUPE STREET. IT'S BEEN ZONED CS AND OVER HALF OF THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN VACANT FOR OVER 15 YEARS. THE ONE OF THE BEST LOCATIONS IN TOWN FOR STUDENT HOUSING. THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS IS LOCATED ACROSS THE STREET AT 27TH STREET STARTING SOUTH AND GOING ON FOR VERY MANY ACRES. THE PROJECT GIVES US AS A CITY AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOCATE DENSE STUDENT HOUSING WHERE STUDENTS CAN WALK TO CAMPUS. THE DEVELOPER HAS AGREED TO DO THE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS AROUND THE PROJECT OF IMPROVING THE SIDEWALKS, IMPROVING THE STREET SCAPES, ALONG AND IN CONCURRENCE WITH THE PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED BY THIS COUNCIL LAST MAY, KNOWN AS THE 23RD STREET PLAN. THIS WILL MAKE THIS A PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY AREA WHERE PEOPLE CAN BIKE OR WALK TO CAMPUS IN A WELL LIT AND SHADED AREA IN THE SUMMERTIME WITHOUT HAVING TO EVER GET IN THE WAY OF CARS AND CROSSING GUADALUPE. SO IT'S ONE OF THOSE RARE PROPERTIES THAT'S ON THE EAST SIDE OF GUADALUPE, SO WE DON'T EVEN GET INVOLVED WITH THE GUADALUPE STREET. IT ALSO IS ON THE PROPOSED LIGHT RAIL LINE. SO WHAT WE ARE DOING IS CREATING A -- WHAT I HAVE LEARNED THROUGH THE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE, A TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT. WHERE THE STUDENTS WILL BE ABLE TO NOT EVER HAVE TO REALLY USE THEIR CARS. IN SPITE OF ALL OF THAT, WE ARE RECOGNIZING THAT STUDENTS DO BRING CARS AND WE ARE BUILDING A STRUCTURED PARKING FACILITY THAT WILL HAVE THE CARS SAFE AND SECURED AWAY FROM -- SO THAT THEY ARE AWAY FROM THE STREET AND THEY ARE IN A SITUATION WHERE THERE WILL NOT BE A PROBLEM. THE NEIGHBORHOOD TALKS ABOUT A LOT OF THINGS AND WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT SOME OF THOSE MYTHS THAT WE BELIEVE THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT. ONE OF THEM IS THAT THIS IS NOT A GOOD PLACE FOR DENSITY OR THAT THE PROJECT IS TOO DENSE. I WILL PASS OUT NOW SOME PICTURES OF PROPERTIES ADJACENT IN THE AREA. OR IN THE GENERAL UNIVERSITY AREA. SOME OF WHICH ARE ADJACENT. TAOA COOPERATIVE AT 1612 GUADALUPE, THE CORNER OF 27TH AND GUADALUPE, FAR IS 3 TO 1. 100% IMPERVIOUS COVER, NO WATER QUALITY, THE ONLY OPEN SPACE IS ON THE TOP OF THE THIRD FLOOR. THERE'S NO LANDSCAPING. ACROSS THE STREET FROM US, 2803 HEMPHILL PARK, THE QUARTERS APARTMENTS, FAR 1.4 TO 1, 100% IMPERVIOUS COVER. NO WATER QUALITY CONTROLS, NO OPEN PACE SPACE, NO LANDSCAPE. 2707 RIO GRANDE, CON TESS SAY -- CONTESSA WEST, SAME SORT OF SITUATION, 1906 PARALLEL STREET, FAR 1.26. VILLAS ON GUADALUPE, 2019, THE FORMER TEXAN DORMITORY, TWO BLOCKS WEST, 1.5 TO 1 FAR. ACROSS THE STREET FROM JOSEPH'S CORNER. PASS THESE OUT TO YOU TO LET YOU KNOW ABOUT THE SITUATION OF DENSITY.

THE FAR IS 1.5, 1 TO 1, FM6 ABOVE THAT. ALL OF THESE PROJECTS ZONED F3 AND M.F. 4 ARE REALLY MF6 OR GREATER BECAUSE THEY DON'T CONFORM TO THE EXISTING ORDINANCES FOR WATER QUALITY, OPEN SPACE, SETBACK OR IMPERVIOUS COVER. TRAFFIC. THEIR OWN TRAFFIC ANALYST HAS SHOWN THAT 163 APARTMENTS, WE REDUCED IT TO 150, A MUCH BETTER SITUATION THAN WOULD EXIST IF WE ARE GOING TO DEVELOP A FAST FOOD RESTAURANT, WHICH THIS CS ZONING WOULD ALLOW. SAFETY. SAFETY IS NOT AN ISSUE. WE DON'T WANT TO HURT KIDS ANY MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE. WE THINK IT'S A GREAT LOCATION. MOST SCHOOLS OR MANY SCHOOLS ARE LOCATED IN THE UNIVERSITY AREA. WE WILL HAVE A SPEAKER LATER ON TO TALK ABOUT SPECIFIC SITUATIONS, BUT WE HAVE THE BAPTIST DAY SCHOOL, THE PRESBYTERIAN DAY SCHOOL, SAINT AUSTIN'S CHURCH SCHOOL, SO WE HAVE LOTS OF SCHOOLS. WE ARE FAMILIAR WITH WORKING WITH SCHOOLS. THEY OPERATE VERY SUCCESSFULLY IN THE UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD. WE ARE NOT DESTROYING ANY RESIDENTIAL AREAS. ALL THE RESIDENCES IN THIS -- ALL OF THE AREA AROUND US, AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE MAP IN FRONT OF ME, SHOWS YOU THE ZONINGS. THIS IS HIGHLY -- RETAIL AND RENTAL AREA FOR STUDENTS. THERE ARE NO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES WITHIN 500 FEET OF THIS PROJECT. THE -- THE QUARTERS, WHICH IS ACROSS THE STREET, WHICH I MENTIONED IN MY PRESENTATION ON THE DENSITY, WE COULD BUILD -- THAT'S 30 UNITS ON 10,000 SQUARE FEET OF LAND. WE COULD BUILD OVER NINE OF THOSE ON THE SITE OF THE VILLAS. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, 270 UNITS. WE ARE NOT PROPOSING ANYWHERE NEAR THAT NUMBER. THEY ONLY HAVE 26 PARKING PLACES AND WE PROPOSE TO HAVE MORE THAN THAT. IN -- AS FAR AS NEIGHBORHOOD INTEGRITY AND COMPATIBILITY, WE THINK THAT THIS DEMONSTRATES THE DENSITY, THAT WE ARE VERY COMPATIBILITY -- COMPATIBLE WITH THAT AREA, IT IS AN OPPORTUNITY THAT SHOULD NOT BE LOST. I'M GOING TO YIELD THE REST OF MY TIME TO OTHER FOLKS WITH THIS COMMENT. IF WE DON'T BUILD UNIVERSITY HOUSING ADJACENT TO THE UNIVERSITY, WE HAVE GOT 50,000 STUDENTS THERE, WE ONLY HAVE 6800 BEDS ON CAMPUS, WHERE DO WE BUILD IT? THIS IS AN IDEAL LOCATION. TO TAKE THE PROPERTY THAT'S BEEN TOTALLY UNDERUTILIZED AND PUT A GOOD, WELL DESIGNED PROJECT AND NOW I BELIEVE WE ARE GOING TO HAVE MR. MITCHELL SPEAK FROM THE CO-OP, THEN TO THE ARCHITECTS.

MR. GEORGE MITCHELL. MR. MITCHELL, WELCOME, SIR.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR AND COUNCIL. MY NAME IS GEORGE MITCHELL. AS HE TOLD YOU, I'M THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY CO-OP. I HAVE BEEN HERE FOR 15 YEARS. BUT I'VE ALSO BEEN AT THREE OTHER UNIVERSITIES, SO I KNOW A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HOUSING AND WHAT GOES ON IN THE AREA. BUT I'M HERE TO SPEAK ON A COUPLE OF ISSUES. FIRST, ONE OF THE PARTNERS IN THIS PROJECT JUST FINISHED A PROJECT VILLAS NUECES A ADJACENT TO ONE OF OUR PROPERTIES. HE HAS BEEN AN EXCELLENT LANDLORD. WE HAVE NO PROBLEMS AT ALL. THE OTHER THING THAT I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS IS THE SCHOOL THAT ALL OF YOU PEOPLE IN RED ARE HERE. I'M NEXT TO THE PRESBYTERIAN NURSERY, BAPTIST CHURCH RIGHT DOWN THE STREET, AIN'T AUSTIN'S. WE HAVE HAD NO PROBLEMS AT ALL WITH STUDENTS INVOLVED IN ANY WAY WITH ANY OF THESE PROJECTS. THE UNIVERSITY CO-OP HAS SPENT OVER $5 MILLION IN THE PAST FIVE OR SIX YEARS UPGRADING OUR PROPERTY FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN. WE FEEL VERY STRONGLY ABOUT THIS AND WHY WE ARE SUPPORTING THE PROJECT LIKE THIS IS LET'S MAKE THE WEST CAMPUS A PROJECT THAT IT SHOULD BE, THAT EVERYBODY CAN BE PROUD TO WALK THE STREETS. SO AS A MEMBER OF THE UNIVERSITY AREA PARTNERS, AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY CO-OP, WE STRONGLY ASK YOU TO PLEASE APPROVE THIS PROJECT. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MR. MIMPCHEL. IS MR. CHILD'S GOING TO BE NEXT? HEAR CHILD, WELCOME, SIR.

GOOD EVENING. COUNCIL, AND COUNCILMEMBERS. MY NAME IS GARY CHILD, I'M A PRESIDENT OF CHILD'S ARCHITECTS, AS YOU CAN TELL MY VOICE IS NOT IN VERY GOOD SHAPE TODAY, SO I'M GOING TO DEFER MOST OF IN I TIME TO JOHN KELLY -- MY TIME TO JOHN KELLY ALSO WITH OUR FIRM, AND IS AN ARCHITECT. I WANT TO TRY TO STRESS AT THIS POINT, THOUGH, THAT THIS IS A VERY APPROPRIATE LOCATION FOR HIGH DENSITY HOUSING. ONE OF THE FEW OPPORTUNITIES THAT WE'VE HAD IN 10 YEARS TO HAVE A LARGE ENOUGH PIECE OF PROPERTY TO MAKE AN IMPACT ON STUDENT HOUSING IN THE UNIVERSITY AREA. JOHN KELLY WILL PRESENT TO YOU THE DIFFERENCES THAT WE HAVE WORKED THROUGH IN -- IN A COMPROMISE PLAN WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP AND THROUGH MEDIATION PROCESS. AND SHE WILL POINT OUT THE ADVANTAGES OF THE NEW PLAN COMPARED TO THE OLD PLAN. HANKHANK YOU. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: SINCE I DON'T HAVE YOUR CARD, COULD YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF?

YES, I'M JOHN KELLY. I'M AN ARCHITECT AT CHILD'S ARCHITECTS. SO WE HAVE WORKED THROUGH -- I'M -- I'M PART OF THE DESIGN STAFF THAT'S PART OF WHAT I WORK ON AND -- AND MULTI-FAMILY IS OUR SPECIALTY, SO WE DO A LOT OF HOUSING PROJECTS. ALL TYPES, LOW INCOME, AFFORDABLE, ALL THE WAY UP. SO BASICALLY WE HAVE -- LET ME SEE THE SIZE OF IT --

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU CAN ACTUALLY GET THAT MIC RIGHT THERE. AND JUST GO AHEAD AND MOVE AROUND AND POINT TO THE -- TO YOUR -- IS THAT OKAY. THIS IS OUR FIRST PLAN WHICH BASICALLY THE ZONING WHICH WE WERE WORKING WITH THE CS, WE WERE ABLE TO LAY OUT THE BUILDING, KEEP SOME COMMERCIAL ON THE GUADALUPE STREET, AND HAVE THIS PARKING STRUCTURE DOWN ON THE 29TH STREET SIDE. THIS -- THIS BASICALLY WAS 163 UNITS, PARKING GARAGE HAD ABOUT 400 SPACES IN IT, AND WE WERE WITHIN ALL OF THE RESTRICTIONS WHICH ARE POSED BY REGULATIONS, EASEMENTS, ZONING, THAT TYPE OF THING. THEN THROUGH THE MEETINGS AND THINGS THAT HAVE GONE ON WITH THE MEDIATION, WE HAVE TRIED TO ADDRESS SOME OF THESE ISSUES. ON THIS ONE, THE GARAGE WHICH USED TO BE LOCATED PROMINENTLY ON 29TH STREET HAS BEEN PULLED IN SO THAT WE CAN WRAP THE GARAGE WITH THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS. ALSO, WE ARE LIMITING THE HEIGHT OF THESE RESIDENTIAL UNITS TO 40 FEET ACROSS HERE SO THAT WE ARE BUFFERING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS OPPOSED TO THE 60 FOOT GARAGE THAT WE HAD ORIGINALLY ON THIS END. SO WE HAVE LOWERED OUR HEIGHT, MOVED OUR GARAGE IN. WE STILL HAVE THE 400 PARKING SPACES, HOWEVER, WE HAVE REDUCED THE NUMBER OF UNITS FROM 163 DOWN TO 150. AND UNDER THE -- THE MF6 ZONING, WE WOULD HAVE ONLY 70% IMPERVIOUS COVER. WE HAVE ACTUALLY GREATER THAN THE REQUIRED OPEN SPACE PER UNIT. SO WE ARE EXCEEDING OUR OPEN SPACE, WE ARE NOT GOING OVER ANY IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE LIMITATIONS, WE STILL HAVE OUR 400 SPACES, WE HAVE LESS UNITS AND WE HAVE EASED THE ENDS ON 29TH TO LOWER OUR BUILDING'S IMPACT ON ANY -- ANY ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOODS. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO HERE?

MAYOR GARCIA: ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU, SIR. YOU HAVE ONE MINUTE AND 45 SECONDS, MIKE.

MAYOR, MEMBERS OF COUNCIL, I'M RICHARD HARDIN, OWNER OF HARDIN HOUSE DORMITORIES. I PERSONALLY HAVE BEEN IN THE STUDENT HOUSING BUSINESS ALL MY LIFE, ALSO TREASURE OF THE UNIVERSITY AREA PARTNERS. WE DO SUPPORT THIS PROJECT, RECOGNIZE THAT NUNA DOES NOT. FOR ME PERSONALLY, IF THIS -- IF THIS ELEMENT WERE LOCATED ANOTHER BLOCK OR TWO NORTH ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE GREENBELT, THAT SEPARATES IT FROM MOST OF NUNA, IT WOULDN'T BE SOMETHING THAT I COULD STAND UP HERE AND SUPPORT. QUICKLY, THE -- THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED EXACTLY WHERE IT FEEDS TO BE LOCATED, TO SERVE U.T. IT IS ADJACENT AS YOU HAVE ALREADY HEARD. IT IS SURROUNDED BY STUDENT PROPERTIES. THE SCOTTISH RITE DORMITORY IS FURTHER IN TOWARDS THE NUNA NEIGHBORHOOD. FROM THIS PROPERTY. IT'S A SIMILAR HEIGHT AND SCALE. THE KIRBY SCHOOL, OF COURSE, IS ALSO A SIMILAR HEIGHT AND SCALE TO THIS PROPERTY. YOU HEARD ABOUT THE TAOS COOPERATIVE AND OTHER PROJECTS. SO IT'S A GOOD FIT FROM A SCALE AND DENSITY STANDPOINT. IT OUR EXPERIENCE THAT -- THAT STUDENT PROPERTIES THAT ARE VERY, VERY CLOSE TO U.T. DON'T HAVE AS HIGH NUMBER OF AUTOMOBILES FOR THEIR OCCUPANTS BECAUSE YOU WILL FIND THAT KIDS DO SHARE CARS AND IT'S NOT LIKE BEING ON RIVERSIDE DRIVE. U.T. IS A VERY IMPORTANT PART OF OUR COMMUNITY. THEY ONLY HAVE, AS YOU HAVE HEARD, 6800 BEDS ON CAMPUS. THEY HAVE A THOUSAND STUDENTS IN THE RIVERSIDE DRIVE AREA. THERE'S ABOUT 8,000 STUDENTS ON NORTHWEST HILLS. THESE KINDS OF PROJECTS ARE WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN TO RAISE U.T.'S HOUSING STOCK FROM 17% [BUZZER SOUNDING] UP. AND FINISHING --

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU CAN GO ON, WE WILL JUST SUBTRACT THE TIME FOR THE 15 MINUTES THAT THEY HAVE LEFT FOR REBUTTAL.

VERY QUICKLY, THE HOUSING STOCK THAT SERVES U.T., OTHER THAN THE STUFF THAT WAS BUILT AT THE TURN OF THE CENTURY, MOST OF IT WAS BUILT IN THE SIXTH. WE ARE VERY HOPEFUL THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A RENAISSANCE OF THIS SCALE OF PROPERTIES, THE SCALE OF HOUSING PROJECTS THAT ARE GOING TO BE MODERN, THAT HAVE THE MODERN DEVICES THAT ARE NEEDED LIKE FIRE SUPPRESSION. SO -- IF NOT HERE, WHERE? THIS IS A VERY, VERY APPROPRIATE LOCATION FOR THIS SORT OF HOUSE KNOWLEDGE. THANKRT OF HOUSING. THANK YOU.)A

GOODMAN: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU HAVE 14 MINUTES AND 20 SECONDS ON YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU, SIR.

GOODMAN: MAYOR, COULD I INTERJECT BEFORE WE GO BACK TO THE --

MAYOR GARCIA: SURE, MAYOR PRO TEM.

GOODMAN: FOR WHOMEVER, NOT NECESSARILY OUT OF YOUR TIME IF YOU KNOW, BUT SOMEBODY ALONG THE WAY MAY KNOW HOW MANY STUDENTS MAKE UP U.T.'S POPULATION AND IF THAT NUMBER IS IN ANYBODY'S CONSCIOUSNESS TONIGHT -- PARDON ME? 50,000.

SLIGHTLY OVER 50. 51.

GOODMAN: THE OTHER THING THAT I WANTED TO KNOW IS IF ANYONE, CITY STAFF INCLUDED, HAS EVER SURVEYED HOW MANY MULTI-FAMILY UNITS ARE SAY IN A THREE MILE RADIUS OF ANY POINT IN U.T. AND OF COURSE I'M THINKING OF THIS POINT AT THE MOMENT. NOT EVEN U.T.?

MS. RAWLINGS, YOU HAVE 30 MINUTES, YOU HAVE 30 MINUTES ON YOUR TIMER. YOU CAN ALLOCATE IT ANY WHICH WAY THAT YOU WANT TO.

FOR THE RECORD I'M ROCHELLE RAWLINGS, HERE ON BEHALF OF THE NORTH UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION CONTINUES TO SUPPORT DENSE STUDENT HOUSING ON THIS SITE. THEY ARE NOT IN OPPOSITION TO DENSE STUDENT HOUSING. WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING IS MF 4RBGS THAT IS VERY DENSE STUDENT HOUSING. BUT AT THE SAME TIME WE STILL HAVE TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES OF MASSING, SCALE, DENSITY, SAFETY, COMPATIBILITY WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE SMALL RESIDENCES ACROSS THE STREET, WHICH BY THE WAY DO INCLUDE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, DUPLEXES AND TRIPLEXS AND SMALL APARTMENT STRUCTURES. KIRBY HALL SCHOOL. WE CANNOT IGNORE THE FACT THAT TRAFFIC IN THIS AREA IS BEYOND CAPACITY WITH GUADALUPE ALREADY AT LEVEL OF SERVICE F. THAT THERE'S A PARKING CRISIS IN THIS AREA AT THIS POINT IN TIME. THIS AREA IS SERIOUSLY OVERCAPACITY. DESPITE THE COUNCIL'S PREVIOUS VOTE TO REJECT THE M.F. 6, THE APPLICANT PERSISTS IN PURSUING WHAT IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME PROJECT. THEY HAVE MADE NO SERIOUS REDUCTIONS IN THE DENSITY OF THIS PROJECT. THEY HAVE ALSO DRAWN EVEN [INAUDIBLE] ZONING BOUND DEGREES, STILL KNOCKED 10 FOOT OFF OF THE FRONT OF THE PROJECT IN ORDER TO TRY TO DEFEAT THE VALID PETITION. NOW THEY KNOCKED A PORTION OFF TRACT 2, DIVIDING IT IN HALF. IN FACT IT TAKES TWO PAGES OF FIELD NOTES TO DESCRIBE HOW TRACT 2 IS DIVIDED AT THIS POINT IN TIME. THERE WAS A VALID PETITION AS OF YESTERDAY. UNTIL THEY READJUSTED THEIR BOUNDARIES IN AN ATTEMPT TO DEFEAT IT. IT IS NOW AT 19.65%. THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS NOT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THE ADJUSTMENTS IN THE BOUNDARIES. I'M CONFIDENT THAT THEY WILL BE SUCCESSFUL IN DOING THAT. THE SQUIRRELLY BOUNDARIES ARE PARTICULARLY PROBLEMATIC GIVEN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DETERMINATION OF DISTRICT BOUNDARIES. IN SECTION 292, 192 THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SAYS IF A ZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARY IS SHOWN AS APPROXIMATELY FOLLOWING A STREET, ALLEY OR PROPERTY BOUNDARY, THE ZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARY COINCIDES WITH THAT STREET ALLEY OR PROPERTY BOUNDARY. SO I DON'T KNOW HOW WE SCARE THAT WITH A 10 FOOT LOPPED OFF THE FRONT OF THIS PROJECT. AGAIN, YES, THIS DOES DEFEAT THE VALID PETITION FOR THE MOMENT, BUT I THINK THE NEIGHBORHOOD WILL BE SUCCESSFUL IN RESOLVING THAT ISSUE. NUNA'S CURRENT PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COUNCIL'S LAST ACTION AND ITS PREVIOUSLY OFFERED COMPROMISE. YOUR PREVIOUS ACTION HERE INCLUDED THE M.F. 4 SITE AREA REQUIREMENTS TO BE APPLIED OVER THE PROPERTY. THAT WOULD REDUCE THE NUMBER OF UNITS BASED ON THE LAND AREA OF THE SITE. THE NEIGHBORHOOD REQUESTS THAT IN ADDITION TO THAT, THAT YOU REQUEST THE -- THAT YOU CONSIDER THE REST OF THE M.F. RESTRICTIONS. I REALIZE THAT AT THE TIME THAT YOU ALL MADE YOUR MOTION BEFORE COUNCILMEMBER GOODMAN SAID IT WAS NOT QUITE COOKED, WE ARE HOPING TO FINISH COOKING IT IN THAT DIRECTION. YOU SPOKE TO THE M.F. 4 AREA REQUIREMENTS, AT THAT TIME WE THOUGHT THAT WE COULD HAVE SOME KIND OF A BEDROOM LIMITATION, WE HAVE SINCE LEARNED THAT'S NO ENFORCEIBLE. THE STAFF EXPLAINED THAT THINGS LIKE DENS, DINING ROOMS, SEWING ROOMS COULD EFFECTIVELY BE BEDROOMS, THEY HAVEN'T FOUND THAT WORKABLE. BECAUSE OF THAT WE NEED TO LOOK TO MORE THAN THE M.F. 4, WE NEED TO LOOK TO THE M.F.'S IMPERVIOUS COVER AND BUILDING COVER REQUIREMENTS. M.F. 4 AGAIN IS HIDE DENSITY HOUSING, IT ALLOWS 36 TO 54 UNITS PER ACRE. THAT IS MANY TIMES WHAT'S REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE FULL POINTS UNDER THE CITY'S SMART GROWTH MATRIX. THE CITY'S SMART GROWTH MATRIX GIVES FULL POINTS TO SEVEN TO 12 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. THAT IS CONSIDERED THE CRITICAL MASS NECESSARY TO SUPPORT PUBLIC TRANSIT. WE ARE WAY BEHIND THAT AT THIS SITE. IF YOU WERE TO LOOK AT THIS SITE, YOU WOULD SEE THAT IT'S TOO SMALL. A PROJECT OF THIS SCALE JUST DOES NOT FIT AT THIS SITE. THE FF 4 DESIGNATION IS CONSIDERED HIGH DENSITY HOUSING. THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SAID, I QUOET AN M.F. DESIGNATION MAY BE APPLIED IN A CENTRALLY LOCATED AREA NEAR SUPPORTING TRANSPORTATION AND COMMERCIAL FACILITY IN AN AREA ADJACENT TO THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT OR A MAJOR CONSTITUTIONAL OR EMPLOYMENT CENTER. M.F. ZONING IS HIGH DENSITY HOUSING. NUNA HAS COME A LONG WAY IN SUPPORTING M.F. 4. IF YOU WILL REMEMBER IN OUR ORIGINAL PACKET, WE INCLUDED A PICTURE OF WHAT IS CURRENTLY ON THE SITE. WHICH WAS THE HISTORIC HOME AND OFFICE BUILDING, I WILL PASS THIS ALONG. IN THE PACKET WE ALSO INCLUDED A PICTURE OF WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD FEARED. AND THE PICTURE THAT WE INCLUDED OF WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD FEARED FOR THIS SITE WAS A PICTURE OF M.F. 4 HOUSING TAKEN FROM WEST CAMPUS. THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS COME SO FAR IN COMPROMISE AT THIS POINT THAT IT IS SAYING OKAY, WE WILL ACCEPT M.F. 4, BUT WITH CONDITIONS. IF YOU WILL I HAVE A -- DELIVERED A COPY OF A NEIGHBORHOOD -- OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S PROPOSAL TO YOU. IT ESSENTIALLY TRACKS THE LINES OF THE COUNCIL'S PREVIOUS ACTION ON THIS ITEM. THERE ARE TWO OPTIONS HERE. OPTION ONE PROPOSES TO ZONE THE ENTIRE SITE M.F. 4CO WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE AREA TO BE LOCATED BY BLOCK BUSTER VIDEO. THAT AREA WOULD -- IS PROPOSED TO REMAIN CS-MU. TO HAVE A HEIGHT LIMIT TO LIMIT THE HEIGHT TO NO MORE THAN 3 STORIES, NOT EXCEEDING 40 FEET ALONG 29TH STREET AND ALONG HEMPHILL PARK STREET FOR A DEPTH OF 45 FEET. FOR SURFACE PARKING. 2 POINTS OF ACCESS FOR THE PARKING GARAGE AND THE -- THE WRAP AROUND REQUIREMENTS OF THE STRUCTURES WILL BE WRAPPED AROUND THE PARKING GARAGE AS PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT. OPTION 2 SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT. IF YOU ARE COMFORTABLE WITH A PACKING RATIO REQUIREMENT, THE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD BE COMFORTABLE WITH CS-MU ON TRACT 2, IF THE -- IF THERE COULD BE A PARKING RATIO REQUIREMENT OF 5.-- 1.5 SPACES PER BEDROOM, EXCEPT FOR EFFICIENCIES. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: STOP THE CLOCK AND ADD ABOUT 7 SECONDS. START IT AGAIN.

MAYOR GARCIA, MY NAME IS ANN VANDERBERG, I'M HERE AS A PARENT. TO LET YOU KNOW BRIEFLY KIRBY HALL WAS ESTABLISHED IN 1978, IT BEEN IN EXISTENCE ALMOST 25 YEARS IN THIS LOCATION. WE HAVE APPROXIMATELY 180 STUDENTS IN GRADES 1 THROUGH 12 WITH ABOUT 920 OF THESE STUDENTS UNDER THE AGE OF 10. -- ABOUT 90. MOST IMPORTANTLY FOR TONIGHT'S PURPOSES, KIRBY HALL IS CATER-CORNERED TO THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. YOU CAN SEE FROM TONIGHT'S ATTENDANCE THAT KIRBY HALL'S PARENT AND STAFF FEEL VERY STRONGLY ABOUT THIS PROJECT. WE ARE WHO TO SHOW YOU THAT WE CONCUR WITH THE CONCERNS THAT NUNA HAS RAISED BUT ALSO TO ARTICULATE OUR SERIOUS AND SPECIFIC CONCERNS AS THEY PERTAIN TO KIRBY HALL. WE HAVE I THINK THREE SPEAKER AND THEN A COUPLE OF CHILDREN WHO ARE GOING TO SPEAK FOR YOU AND WE WILL TRY TO BE VERY QUICK. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA, I'M ROY MULLEN, CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, FIRST OF ALL I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A MOMMY AND SAY I'M AWFULLY PROUD OF THE KIDS TONIGHT, HOW WELL BEHAVED THEY HAVE BEEN. WE HAVE A TERRIFIC BUNCH OF KIDS AT KIRBY HALL, I'M THE PROUD PAPA OF TWO OF THOSE. OUR CONCERNS ARE GOING TO FOCUS ON THE TRAFFIC WHICH THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL GENERATE. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT PREVIOUSLY THE APPLICANT HAS CLAIMED THAT IN ORDER TO BE COMEACIALLY VIABLE, -- COMEACIALLY VIABLE, THE PROJECT MUST CONTAIN AT LEAST 163 UNITS. TONIGHT I UNDERSTAND IT'S BEEN CHANGED TO 150 UNITS. TO I'M NO LONGER CLEAR ON WHAT IS THE BOTTOM LINE NUMBER AND WHAT IT TAKES TO BE COMMERCIALLY VIABLE. IT SEEMS TO BE A MOVING TARGET. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING SO THE FIGURES AREN'T GOING TO BE BASED ON 163 UNITS, WE DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO ADJUST IT. THESE UNITS WILL INCLUDE ONE, TWO, THREE AND FOUR BEDROOM UNITS. AS PROPOSED THE STAFF ESTIMATES THAT THE PROJECT WILL INCLUDE AT LEAST 340 BEDROOMS. AS STUDENT HOUSING A BEST CASE SCENARIO, IS THAT EACH BEDROOM WILL REPRESENT ONE CAR, AND ONE DRIVER. MORE LIKELY, MANY OF THE STUDENTS WILL HAVE ROOMMATES. ACCORDINGLY WE MAY BE LOOKING AT BETWEEN 340 AND 720 PEOPLE AND CARS PACKED INTO AN AREA LESS THAN ONE-HALF OF THE TYPICAL CITY BLOCK. AND ONLY 400 PARKING PLACES WILL BE PROVIDED. THE APPLICANT TRIES TO JUSTIFY THIS DENSITY BY POINTING TO VARIOUS PROJECTS IN THE WEST CAMPUS AREA. THIS JUSTIFICATION HOWEVER IGNORES THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF 29TH STREET AND HEMPHILL PARK. THE ROADS WHICH ADJOIN THE PROJECT. IT ALSO IGNORES THE TRAFFIC PATTERNS ON THE ADJACENT STREETS AND PROXIMITY OF YOUR YOUNG CHILDREN. ENTRY AND EXIT FROM THE PROJECT MUST OCCUR ON EITHER 29TH STREET, WHICH AT THE INTERSECTION OF HEMPHILL IS A NARROW, 34 FOOT-WIDE TWO LANE STREET, WITH PARKING ALONG ONE SIDE. OR HEMPHILL PARK, AN EVEN NARROWER 30 FOOT ONE LANE STREET WITH PARKING ON BOTH SIDES. THE PARKING SPACES ON BOTH 29TH STREET AND HEMPHILL PARK ARE HEAVILY USED AND KIRBY HALL ALREADY EXPERIENCES SEVERE TRAFFIC CONGESTION DURING MORNING DROP-OFF AND AFTERNOON PICKUP HOURS. CARS LEAVING THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND TRAVELLING TO U.T., WHICH BASED ON THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIONS WILL BE THE BULK OF THE TRAFFIC, WILL TURN RIGHT ON 29TH STREET, AND PASS DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF THE SCHOOL. AND THEN DOWN WHITIS WHICH IS ALSO A NARROW STREET CAN CAN CURRENTLY BARELY HANDLE ONE LANE OF TRAFFIC. THE REMAINDER MUST TURN ON 29TH STREET AND PASS THROUGH THE ALREADY OVERLOADED INTERSECTION AT 29TH AND GUADALUPE. DURING THE SCHOOL TERM, THE EXISTING TRAFFIC SITUATION OPERATES AT AN -- AT AN UNACCEPTABLE LEVEL. EASY FOR ME TO SAY. THIS PROJECT WILL ADD HUNDREDS OF CARS AIMED DIRECTLY AT OUR CHILDREN. BY CONTRAST THE WEST CAMPUS AREA, WHICH IS USED BY THE APPLICANT TO JUSTIFY ITS PROPOSED DENSITY, HAS BEEN DEVELOPED WITH A GRID PATTERN OF TWO LANE STREETS. MANY OF WHICH HAVE BEEN MODIFIED FOR ONE-WAY TRAFFIC. THIS GRID PATTERN ALLOWS TRAFFIC TO MOVE MORE EFFICIENTLY BY PROVIDING MULTIPLE ALTERNATIVES FOR THE TRAFFIC GENERATESED BY DENSE APARTMENT PROJECTS. BY GIVING DRIVERS SEVERAL OPTIONS TO SELECT. CONGESTION IS REDUCED. WITH THE PROPOSED PROJECT, INSTEAD OF MULTIPLE OPTIONS TO REDUCE TRAFFIC FLOW, THE EXISTING STREET CONFIGURATION AND DESIGN WILL SEND CARS DIRECTLY TOWARDS THE SCHOOL. AT THE SAME TIME AND PLACE. WHEN PARENTS ARE UNLOADING YOUNG CHILDREN. WOULD YOU TRUST YOUR CHILDREN'S SAFETY TO THE PATIENCE OF A 19-YEAR-OLD WHO SITS AND WAITS WHILE CHILDREN UNLOAD FROM THEIR CARS? THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: COULD YOU STOP THE CLOCK FOR JUST A MINUTE. LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION. HOW MANY OF THE STUDENTS THAT ATTEND THE SCHOOL WALK TO SCHOOL? HOW MANY LIVE IN THE AREA?

I DON'T KNOW THAT STATISTIC. DO WE HAVE A -- I'M SORRY, I DO NOT KNOW. IT'S MY SENSE MOST OF IT IS COMMUTER. THEY DRIVE IN.

MAYOR GARCIA: BECAUSE YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE COMING THERE. AND BEING DROPPED OFF.

YES, SIR, I THINK IT'S A VERY HIGH PERCENTAGE, I DO NOT KNOW THE NUMBER.

MAYOR GARCIA: MY QUESTION, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE HAVE BEEN MENTIONING AND DISCUSSING IS THAT AREA IS TRANSITIONING. WHEN I WAS AT THE UNIVERSITY IN THE LATE '50'S, IT HAD 14,000 STUDENTS. NOW OVER 50. OF COURSE THE UNIVERSITY WAS THERE LONG BEFORE THE TURN OF THE CENTURY. SO IT'S BEEN GROWING. AND THE QUESTION OF TRANSITION IS SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT. YOU KNOW, SHOULD THIS AREA BE TRANSITIONING TO SOMETHING ELSE GIVEN THE FACT THAT WE ARE TRYING TO ADDRESS ISSUES OF AIR QUALITY WE WANT MORE PEOPLE TO WALK WHERE THEY ARE GOING. THIS PARTICULAR FACILITY WOULD ALLOW THEM TO, TO ALLOW STUDENTS TO WALK TO THE UNIVERSITY. THEY ARE FOR THE GOING TO DRIVE TO THE UNIVERSITY. THEY LIVE THERE. HAVE YOU ALL CONSIDERED THE POSSIBLY OF MOVING THAT SCHOOL FROM THAT AREA TO SOMEWHERE ELSE?

IT'S NOT BEEN CONSIDERED THAT I'M AWARE OF. [ APPLAUSE ]

MAYOR GARCIA: I DIDN'T INTEND TO GET A REACTION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. BUT WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT --

I BELIEVE THE CONSENSUS IS HELL NO. [ LAUGHTER ]. [ APPLAUSE ] [ APPLAUSE ]

LET ME --

I DON'T THINK I OVERSTATE THAT.

WITH THAT KIND OF A BACKGROUND, LET ME SAY TO YOU, YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT SCHOOL THAT HAS MOST OF ITS STUDENTS BROUGHT THERE BY CARS. THIS PARTICULAR FACILITY THAT THEY ARE PROPOSING IS ONE THAT WILL HELP STUDENTS GET TO THEIR SCHOOL BY WALKING. AND AT TIMES -- THE STUDENTS -- I LIVED ABOUT THIS FAR FROM THE UNIVERSITY WHEN I WAS THERE.

I LIVED IN HYDE PARK WHEN I ATTENDED IN THE 70'S.

THE IDEA HERE IN THIS PROJECT IS TO BRING STUDENTS, YOUR U.T. STUDENT CLOSER SO THEY CAN WALK TO SCHOOL. IN YOUR PARTICULAR CASE YOU HAVE 180 STUDENTS THAT MOST OF THEM ARE DROPPED OFF, CREATING MORE TRAFFIC IN THE AREA. IS THAT NOT SO? IS THAT NOT WHAT YOU TOLD US?

I DON'T HAVE A BASIS FOR COMPARISON ON THE HYPOTHETICAL OF HOW THE STUDENTS WOULD CHOOSE TO COMMUTE.

MAYOR GARCIA: I THINK YOU SAID SOMETHING LIKE THE STUDENTS WOULD BE DRIVING WHEN THIS YOUNG STUDENT WILL BE COMING AND GETTING DROPPED OFF.

YES.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. AND MY CONCERN IS THAT HERE YOU HAVE A FACILITY THAT'S BEEN THERE SINCE YOU SAID, I THINK YOU SAID 1978 THAT IS GROWING I SUSPECT, KIRBY HALL IS NOW 180 STUDENTS, IT PROBABLY HAS 300 CAR TRIPS A DAY OR MORE, TO BRING STUDENTS TO THAT SCHOOL, AND YET IN THE OTHER CASE, STUDENTS THAT ARE GOING TO LIVE IN THIS FACILITY, I THINK WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HOW MUCH DENSITY, MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE, THE STUDENTS WHO GO TO THE UNIVERSITY WILL LIVE THERE AND WALK. I'M TRYING TO FIND AN ANSWER HERE. I'M NOT TRYING TO BE --

SPONTANEOUSLY, ONE SUGGESTION MIGHT BE TO DESIGN A FACILITY WITH NO PARKING SO ONLY STUDENTS WHO ARE COMMITTED TO WALKING WOULD LIVE THERE. [ APPLAUSE ]

MAYOR GARCIA: WELL, IF --

IF THAT'S THE OBJECTIVE THAT WOULD ACCOMPLISH IT, BECAUSE STUDENT WHO WANT TO DRIVE WOULDN'T CHOOSE TO LIVE THERE.

THEY ARE NOT JUST GOING TO GO TO SCHOOL. THEY ALSO DRIVE SOMEWHERE.

EXACTLY.

THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT.

MAYOR, MAY I SPEAK TO A COUPLE OF THOSE POINTS?

MAYOR GARCIA: SURE, LET ME JUST GO AHEAD AND FINISH AND I HAVE STOPPED THE CLOCK AND YOU HAVE 19 MINUTES LEFT. I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT ARE THE ISSUES. DID YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING.

IN I COULD SAY SOMETHING ON BEHALF OF THE SCHOOL. FRANKLY IT'S NOT THE DENSITY THAT BOTHERS THE SCHOOL AS MUCH AS THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE GOT A ONE-WAY STREET AT HEMPHILL THAT HEADS INTO THE SCHOOL. AND YOU HAVE GOT A PARKING EXIT ON TO 29TH STREET WHICH IS WHERE THE TRAFFIC IS COMING IN. AND ANY KID WHO DOES DRIVE IS GOING TO HAVE TO GO OUT, GO IN FRONT OF THE SCHOOL AND GO AROUND. IF YOU COULD MODIFY THE TRAFFIC PATTERNS ON THOSE STREETS, THAT WOULD GO A LONG WAY TO REDUCING THE SCHOOL'S OBJECTIONS. I HAVE NO -- I AM NOT SPEAKING AT ALL FOR NUNA. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEIRS IS. BUT I DO THINK IT'S SOMEWHAT UNFAIR TO COMPARE KIRBY HALL WITH DROPOFF KIDS TO THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS. I WOULD CHALLENGE YOU TO FIND ALMOST ANY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IN THE CITY WHERE PARENTS ARE LETTING THEIR KIDS WALK ANY DISTANCE TO SCHOOL BECAUSE IT'S TOO DANGEROUS. I LIVE IN BRYKERWOODS, WHICH IS A SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD. I MEAN IT'S NOT A SAFE THING TO HAVE YOUR KIDS, YOUNG KIDS OUT WALKING TO SCHOOL VERY FAR.

MAYOR GARCIA: WELL, THAT'S PROBABLY ACCURATE. ALTHOUGH THERE'S QUITE A FEW KIDS THAT WALK TO SCHOOL. COUNCIL PARTICIPATES IN WALKING TO SCHOOL EXERCISES AT THE BEGINNING OF EVERY SCHOOL YEAR. BUT ANYWAY.

MR. MAYOR --

MAYOR GARCIA: ARE YOU GOING TO SPEAK OR ANSWER MY QUESTION.

I'M GOING TO TRY TO ANSWER THE QUESTION. THERE'S THREE THING, ONE THERE'S A GOOD REASON WHY THE PLANNING AND PLATTING COMMISSION HAVE GONE AGAINST THIS THREE TIMES. ONE OF THE KEY REASONS IS THE TRAFFIC ISSUE. AS THE UNDERSTAND THAT WAS THERE, THESE PEOPLE MAY WALK TO SCHOOL, BUT THEY HAVE THE CARS COMPANY AND GOING TO WORK. WE HAVE PEOPLE ALL OVER THE NEIGHBORHOOD LIKE THAT. THEY WALK TO SCHOOL OR RIDE TO SCHOOL OR PARK IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND GO. BUT THEY STILL HAVE CARS THERE AND THEY ARE STILL SUBSTANTIAL TRAFFIC. THAT TRAFFIC IS GOING TO BE AT LEAST 700 TO 1,000 CARS INCREASED OVER WHAT'S THERE RIGHT NOW. AND BY THE RATIONALE OF MOVING SOMETHING THAT HAS HIGH TRAFFIC, TRUDYS HAS MUCH HIGHER TRAFFIC THAN DOES THE SCHOOL. SO IF -- IF WE ARE GOING TO TRY TO ALLEVIATE TRAFFIC FROM THE AREA, TRUDY DIE'S WOULD BE THE FIRST ONE, WE ARE NOT SAYING TO MOVE THAT BY ANY MEANS. WE ARE SAYING THAT'S NOT AN THAT'S IN TERMS OF WHAT'S CAUSING THE PROBLEMS THERE. THIS IS GOING TO ADD 1,000 CARS THAT SIMPLY DON'T EXIST RIGHT NOW IN AN AREA THAT'S ALREADY OVERCROWDED.

MAYOR GARCIA: WE DON'T HAVE MR. ZAPALAC HERE, DO WE? THE QUESTIONEEN POSED, -- THE QUESTION THAT'S BEEN POSED CAN WE CHANGE THE TRAFFIC PATTERNS?

IT'S CERTAINLY POSSIBLE TO DO THAT TO SOME EXTENT, BUT IT WOULD INVOLVE REMOVING MOST OF THE ONSTREET PARKING IN THE AREA THERE. AS WAS MENTIONED MOST OF THE STREETS DO HAVE ON STREET PARKING ON BOTH SIDES NOW. AND SO THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE REMOVED TO MAKE ANY CHANGE. IN ADDITION YOU HAVE THE INTERSECTION DOWN AT 27TH AND GUADALUPE THAT IS A SHARP ANGLE, SO IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO MAKE HEMPHILL PARK TWO WAY BECAUSE OF THAT INTERSECTION.

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU CAN DO THAT AT REBUTTAL, MR. MCCONE. THANK YOU. OKAY. YOU HAVE 19 MINUTES AND YOUR SPEAKERS CAN COME UP. WE WILL START THE CLOCK AGAIN.

SLUSHER: MAYOR, I JUST WANT TO ANNOUNCE I'M GOING TO BE OFF THE DIAS TO EAT, BUT I WILL BE LISTENING TO EVERYONE OR WATCHING ON THE TV. DWAWRS THIS IS THE COUNCIL'S TIME TO GO EAT DINNER. IF YOU SEE COUNCILMEMBERS TAKING A LITTLE BREAK, THEY ARE GETTING NOURISHMENT. IF YOU COULD IDENTIFY YOURSELF, SIR.

MY NAME IS CHRIS BROWN, A PARENT OF A FIRST GRADE STUDENT AT KIRBY HALL. I ALSO LIVE IN HYDE PARK AND FREQUENTLY AM ONE OF THE PARENTS WHO WITH MY WIFE TAKE OUR SON TO THE SCHOOL SOMETIMES WALKING, SOMETIMES BICYCLING, SOMETIMES TAKING THE BUS AND SOMETIMES DRIVING. I CAN TELL YOU THAT NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT MANY OF US DO GO THAT WAY, WE DO FIND THERE'S A GREAT DEAL OF TRAFFIC, OF STUDENTS DRIVING TO SCHOOL THERE AND WE WOULD ANTICIPATE THAT THERE WOULD BE CONTINUED PROBLEMS AS YOU INTRODUCE HUNDREDS OF NEW CARS THERE. WE SUPPORT DENSE DEVELOPMENT AND SMART GROWTH. BUT DENSITY WE DON'T THINK IS SMART WHEN THE INFRASTRUCTURE ISN'T THERE TO SUPPORT IT. GRADE SCHOOLERS TRYING TO GET TO AND FROM SCHOOLS AND COLLEGE KIDS WHO MAY BE SPEEDING IN THEIR S.U.V.'S LATE FOR CLASS, MAYBE MAKING EMERGENCY RUN TO THE PARTY BARN, ARE NOT WE THINK A GOOD MIX. WE HAVE HEARD NO OVERTURES FROM THE DEVELOPER ABOUT HOW TO DEAL WITH THE HUNDREDS OF NEW CARS THEY WILL INTRODUCE INTO THIS DELICATE ZONE. ON BEHALF OF OUR CHILDREN, WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU REJECT THE PROPOSED REZONING AND ENSURE THAT OUR LITTLE CHUNK OF 29TH STREET DOESN'T BECOME ANOTHER LAMAR BRIDGE, A TRAGIC ACCIDENT WAITING TO HAPPEN. I WOULD LIKE TO LET SOME OF THE KIDS SPEAK TO THEIR OWN PERSPECTIVES ON THE POINT.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU. CAN YOU STOP THE CLOCK FOR JUST A MINUTE. ADD ABOUT -- ABOUT 7 SECONDS.

HELLO -- HELLO, MY NAME IS MALLORY --

MAYOR GARCIA: START IT NOW.

YOU CAN BUILD AN APARTMENT COMPLEX BUT NOT A BIG ONE. A LITTLE ONE WOULD DO FINE AND -- AND THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE OKAY IF WE BUILT A LITTLE ONE. BUT A BIG ONE WOULD BE TOO MUCH TRAFFIC AND THERE'S ALREADY ENOUGH TRAFFIC AT KIRBY HALL FOR KIDS GETTING TO SCHOOL AND DRIVING HOME. AND THAT'S WHY I THINK THAT WE SHOULD NOT BUILD A BIG APARTMENT COMPLEX, BUT A LITTLE ONE INSTEAD.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU. [ APPLAUSE ]

HI, MY NAME IS JEANIE, I'M FROM KIRBY HALL. I REALLY THINK THIS IS A BAD IDEA BECAUSE WITH MORE PEOPLE, THERE WILL BE MORE TRAFFIC AND WITH MORE OF THE TRAFFIC, THERE WILL BE LOST TIME FOR WHEN WE GET TO SCHOOL. AND THEN THE LOST TIME CAUSES TARDIES. AND THEN THE TARDIES CAUSE DETENTIONS. [ LAUGHTER ]. THAT'S WHY I THINK THIS IS A REALLY BAD IDEA FOR THE KIDS. [ LAUGHTER ]. [ APPLAUSE ]. MAYOR GARCIA, COUNCILMEMBERS, MY NAME IS PATRICK LEWIS. I AM A THIRD GREAT STUDENT AT KIRBY HALL, I AM THE LAST PERSON WHO WILL SPEAK FOR KIRBY HALL THIS EVENING. I THINK THAT I CAN SPEAK FOR ALL OF THE KIDS WHO ATTEND KIRBY HALL WHEN I ASKED THAT BEFORE YOU VOTE TONIGHT, YOU IMAGINE HOW THIS PROJECT WILL IMPACT OUR SCHOOL, THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK TO YOU.

THANK YOU. [ APPLAUSE ]

MY NAME IS PETER AUSTIN, I HAVE THE PRIVILEGE OF WORKING WITH THESE KIDS EVERY SINGLE DAY. I CAN TESTIFY -- I CAN TESTIFY THEY ARE CHARMING KIDS. FIRST I CAN TESTIFY TO THE HISTORIC QUALITIES OF THE AREA THAT WE WANT TO PRESERVE, LANDMARK BUILDING, YES, WE ARE CONCERNED TO PRESERVE THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. BUT WE CAN ALSO TESTIFY TO THE DISTINCTIVE QUALITIES AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STREETS SURROUNDING THE PROPOSED PROJECT, THE SCHOOL IS LOCATED ON ONE OF THOSE MAIN STREETS, WHICH IS 29TH STREET, TRAFFIC IS -- HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IN PASSING FOR -- OR IN THE ABSTRACT, WE DEAL WITH IT ON AN EVERYDAY BASIS. WE DEAL WITH IT 3 TIMES A DAY. WE DEAL WITH IT AT 8:00, AT 1:30, ABOUT 4:00, 4:20 OR 3:20. FOR PICKUPS. WE KNOW WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE, WE KNOW WHAT IT FEELS LIKE. WE HAVE A VERY FRAGILE BLUM. IT'S WORKING -- EQUILIBRIUM. I WOULD LIKE TO READ A LETTER VERY QUICKLY. I WILL HAND THIS AS AN EXHIBIT TO THE COUNCIL FROM A LETTER SENT TO ME BY AN AUSTIN FIREFIGHTER. I AM EDUARDO SANCHEZ DIGIT A BIT, BUT I WILL SUBMIT THE ENTIRE LETTER TO THE COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION. I HAVE WORKED FOR THE AUSTIN FIRE DEPARTMENT IN THE NUNA AREA FOR THE PAST SIX YEARS AND BECAUSE MY JOB HAS ME LIVING IN NUNA FOR ONE THIRD OF MY LIFE I CONSIDER MYSELF A PART-TIME RESIDENT. BUT I'M WRITING TO YOU AS A KNOWLEDGEABLE PERSON WHO HAS A VESTED INTEREST IN THE QUALITY OF LIFE AND SAFETY, NOT AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF -- NECESSARILY OF AUSTIN FIRE DEPARTMENT. SIMPLY COMING TO AND GOING HOME FROM WORK IN THE NUNA AREA HAS GIVEN ME FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRAFFIC PROBLEMS WE FACE AT FIRE STATION 3. AT 201 WEST 30TH STREET. MY JOB DEMANDS I KNOW THE TRAFFIC PATTERNS AND PROBLEMS SOMEWHAT BETTER THAN THE AVERAGE NUNA RESIDENT. HE GOES ON, IN MY OPINION, ONE OF THE WORST TRAFFIC AREAS IN AUSTIN AT THIS TIME IS THE AREA OF GUADALUPE STREET. GUADALUPE STREET. BOTH NOR AND SOUTHBOUND FROM WEST 24TH TO JUST PAST WEST 30TH STREET. THIS AREA IS INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. REGARDLESS OF OF THE TIME OF DAY, THIS AREA IS ALWAYS CROWDED. IN ADDITION TO THE EXPECTED TRAFFIC PROBLEMS AND ANY LARGE URBAN AREAS AT RUSH HOURS, PROBLEM OF GRIDLOCK OCCUR HERE AT OTHER TIMES OF THE DAY AS WELL. FIREFIGHTERS DEFINE GRIDLOCK AS ALL TRAFFIC LANES FULL IN ALL DIRECTIONS WITHOUT ANY ROOM FOR AN EMERGENCY VEHICLE TO PROCEED. WHEN RESPONDING TO AN EMERGENCY IN THESE GRIDLOCK SITUATIONS WE OFTEN SIMPLY SIT WITH LIGHTS AND SIREN OPERATING WAITING FOR THE IMPASSE TO SLOWLY MOVE OUT OF AND YOU. THE WAIT CAN TAKE PRECIOUS TIME FOR A RESPONSE. MY CONCERN ABOUT THE TRAFFIC IN THIS AREA GOES BEYOND THE PARKING ISSUES. MY BIGGEST CONCERN, HE WRITES, IS THE SAFETY OF MY CREW AND CITIZENS IN THIS AREA. THE VILLAS THE GUADALUPE, PROPOSAL FOR AN M.F. 6 DEVELOPMENT WITH A HIGH POPULATION CROWDED INTO 150 OR MORE UNITS, NOTICE THAT'S THE LOWER, LOWER DENSITY PROPOSED, AND INQUAD -- INADEQUATE PARKING SEEMS TO MINIMIZE THE SAFETY ISSUES VEHICLES WILL ENCOUNTER. RESPONSE DELAYS WILL LIKELY INCREASE. HE CLOSES, FOR THIS REASON I CANNOT SUPPORT SUCH A DEVELOPMENTAL PROPOSAL AS IT STANDS NOW. I ENCOURAGE YOU TO VOTE AGAINST THE M.F. ZONING REQUEST AND DIRECT CITY STAFF TO WORK WITH NUN TO DEVELOP AND EURCH MEANT AN EFFECTIVE -- IMPLEMENT AN EFFECTIVE STRATEGY ... THE PROACTIVE APPROACH IS THE ONLY SAFE WAY TO GO WITH ALL DUE RESPECT. THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE SAFETY OF NUNA RESIDENTS AND CITY WORKERS. LET ME STREETS THAT KIRBY HALL AND NUNA ARE NOT ANTI-GROWTH, THEY ARE PRO GROWTH. CERTAINLY PRO STUDENTS, BUT THEY ARE MAKING AN FEEL THIS THAT AREA IS INAPPROPRIATE, -- AN APPEAL THAT THIS BUILDING IS APPROPRIATE, THE PARTICULAR CHARACTERISTICS OF THIS AREA. IT IS BETTER THAT -- THIS PROJECT IS BETTER SUITED TO THE WEST CAMPUS, WEST OF GUADALUPE AREA WITH ITS GRID PATTERN AND WIDER ROADS. WE URGE THE COUNCIL, KIRBY HALL, THE STUDENTS OF KIRBY HALL WHO EXPERIENCE THIS ON A DAILY BASIS, NOT AN ABSTRACTION, NOT A PREFERENCE, NOT AN OPINION, WE EXPERIENCE IT EVERY DAY, WE URGE THE COUNCIL TO DENY M.F. 6, CONSIDER M.F. 4 COMPROMISE. HOPEFULLY WITH QUALIFICATIONS. IN ANY CASE CONDITION THIS PROJECT ON ACCOMMODATION OF THE CARS, CARS, CARS AND TRAFFIC DIRECTED AWAY FROM KIRBY HALL SCHOOL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. [ APPLAUSE ] IS THAT I'M BOB TAYLOR, THE ARCHITECT THAT WORKS WITH NUNA ON THESE ISSUES, ALSO A RESIDENT OF THE AREA. I'M CONCERNED WITH THE LOSS OF HISTORIC FABRIC THAT IS GOING TO OCCUR ANDMENT CONTINUE TO OCCUR IF THIS IS A PRESS ZENT IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. PRECEDENT IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS OVERWASOVER ZONED IN THE -- WAS OVERZONED IN THE 30'S, WITHOUT INPUT FROM THE RESIDENTS AT THAT TIME. THIS IS THE RESULT THAT HAS OCCURRED WITH -- THAT HAS CAUSED THESE AREAS TO DEPLETE AND BE DESTROYED OVER THE PERIOD OF TIME THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, SINCE THE 60'S. THIS NEIGHBORHOOD HAS HELD ITS OWN. IT IS STILL A VIABLE NEIGHBORHOOD OF SMALL BUNGALOWS, LARGE COMFORTABLE HOUSES AND MIXED FAMILIES AND STUDENTS AND RESIDENTS. BUT LOOK AROUND YOU. SINCE I MOVED TO AUSTIN IN 1963, WE HAVE LOST ALL THE QUIET NEIGHBORHOODS THAT SURROUND THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS. I LIVED EAST, WHO CAN REMEMBER THE QUIET NEIGHBORHOODS WITH IVEY COVERED LAWNS AND OAK TREES THAT ARE UNDERNEATH THE PARKING LOT OF U.T., EAST OF IT. I LIVED SOUTH IN AN APARTMENT IN AN OLD HOME THERE. THAT HOME IS GONE AND EVERYTHING ELSE IS OCCUPIED BY EITHER -- HAS BEEN DESTROYED OR OCCUPIED BY LAWYERS. I MOVED WEST, I'VE BEEN MOVING A LOT, I MOVED WEST, I WATCHED IT GO HOUSE BY HOUSE AND COULDN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE. WEST UNIVERSITY IS NO EXAMPLE OF DELIGHTFUL URBAN PLANNING FOR THIS CITY. IT'S AN EXAMPLE OF A NIGHT MAYOR THAT HAS HAPPENED IN AN OVERLAY THAT WAS ONCE A VEST PLEASANT PLACE TO LIVE. NOW WE ARE NORTH. EVERYTHING IS GONE SOUTH, EAST, WEST. NORTH IN IS IN THE SIGHTS OF THESE DEVELOPERS. IF THIS PRESIDENT OF M.F. 6 ZONING WITH SIX STORY PARKING GARAGES AND FOUR STORY BRICK FRAME BUILDINGS IS GOING TO BE THE FUTURE OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, THEN THERE IS GOING TO BE ANOTHER MIGRATION. WE WILL ALL BE MOVING OUT. IT IS TO ME UNBELIEVABLE THAT SOMEONE WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE SHOULD DESTROY OUR INSTITUTIONS AND MOVE THEM ELSEWHERE. I HAVE HEARD MORE THAN ONCE IN THIS CHAMBER THAT WE WHO LIVE THERE SHOULD PICK UP AND LEAVE. A NEIGHBORHOOD IS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THE A CITY. AND IF THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THAT ARE NOT RESPECTED AND THE PLACES THAT THEY HAVE INVESTED IN OVER TIME ARE NOT MAINTAINED AND CAREFULLY RESPECTED BY THE PUBLIC BODIES THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT THIS COMMUNITY ELECTS, IT IS AMAZING TO ME THAT YOU WOULD SAY WE ARE GOING TO TAKE THE HEART OF THIS CITY AND WE ARE GOING TO GIVE IT OVER TO PROFIT MINDED DEVELOPMENT AND THAT IS GOING TO BE OUR FUTURE. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR ATTENTION AND TIME. [ APPLAUSE ]

HELLO, MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS, I'M SUZANNE PRINGLE, A NUNA RESIDENT, I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO YOU TODAY ABOUT OUR VALID PETITION THAT WE HAD OPPOSING THE M.F. 6 ZONING AT 29TH STREET AND HEMPHILL PARK. A FEW MONTHS AGO WE BEGAN COLLECTING SIGNATURES FROM THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS NORDZ TO OBTAIN A VALID PETITION. SOME OF THE SIGNATURES WE OBTAINED EARLY ON COULD NOT BE COUNTED BECAUSE THE APPLICANT WAS ONLY SEEKING A ZONING CHANGE ON THE MIDDLE PARCEL OF THE THREE PARCEL DEVELOPMENT SITE. AT A PREVIOUS MEETING CITY COUNCIL PASSED A MOTION THAT INCLUDED A ZONING CHANGE FOR ALL THREE PARCELS THAT MAKE UP THIS PROJECT. APPROPRIATELY, THE BOUNDARIES FOR THE VALID PETITION WERE EXPANDED TO INCLUDE ALL THREE PARCELS OF THE PROPERTY THAT MAKE UP THE PROJECT. AS A RESULT, CITY STAFF CONFIRMED OVER TWO WEEKS AGO THAT WE HAD OBTAINED SIGNATURES ON OUR PETITION THAT REPRESENTED 24.79% OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. OBTAINING THE SIGNATURES ON OUR PETITION HAS BEEN A CUMBERSOME PROCESS BECAUSE WE'VE HAD TO GO BACK TWICE NOW TO GET PROPERTY OWNERS' SIGNATURES. AT FIRST THE WRONG ADDRESS WAS PUT ON THE DEVELOPERS ORIGINAL APPLICATION. IT'S ALSO BEEN A BIT MORE DIFFICULT TO COORDINATE MEETING WITH SOME OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS SINCE MANY ARE NON-RESIDENT OWNERS. ADDITIONALLY, THE DEVELOPER HAS BEEN AGGRESSIVLY CAN CONTACTING PROPERTY OWNERS WHO HAS SIGNED THE PETITION AND PUTTING PRESSURE ON THEM TO CHANGE THEIR POSITION, EVEN OFFERING ENTICEMENTS SUCH AS PARKING SPACES IF THEY WOULD AGREE TO REMOVE THEIR NAMES FROM THE PETITION. WE WERE TOLD RECENTLY THAT THE DEVELOPER'S ATTORNEY THREATENED ONE PROPERTY OWNER TO BLOCK ANY FUTURE EFFORTS TO CHANGE THEIR ONSITE PARKING IF THEY DID NOT REMOVE THEIR NAME FROM OUR PETITION. IN SPITE OF THESE CHALLENGES, THE 24.79% OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS WHO HAVE SIGNED THE PETITION CONTINUE TO VIGOROUSLY OPPOSE THE M.F. 6 ZONING REQUEST. WE LEARNED TODAY THAT YESTERDAY THE DEVELOPER AND HIS ATTORNEY HAVE NOW RECONFIGURED THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PROJECT IN AN EFFORT TO INVALIDATE OUR PETITION AND REDUCE THE ALLOWABLE PERCENTAGE OF SIGNATURES. THIS SLICK ATTEMPT DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT. THERE IS STILL STRONG OPPOSITION OF THE SAME PROPERTY OWNERS TO THE PROJECT. IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS WHO HAVE SIGNED THE PETITION ARE THOSE PEOPLE WHO TRULY REPRESENT THE NEIGHBORHOOD. CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPER'S CLAIMS, THESE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE NOT MEMBERS OF THE UNIVERSITY AREA PARTNERS ASSOCIATION AND THEY DO NOT SUPPORT THE UNIVERSITY AREA PARTNERS ENDORSEMENT OF THIS PROJECT. I HOPE THAT YOU WILL SERIOUSLY CONSIDER WE STILL FEEL THAT WE HAVE A VALID PETITION. NO MATTER HOW THEY GO AROUND, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO REDESIGNATE THEIR BOUNDARIES. PLEASE CONSIDER THAT WHEN YOU MAKE YOUR VOTE TODAY. [ APPLAUSE ]

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU. MR. IVERSON.

MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, I'M RICK IVERSON WITH NORTH UNIVERSITY. AND I ALSO WORKED ON THE VALID PETITION THAT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WAS ABLE TO COME UP WITH. AND JUST FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES, THIS PRESIDENT AMOUNT OF -- THIS PROXIMATE -- APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF RED HERE IS PEOPLE THAT HAVE SIGNED OPPOSING THE PROJECT. WE DID COMPLAIN EARLIER THAT SINCE THE TRACT WAS ONLY TRACT 1 WAS THE -- WAS THE LINE FOR 200 FEET, THAT WE HAD PEOPLE THAT WERE VERY AFFECTED BY THE PROJECT THAT AREN'T WITHIN THAT 200 FOOT RAIDUS. SO COUNCIL ACTUALLY RECTIFIED THAT THE LAST TIME WE WERE IN FRONT OF YOU WHEN YOU MADE THE MOTION, YOU INCLUDED ALL OF THE PROPERTY ALONG -- ON THE WEST SIDE OF HEMPHILL DRIVE, WHICH IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALL THE TIME. WHEN YOU DO DID THAT, THE CITY STAFF WENT BACK AND RECALCULATED IT AND CAME UP WITH 24.75% FOR THE PETITION BEING VALID. SO MY POINT TO MAKE THIS EVENING IS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ACTUALLY MADE OUR PETITION VALID WHEN YOU PASSED THE MOTION UNANIMOUSLY THE LAST TIME WE WERE BEFORE YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU MR. IVERSON.

WE WOULD HOPE THAT YOU WOULD MAKE IT AGAIN.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU. [ APPLAUSE ]

I'M PAM MORRIS AND I'M HERE TO SPEAK ON A COUPLE OF ISSUES. THE PARKING AND TRAFFIC HAS BEEN WELL COVERED BY THE FOLKS FROM KIRBY HALL. I HAVE LIVED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR 31 YEARS. AND I'VE -- I WAS A UNIVERSITY STUDENT AND I WORK THERE NOW. CONTRARY TO WHAT PEOPLE WOULD LIKE TO ENVISION OF STUDENTS LIVING NEXT TO AND ON CAMPUS, THEY ALL HAVE CARS. NUNA WAS THE FIRST NEIGHBORHOOD TO START THE MODEL RESIDENTIAL PARKING BECAUSE WE WERE UNNONE DATED BY STUDENTS WHO LIVE NEAR THE CAMPUS AND HAVE A GREAT WAY OF GETTING THERE THROUGH THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM, BUT THEY CHOOSE TO PARK IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE SIZE OF U.T. HAS REMAINED CONSTANT. AND SO OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS, IT HAS NOT GROWN SIGNIFICANTLY AND SO THE NEEDS FOR HOUSING HAVE BEEN PRETTY MUCH THE SAME. THERE ARE MANY FOR RENT SIGNS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, THERE IS ADEQUATE STUDENT HOUSING. AND IN FACT ON THE NEXT BLOCK ACROSS FROM THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, U.T. IS PLANNING TO BEGIN BUILDING A 3,000 PLUS STUDENT DORM ON THE CORNER OF 27TH AND WHITIS. SO THAT IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE CITY HAS NOT BEEN ADDRESSED AT ALL BY THIS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL. AND I -- I SAY THAT THERE IS PLENTY OF HOUSING FOR STUDENTS AND STUDENTS ALL OWN CARS. THEY OWN MANY CARS. MANY HAVE MORE THAN ONE. SO THE IDEA THAT ONE PERSON PER BEDROOM JUST DOESN'T CUT THE MUSTARD WITH ME. PLEASE SUPPORT -- PLEASE DO NOT SUPPORT THE M.F. 6 ZONING.

THANK YOU, MS. MORRIS. [ APPLAUSE ]

I GUESS YOU ARE JERRY --

JERRY ROEMISH ACTUALLY, DOWN THE WAYS,.

WHAT'S YOUR LAST NAME.

ROEMISCH. MAYBE AT THE TAIL END. SORT OF A TAIL END SPEAKER.

MAYOR GARCIA: IT'S AROUND HERE SOMEPLACE.

YES, MAYOR, I THINK FIRST OF ALL, CITY COUNCIL, THAT -- IF WE LOOK AT THE CAST OF CHARACTERS, SO FAR IN THIS PRESENTATION, AND MAYBE I MISSED SOMEBODY, BUT I DON'T THINK SO, ON THE SIDE OF THE DEVELOPER WE HAVE GOT ARCHITECTS, A REAL ESTATE AGENT TO SPEAK, A UNIVERSITY CO-OP MANAGER, WE ARE GOING TO PROBABLY HAVE A LAWYER, AND WE'VE HAD DEVELOPERS. WHAT'S MISSING FROM THAT EQUATION? RESIDENTS. THERE ARE NO RESIDENTS IN FAVOR OF THIS DEVELOPMENT. THE FOLKS LIVING AROUND IT ARE OPPOSED. NOW, WHAT'S ALSO IMPORTANT IS WHAT THEY ARE NOT OPPOSED TO IS DENSE STUDENT HOUSING. IT BEEN KIND OF A IMAGE L FIGURE THAT THIS -- MAGICAL FIGURE THAT THIS 150 UNIT IS THE PROPER NUMBER. THE PERFECT NUMBER. IT PROVIDES MORE THAN PERHAPS M.F. 4, WHAT IF WE PUT A 10 STORY COMPLEX IN THERE WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING IN IT? THAT WOULD TOTALLY DESTROY THE COMPATIBILITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT IT WOULD PROVIDE MORE STUDENT HOUSING. SO THE ARGUMENT THAT WE ARE NOT TRYING TO PROVIDE A GREAT DEAL OF STUDENT HOUSING AND YOU HAVE NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT FOR THAT IS -- IS I THINK A VERY SIGNIFICANT POINT. ONE OTHER FINAL POINT, THAT IS THAT THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN BEFORE KNOWLEDGEABLE PEOPLE THREE TIMES, THE PLANNING COMMISSION TWICE, THE PLATTING COMMISSION ONCE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON A 6-1 VOTE DEFEATED THE M.F. 6 FOR THIS VERY REASON, TOO DENSE, DIDN'T PROVIDE ENOUGH PARKING, THE TRAFFIC WAS TOO MUCH. THE PLATTING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED M.F. 4. WE HAVE TALKED TO EACH ONE OF YOU ABOUT M.F. 4, VERBALLY WE HAVE GOTTEN AGREEMENT FROM BY FAR THE MAJORITY OF YOU THAT M.F. 4 IS APPROPRIATE TO THIS LOCATION, M.F. 6 IS FAR TOO DENSE, WE ARE NOT AGAINST STUDENT, NOT AGAINST HAVING PEOPLE WALK TO CLASS. WE WANT SOMETHING THAT'S LIVABLE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I THINK THE RESIDENTS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD SHOULD BE INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS AS WELL. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. [ APPLAUSE ] YOU HAVE ONE MINUTES AND FOUR SECONDS LEFT, MS. RAWLINGS. ARE YOU GOING TO GIVE THAT BACK TO US? BARBARA IS GOING TO SPEAK. WELCOME, BARBARA.

YES, SIR, I'M NOT A MINUTE A I THINK. I'M HERE MY NAME IS BARBARA EPSTEIN, I'M HERE NOT BECAUSE I'M A RESIDENT OF NUNA, BUT BECAUSE OF A WERE OF EAST WOODS, ALONG EAST OF U.T. AND ALONG THE U.T. PERIMETER, I HAVE WORKED FOR MANY YEARS TO ASK THE CITY TO INITIATE FAST TRACK PLANNINGING AND REVITALIZATION FOR THIS PERIMETER. THIS PROJECT REPRESENTS BASICALLY THE KINDS OF PROBLEMS THAT WE WERE HOPING TO AVOID BY HAVING FAST TRACK PLANNING. I WANT TO SPEAK TO TWO ISSUES, THAT'S COMPATIBILITY AND SAFETY. I DON'T THINK YOU CAN SAY THIS IS A COMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT WHEN YOU PUT THE HIGHEST RESIDENTIAL DENSITY NEXT TO THE LOWEST RESIDENTIAL DENSITY. WITHOUT ANY BUFFERS. THAT TO ME IS THE HEART OF GOOD PLANNING. THAT YOU HAVE A MIX OF HOUSING THAT CREATES A LIVELY INTEGRATED NEIGHBORHOOD. BY PUTTING A BIG BOX THERE, SORRY, MY APPEAROLOGIST TO THE ARCHITECTS, IT'S NOT GOOD PLANNING [BUZZER SOUNDING] WITH REGARD TO SAFETY, IF YOU HAVE A LARGE AREA, YOU HAVE ANONYMITY, I STUDENT CAN BE ATTACKED AS EASILY IN A 350 CAR GARAGE AS THEY CAN SOMEWHERE ELSE IN TOWN. ONE LAST POINT. IF IT'S THE DUTY OF THE APPLICANT TO LOOK TO THEIR POCKETBOOK AND CREATE A HIGHEST ECONOMIC USE OF A PROPERTY, IT'S THE DUTY OF THE CITY TO SEE IF THAT USE IS REALLY GOOD FOR THE CITY AND CREATES A VIABLE NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK YOU. [ APPLAUSE ]

MAYOR GARCIA: I WILL PUT ABOUT 15 SECONDS MORE, 14:35 BECAUSE THEY GOT 15 SECONDS EXTRA, SO I WANT TO GIVE YOU 15 SECOND. SO IT WOULD BE 30 MINUTES AND 15 SECONDS. TRYING TO BE AS FAIR AS I CAN HEAR. AND -- AND -- TRYING TO BE AS FAIR AS I CAN HEAR. MR. GARZA, WELCOME, SIR.

MR. MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL. GOOD EVENING. [INAUDIBLE]. MY NAME IS SA GARZA, I'M AN OLD-TIME RESIDENT OF AUSTIN. AND I'M HERE AS ONE OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS WHOSE LAND IS INCLUDED IN THE ZONING CHANGE WHICH I SUPPORT 100%. AS A STUDENT I USED TO LIVE AT 2603 GUADALUPE. RIGHT IN FRONT OF WHAT USED TO BE FAULKNER'S DRUG STORE. AND WE USED TO WALK TO SCHOOL. WE ALSO USED TO WALK TO KIRBY HALL WHO WAS A -- A DORM FOR GIRLS. NOW IT'S A SCHOOL. THINGS CHANGE. WE ALL KNOW THAT NOT ALL OF THE STUDENTS HAVE CARS. AND THAT THIS PROJECT IS A WALKING DISTANCE TO CAMPUS. THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THE CITY COUNCIL, SEVERAL YEARS BACK RIGHT BEFORE WE GOT THE PROPERTY IN 1960 -- 1973, BEFORE KIRBY SCHOOL WAS THERE, THEY GOT TOGETHER WITH THE DIRECTORS OF PUBLIC WORKS, I THINK RUBEN ROUNDTREE, MAYBE RICHARD READINGS, JOHN GERMAN WERE INVOLVED WITH THE MAKING AND CLOSING HEMPHILL DRIVE. AT 29TH. BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO PRESERVE THAT NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE NORTH, THEY WANTED TO WORK OUT THE PARK, AND HELP THE RESIDENTIAL NUCLEUS, AS YOU HAVE BEEN SEEING, IN THESE AREAS. WHETHER RIGHT OR WRONG, IT WAS DONE. ENGINEERING PROJECTS HAVE REFLECTED LIABILITY FOR THIS PROJECT. THE PROPERTY THAT I HAVE OWNED FOR THE LAST 30 YEARS WAS ZONED C, WHEN I BOUGHT IT. AND HAS ALWAYS WORKED OUT ITS TRAFFIC PATTERNS. DURING THE 30 YEARS THAT I HAD MY BUSINESS THERE, AT 401 WEST 29TH, I NEVER OBJECTED TO THE DIFFERENT ZONING CHANGES THAT WERE TAKING PLACE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I HAVE BEEN VERY ACTIVE WITH U.T. AUSTIN, SERVING IN THE ENGINEERING FOUNDATION, SERVING IN THE PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL, PRESIDENT OF DADS ASSOCIATION, NOW PARENTS, WE WERE ALWAYS WORKING AROUND STUDENTS AND FACULTY. ALSO TRYING TO SEE HOW WE COULD HELP THEM. THIS PROJECT GOES A LONG WAY IN SATISFYING STUDENT NEEDS, NOT ONLY NOW BUT IN THE FUTURE. MANY CITIZENS KNOW THAT THIS MAJOR PRIVATE INITIATIVE PROGRAM WILL BE VERY HELPFUL, NOT ONLY TO THE STUDENTS AND THE UNIVERSITY, BUT TO THE CITY OF AUSTIN ITSELF. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, I'M RUDY GARZA, ALSO AN OWNER OF 401 WEST 29TH STREET, ON THE CORNER OF HEMPHILL AND 29TH STREET. OUR FAMILY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY BACK IN 1973. AND BEFORE KIRBY HALL WAS THERE, WE HAVE SEEN KIRBY HALL GROW. WE HAVE SEEN KIRBY HALL EXPAND UP TO THE 180 STUDENTS. WE HAVE SEEN THE CHANGES THAT THEY HAVE MADE. WE AGAIN WE HAVE NOT OPPOSED IT, ANY OF THE CHANGES FOR ADDITIONAL PARKING LOTS AND PARKING EXPANSIONS AND IN FACT WE HAVE TRIED -- WE HAVE TALKED TO KIRBY HALL ABOUT LEASING SOME OF THE PROPERTY FROM TIME TO TIME AND ACTUALLY EVEN PURCHASING THE PROPERTY AWHILE BACK. THEY WERE NOT INTERESTED. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I THINK SOMEONE BROUGHT UP EARLIER IS THE STUDENTS AND THEIR DRIVING HABITS. BUT AFTER WORKING IN -- AND GOING TO WORK THERE, YOU KNOW, FROM 7:00 TO 6:00 DURING THE DAY, FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS AS OUR OFFICE, I CAN TELL YOU THERE IS NO DRIVER ON THE ROAD THAT CAN MAKE YOU THINK TWICE AS A PARENT TRYING TO GET THEIR KID TO SCHOOL ON TIME. AND -- AND I CAN TELL YOU COMING IN AND OUT OF THOSE PARKING LOTS, I HAVE BEEN MUCH MORE CONCERNED WITH PARENTS COMING AND GOING THAN THE STUDENTS LOOKING FOR A PARKING PLACE. THERE'S A REAL DIFFERENCE IN WHAT THEIR MOTIVES ARE. THE OTHER THING THAT I WAS GOING TO SAY IS THEY MENTIONED THAT THEY HAVE THREE PEAK TIMES, 8:00, 1:30 AND 3:30. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU REMEMBER YOUR STUDENT LIFE, BUT TYPICALLY THERE AREN'T A WHOLE LOT OF STUDENTS DRIVING TWO BLOCKS TO SCHOOL AT 8:00 A.M. OR AT 1:30 P.M. OR EVEN AT 3:30 WHEN YOU ARE A BLOCK AND A HALF AWAY FROM SCHOOL. SO CONTRARY TO WHAT WAS SAID EARLIER, THERE IS NOT A -- A -- A PARALLEL BETWEEN THE TIMING OF WHEN STUDENTS ARE GOING TO BE COMING AND GOING IN THIS LOCATION, RELATED TO THE TIME THAT THEY WERE SAYING PARENTS ARE COMING AND DOING DROPOFFS. THE OTHER THING THAT I THOUGHT WAS INTERESTING WAS THAT THE SCHOOL, SOMEONE FROM THE SCHOOL SAID THEY ARE NOT OPPOSED NECESSARILY TO THE DENSITY THAT'S BEING PROPOSED THEN THE LAST ONE IS AUSTIN IS IN A REAL TIME OF TRANSITION. THIS IS A GREAT, GREAT PROJECT AND A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR AUSTIN. IT'S A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR STUDENTS. WE FEED TO GET THESE STUDENTS CLOSER IN. IF THERE'S EVER AN OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF PROVIDING A LITTLE INCREASED DENSITY ON A PROJECT, THIS IS IT. SO PLEASE -- PLEASE SUPPORT THIS -- THIS ACTION.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MR. GARZA.

MY NAME IS MARK FINDLEY. MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS, PLEASURE TO BE HERE. I WANT TO MAKE TWO QUICK POINTS IF I MAY. I HOPE TO EASE THE CONCERN OF SOME OF THE PARENTS AT KIRBY HALL. SINCE 1951, I'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH SAINT AUSTIN'S SCHOOL, AT 21ST AND GUADALUPE. I WANT TO REMIND YOU THAT THAT LOCATION WE HAVE DOBIE MALL ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE SAINT AUSTIN'S TO THE EAST, I BELIEVE IT'S THE SECOND HIGHEST BUILDING IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN. ACROSS THE STREET TO THE NORTH WE HAVE THE GOODALL WOOTEN DORMITORY, APARTMENT HOUSES ACROSS THE STREET TO THE WEST, AND [INAUDIBLE] ON THE SOUTH. THESE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN WONDERFUL NEIGHBORS. WE HAVE NOT HAD PROBLEMS WITH THEM. YES, THERE IS TRAFFIC. BUT IT IS -- IT HAS BEEN WELL CONTROLLED AND I THINK KIRBY HALL WILL FIND THAT THIS SITUATION WILL BE SIMILAR. THE STUDENTS IN FACT MOST OF THE HOUSING THERE DO NOT TAKE THEIR CARS OUT DURING THE DAY. THEY DO IN THE EVENING WHEN THEY WANT TO HAVE A SOCIAL LIFE. BUT THIS IS NOT NORMALLY A PROBLEM DURING THE DAY FOR THAT CLOSE-IN HOUSING. HI THINK THAT SPEAKS TO THE BENEFIT OF THIS -- OF THIS PROJECT. THAT BRINGS ME TO MY SECOND POINT. THE BEST 20 -- THE PAST 20 YEARS I HAVE SERVED VARIESLY ON COMMITTEES FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, DEALING WITH THE AUTOMATICS PLAN. I SERVE ADD AS A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THIS SECTOR, INCLUDING THE DOWNTOWN COMMISSION. I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED WITH THE GUADALUPE STREET BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT FOR THE LAST FIVE YEARS IN BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, CAPITAL METRO AND THE CITY. THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS. IN THIS ENTIRE PERIOD OF TIME, URBAN PLANNER AFTER URBAN PLANNER HAVE COME BEFORE MEETINGS WHERE I WAS IN ATTENDANCE AND SAID, IS THIS KIND OF INTENSITY THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN IN AND NEAR THE UNIVERSITY CAMPUS. SO I -- I'D HOPE THAT IF NOT HERE, WHERE? THANK YOU.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR GARCIA AND COUNCILMEMBERS, FIRST OF ALL TO ADDRESS MAYOR PRO TEM GOODMAN'S QUESTION ABOUT THE EXACT -- MY NAME IS MATT HAMMOND, I'M SORRY. THE PRESIDENT OF THE STUDENT BODY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS. AND WITH THAT POST COMES THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE EXACT HEAD COUNT AT THE UNIVERSITY WHICH IS 50,613. SO -- FOR THE RECORD. I AM HERE TODAY BECAUSE IT IS MY DUTY AND HONOR TO REPRESENT THE STUDENTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN. AND TO REFLECT THE IMPORTANCE THAT THEIR SAFETY, THAT THEIR SAFETY IS TO ME. THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF STUDENTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SUPPORT CENTRALIZING AND MOVING THE STUDENT BODY CLOSER TO CAMPUS. SO -- SO THEY CAN WALK TO SCHOOL AS MAYOR GARCIA POINTED OUT. THAT'S AN IMPORTANT PART OF THIS PLAN. HAS SHOULD BE A PRIORITY OF ALL PARTIES. I'M ALSO HERE TODAY AS A CITIZEN OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN. WHO UNDERSTANDS AND APPRECIATES THE PRIORITIES OF SCHOOLS LIKE KIRBY HALL. AND OF NEIGHBORHOODS LIKE THE NORTH UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD. I GENUINELY BELIEVE THAT OUR GOALS AS A UNIVERSITY AND AS STUDENTS AND THEIR GOALS AS -- AS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OR KIRBY HALL SCHOOL AND A NEIGHBORHOOD ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. THAT WE CAN WORK TOGETHER, THAT IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE DO. I AM HERE TODAY BECAUSE BOTH AS A PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY AND AS A CITIZEN, I UNDERSTAND THAT THESE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN NON-STUDENTS AND STUDENT AND BETWEEN THE UNIVERSITY AND THE CITY ARE PART OF WHAT MAKES AUSTIN SUCH A SPECIAL PLACE. ABOVE ALL I LOVE THIS CITY AND THE UNIVERSITY OFAS THAT CALLS AUSTIN IT'S HOME. I BELIEVE IT'S OUR DUTY TO FIERCELY PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF OUR CITIES -- OF OUR CITY. WHEN HONESTLY APPROACHED FROM AN OBJECTIVE PERSPECTIVE, WE NEED TO ALL REALIZE THAT THERE AREN'T GOING TO BE A THOUSAND CARS HERE. AND I KNOW A LOT OF STUDENTS AND I HAVE NEVER IN FOUR YEARS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN MET A STUDENT WITH MORE THAN ONE CAR. THERE IS NOT EMERGENCY TRIPS TO PARTY BARNES. THIS IS A GOOD PLAN. IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE CENTRALIZE OUR STUDENT BODY THAT WE GET THEM WALKING TO SCHOOL AND WE PROTECT THE SAFETY OF -- OF ALL OF THOSE PARTIES INVOLVED. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU. [ APPLAUSE ]

MAYOR, GOOD EVENING --

MAYOR GARCIA: JUST A SECOND.

WYNN: I'M SORRY. MR. HAMMOND SEEMED -- HE KNEW THAT THE POPULATION OF THE STUDENT BODY ON CAMPUS. BY CHANCE WOULD YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES THAT ARE ON CAMPUS?

YEAH, IT'S ROUGHLY ABOUT 20,000.

WYNN: SO 50,000 STUDENTS, AN ADDITIONAL 20,000 --

NOT ALL OF WHICH ARE ON AT ONE GIVEN TIME BUT THE STAFF AND FACULTY IS ABOUT 20,000.

THANK YOU, ABSOLUTELY.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR GARCIA AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. I'M HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE VILLAS AT GUADALUPE. MY NAME IS JEFF [INAUDIBLE], VICE-PRESIDENT OF STUDENT GOVERNMENT FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN. AS A STUDENT AND CITIZEN, I CAN TELL YOU PERSONALLY ABOUT THE WEALTH OF EXPERIENCE, THE FEELING OF CONNECTION WITH THE UNIVERSITY AND THE CITY THAT COMES FROM LIVING IN THE WEST CAMPUS AREA. I CAN TELL YOU PERSONALLY ABOUT THE LACK OF SAFETY AND THE ALIENIATION OF HAVING TO LIVE ON RIVERSIDE. THE OPPONENTS OF THIS DEVELOPMENT HAVE THEIR INTERESTS, BUT THE 50,000 STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HAVE THEIR INTERESTS AS WELL. THE STUDENTS NEED TO BE NEAR THEIR UNIVERSITY. THEY NEED TO BE AFFORDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO LIVE IN AREAS WHICH ARE CONDUCIVE TO THEIR EXPERIENCE AS STUDENTS. I FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT THE VILLAS AT GUADALUPE ARE A STEP IN THE DIRECTION OF PUTTING STUDENTS WHERE THEY BELONG. WE ARE NOT DEAF YANTS. WE ARE NOT VAN -- DEVIANTS, VANDALS, WE BELONG AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS IN THE HEART OF THE CITY. THANK YOU. [ONE MOMENT PLEASE FOR CHANGE IN CAPTIONERS]

THAT IS AN MF-6 ZONING. AGAIN, IT DOES NOT MEET THE CURRENT LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE 400 STUDENTS AND CARS ARE OFF OF THE STREET AND LOCATED CLOSE TO THE UNIVERSITY, THERE BY REMOVING THAT THREAT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE SF -- AND IN FACT THE CITY PLANNER YEARS AGO WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE UNIVERSITY WAS SOMEWHAT SEPARATED FROM NUNA AND THESE RESIDENCES BECAUSE THEY CLOSED ENFIELD PARK STREET JUST NORTH OF THIS LOCATION AT THE KIRBY HALL SCHOOL. THE STREET NO LONGER GOES THROUGH AND THIS IS TOTALLY ISOLATED AND TOTALLY IN A SEPARATE COMMUNITY FROM THE SF-3 THAT'S LOCATED OVER A THOUSAND FEET TO THE NORTH. WE WILL NOT IMPACT THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT NEIGHBORHOOD IS PRESERVED BY LOCATING STUDENTS CLOSER TO THE UNIVERSITY SO THAT THOSE STUDENTS ON RIVERSIDE DON'T COME INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND PARK. AND FINALLY, THEY'LL BE ABLE TO WALK. THIS REMOVES AT LEAST TWO SHUTTLE BUSES FROM THE THE UNIVERSITY SHUTTLE BUS SYSTEM IF THEY WERE TO LIVE -- IF THOSE 500 STUDENTS WERE FOR LIVE ON RIVERSIDE DRIVE. WE WANT TO HAVE 150 UNITS, APPROXIMATELY 500 STUDENTS. THE CURRENT ZONING IS ALREADY CS WITH AN SRAR OF TWO TO ONE ALLOWED. THE TRAFFIC IMPACT WOULD BE SO MUCH LESS THAN IF WE WERE TO DO ANY KIND OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT SUCH AS A FAST FOOD RESTAURANT OR SOMETHING OF THAT KIND.

HOW MUCH TIME DO I HAVE IN.

44 SECONDS. LET ME POINT OUT A COUPLE OF QUICK FACTS. I'M RICHARD SUTTLE, I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT IN THIS CASE. THE CITY'S POLICY FOR TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDIES, TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS IS A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS IS REQUIRED IF YOU HIT 2,000 TRIPS BECAUSE THAT IS THE THRESHOLD THAT WE'VE FIGURED IS THE CLOSEST IS STUDY. 300 UNITS TRANSLATES INTO 2,000 TRIPS. WE ARE PROPOSING HALF THAT AMOUNT, HALF OF THE THRESHOLD FOR A TIA. LET ME BRING UP ONE OTHER THING. ONE SPEAKER SAID IF WE TOOK CARE OF TRAFFIC PATTERNS, THE SCHOOL WOULD BE -- WOULD BE NEAR AND MIGHT BACK OFF. I HAVE TALKED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE SCOTTISH RITE DORM. THEY HAVE BEEN IN THE PROCESS FOREVER TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET 29TH TO BE TWO WAY OR ONE WAY TO GET KIDS TO BE DROPPED OFF AT THE SCHOOL.

WITIS.

WHITIS. AND I LIVED ON CAMPUS AND PARKED MY CAR AND WALKED EVERYBODY.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER, THOSE ARE ALL THE SPEAKERS. COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

WYNN: QUESTION FOR MR. MADONE. OBVIOUSLY A BIG HERE HERE AND IS CONSIDERED A PRO OR A CON IS THE DYNAMIC OF STUDENTS LIVING HERE AND HOPEFULLY SINCE THEY'LL BE WALKING TO CLASS, ONE BLOCK OR SO AWAY FROM CAMPUS, BUT DRIVING PERHAPS LATER IN THE DAY, SO CONCEPTUALLY YOUR PLAN IS TO -- AND DESIRE IS TO DELIVER AT LEAST MORE PARKING PLACES THAN COVES, CORRECT? TELL ME THIS, AND IT SEEMS TO ME THE LONG-TERM GOAL OF ALL OF OURS SHOULD BE TO FIGURE OUT THE APPROPRIATE LAND PLANNING AND DENSITY UNTIL IT WAS ULTIMATELY, YOU KNOW, MERGE A BETTER THOUGHT OUT TRANSPORTATION AND OCCUPANCY PLAN FOR THIS WHOLE AREA. SO THAT IN FACT YOU DON'T NEED AS MANY CARS OR IN FACT IF THERE'S, YOU KNOW, FOUR COLLEGE KIDS AND ONE TWO BEDROOM APARTMENT, THERE'S ONLY TWO CARS BETWEEN THE FOUR OR SOME LESSER DYNAMIC OF EVERYBODY HAVING A CAR AND EVERYBODY TRYING TO DRIVE ALONE IN THEIR CAR. SO CONCEPTUALLY TELL ME THIS. IF SOMEBODY MOVES INTO THIS APARTMENT COMPLEX AND DOESN'T WANT TO BRING A CAR. I MEAN, FOR WHATEVER REASON, YOU KNOW, SOME KID MOVES HERE, CHECKS IN THERE WITHOUT A CAR, I SUSPECT THEY'RE GOING TO PAY THE SAME RENT AS THE KID DOWN THE HALL WHO COMES WITH A CAR.

CONCEPTUALLY I AGREE WITH YOU. WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS MOVE TO A SYSTEM, AND WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS WITH THE UNIVERSITY AT THE BOARD LEVEL OF THE UNIVERSITY AREA PARTNERS, IS THAT WE WOULD TRY TO MOVE TO A SITUATION WHERE YOU PAY IF YOU BRING A CAR. YOU PAY EXTRA FOR THAT PARKING PLACE.

WYNN: AND I'M ASKING IN THIS PRONL, DO YOU CHARGE SEPARATELY FOR YOUR RENT AND APARTMENT SPACE. IT COSTS YOU MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO BUILD THAT PARKING GARAGE AND IF THE KID MOVES IN THERE WITHOUT BRINGING A CAR, HE IN FACT OR SHE WILL BE SUB SUBSIDIZING THE STUDENTS WHO DECIDE TO BRING THEIR CAR. SO WHAT'S THE FINANCIAL ADVANTAGE OF SOMEBODY COMING HERE WITHOUT A CAR, WHICH WOULD BE A GREAT DYNAMIC ULTIMATELY SINCE FOR SO MANY OF THE ISSUES THAT WE'RE TRYING TO EVOLVE HERE?

I DON'T DISAGREE, BUT THE WAY THE CODE IS SET UP, YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE A CERTAIN RATIO OF CARS, AND WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO IS WORK WITH NUNA AND ACHIEVE THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF CARS WE COULD ON THE FOOTPRINT THAT WE HAD TO BUILD TO BUILD THE PARKING GARAGE.

WYNN: I AGREE. DOWNTOWN WE HAVE SIMILAR PARKING CODES AND SO DOWNTOWN YOU PAY FOR YOUR OFFICE SPACE AND THEN YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO RENT A PARK IS SPACE FOR 85, 95, 150 DOLLARS A MONTH DEPENDING ON WHERE IN THE GARAGE IT IS. AND SO AN OFFICE TENANT IN DOWNTOWN DOES THE MATH AND ULTIMATELY THE MARKET ADJUSTS ITSELF AND THEY FIGURE OUT IN FACT I GET A BETTER DEAL IF I CAN FIGURE OUT HOW MY 50 GEESE KBEES CAN GET BY WITH 27 CARS, NOT 50 CARS.

THE PRIMARY REASON FOR PARKING FOR THIS PROJECT IS TO WAREHOUSE CARS THAT PEOPLE BRING BECAUSE THEY COME FROM OUT OF TOWN. AND I WISH THAT WE HAD A WAY OF -- AND THAT'S A MANAGEMENT QUESTION.

WYNN: CHARGE THEM FOR IT. THAT WILL CHANGE THAT DYNAMIC.

WE COULD JUST CHARGE EXTRA FOR THAT, AND THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE COULD AND WILL LOOK INTO, BUT WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN TO THAT POINT YET. WE WERE HOPING TO FIGURE OUT HOW MANY UNITS WE CAN BUILD HERE TONIGHT SO THAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD. BUT I AGREE WITH YOU ON YOUR CONCEPT HERE. WHAT WE NEED TO DO IN THE UNIVERSITY AREA IS WORK TOWARD A DIFFERENTIAL, PAY FOR CARS IF YOU BRING THEM.

WYNN: HAVE THE VARIABLE COSTS BUILT INTO YOUR MODEL, SO IF -- AND THE MARKET WILL ADJUST ITSELF AND THE KIDS WILL FIGURE OUT, YOU KNOW, HOW TO GET BY WITH YOUR CAR BECAUSE THEY'RE PAYING LESS RENT.

THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS DOES THAT. I ATTEMPT TO DO THAT IN SOME OF MY PLACES THAT I OWN PERSONALLY. IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN TO THAT POINT, BUT WE WILL EXAMINE THAT AS A POSSIBLY SO THAT WE CAN CREATE THAT DISINCENTIVE FOR CAR OWNERSHIP WHEN YOU HAVE NO NEED FOR IT OTHER THAN TO GET HOME ON CHRISTMAS OR SOMETHING.

WYNN: THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: LET ME READ INTO THE RECORD THE PEOPLE THAT WERE NOT RECOGNIZE AS SPEAKING, BUT WHO HAVE CARDS SUBMITTED. HOWARD RATE IS AGAINST. BEVERLY R RATE, AGAINST. STEVEN MCADAMS, AGAINST. KATY DAFER, AGAINST. DON KARNES, AGAINST. CAROL CHURCH, AGAINST. BRYAN DAFER, AGAINST. MARY JANE LEAHY AGAINST. SUSAN COLEMAN, AGAINST. GORDON GRIFFEN AGAINST. IS GORDON HERE? ERIC LANGE, AGAINST? ROGER VIRGIL, AGAINST. WILL BOSEMAN, AGAINST. MALLORY AGAINST. REESE JACKSON, AGAINST. MAR RIS IS A DAVIS, AGAINST. PATRICK FITZGERALD, AGAINST. MOLLY MASS RALLIA AGAINST. LET ME MENTION THAT I'LL MENTION THESE NAMES AND UNLESS I MENTION SOMETHING DIFFERENT, THESE PEOPLE ARE ALL SIGNED UP AGAINST. FRANCES KELLY AND JUDY DAFFER, AMY CHRISWELL, CATHERINE LANGE, JAN MOIL, AUDREY SLATE, JOHN DAVIS, VICKY JACKSON, JIM CHRISWELL, MARVIN STARK. JACK HEAVER, HALL LEE ROUT. MS. SHELTON. JUDY WILCOX. GREG HUDSON. GRANT AND SANDY HUDSON. DEBRA HARVEY. LONNIE FLOYD CULLINGSWORTH THE THIRD. MARY LAYMAN. NANCY WOOLLY. SHAUN TOLER. JOAN BURN HAM, FOR. IS THAT INCORRECT?

[INAUDIBLE].

MAYOR GARCIA: BETTIE CARPENTER, THEY'RE ALL AGAINST. KIRK SCHULTZY. ES CARPENTER. PAMELA HANNAH. STEVE SILL BY. MATT HAMMOND, FOR. MR. HAMMOND IS REGISTERED IN FAVOR OF. CARLA UNDERHILL. SHE WAS AGAINST. PAUL CANS, AGAINST. JARRAH TUSON, FOR. AMY SHUMAN, AGAINST. PATRICK MULLIN, AGAINST. NOEL MATA, AGAINST. MONIQUE LEEMAN, AGAINST. SEEN IN A MATA, AGAINST. NANCY RAY, I GUESS, AGAINST. OSCAR ALMANZA, AGAINST. MICHELLE ALMANZA, AGAINST. GINA ANDRE, AGAINST. CATHERINE SHEA, AGAINST. LINDSEY RAM BOW, AGAINST. AMY YOUNG KIN, AGAINST. ELIZABETH CHURRY, AGAINST. LONNIE HOLTION WORTH, AGAINST. SISSY LIGHT FOOT CROSS, AGAINST. JESSE PATTERSON, AGAINST. I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO WHAT I WAS DOING BEFORE AND JUST READ THE NAMES OF PEOPLE THAT ARE AGAINST. KRISTA BLACKWOOD. DEBBIE SHOEMAN, MIGUEL SANG. DOMINIQUE, RENE KAVOLOPTS. FRANCES NASH. CHRISTIE SEBRY. JACK SEBRY. MADELINE BACH. GERALD TORRES. SHAUN BLAKELY. RICHARD AT THE TIMELER. LAWYER BLAKELY. KAREN BLAKELY. SE CEASE I CAN'T COLLINS. BRAD HARPER, CAROL SWEDEMAN AND LINDSEY NAKASHIMA. ALL OF THOSE ARE REGISTERED AGAINST. COUNCIL, ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF OR ANYBODY ELSE? MAYOR PRO TEM GOODMAN?

GOODMAN: A FEW QUESTIONS OCCURRED TO ME AS FOLKS SPOKE, AND SO I'LL JUST PUT THEM OUT OSTENSIBLY FOR CITY STAFF AND THEN GO FROM THERE.

MAYOR GARCIA: I'M GOING TO GO GET A BITE TO EAT. I'LL BE BACK, EVERYONE.

GOODMAN: GREG, OKAY, LET ME ASK A COUPLE OF MECHANICAL QUESTIONS. SINCE THERE ARE LEGALLY REQUIRED PARKING SPACES FOR ANY FACILITY THAT UNLESS YOU'RE DOWNTOWN, IS THERE A WAY TO ZONE SOMETHING WITHOUT HAVING THE REQUIRED PARKING OR IS THERE -- IS IT LEGAL TO SAY ALL PARKING MUST BE OFF SITE SOMEHOW?

THE ONLY BUILDING YOU WOULD HAVE IS TO MAKE SOMETHING MORE RESTRICTIVE BY LIKE INCREASING PARKING ON THE PROPERTY. BUT ON THE OTHER HAND TO WAIVE THE REQUIREMENT, YOU WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE TO CHANGE THE ORDINANCE TO MAKE THAT PROVISION. OR THE PROPERTY OWNER COULD GO BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO SEEK A VARIANCE BASED ON HARDSHIP TO WAIVE THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE CURRENTLY REQUIRED CODE. BUT IF THEY WANT TO PROVIDE LESS PARKING, NO, I DON'T THINK THE COUNCIL HAS THE ABILITY TO REDUCE THE PARKING APARTMENTS. WE COULD INCREASE THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS, BUT NOT THE REVERSE.

GOODMAN: OKAY. THIS IS ABOUT U.T. AND THE MASTER PLAN THAT THEY STARTED DOING SOME YEARS BACK BECAUSE IT WAS A REFERENCE TO, WHAT WAS IT, 27TH AND WHITIS OR SOMETHING THEY WERE ABOUT TO BUILD, WHERE U.T. WAS GOING TO BUILD. BACK WHEN THEY STARTED DISCUSSING THE MASTER PLAN, MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT U.T. WAS GOING TO REVAMP A WHOLE LOT OF THE STUDENT HOUSING, FOR INSTANCE, AND PARKING STRUCTURES, BUT THAT THEY WERE NOT GOING TO ADD ANY MORE CAPACITY FOR PARKING THAN WHAT EXISTED AT THAT TIME. AND MIKE IS SHAKING HIS HEAD LIKE THAT'S TRUE.

MAYOR PRO TEM, I DO NOT HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE MASTER PLAN. I KNOW THAT IT WAS SPOKEN OF, BUT THE PROPERTY EARLIER THIS EVENING AT 27TH AND WHITIS WAS ORIGINALLY AN HISTORIC STRUCTURE. I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANY PLANS TO BUILD ANYTHING ON THAT SITE UNTIL A FIRE OCCURRED WHICH DESTROYED THE MAJORITY OF THAT BUILDING AND THE CARRIAGE HOUSE THAT I THINK WOULD BE MOVED OFF. SINCE THAT TIME I THINK THERE'S BEEN A PROPOSAL FOR SOME APARTMENTS. BUT I DO NOT KNOW THE PARTICULARS OF THE U.T. PROPOSAL. IF THERE'S SOMEWHERE HERE THAT CAN ANSWER THAT .... BE.

GOODMAN: WE'LL GET BACK TO THAT ONE LATER. THE RESIDENTIAL PARKING ONLY PROGRAM, THE NUNA WAS THE FIRST IN THE CITY TO BE A PART OF, BEGINS AND ENDS WHERE? DO YOU KNOW?

I DON'T KNOW THE SPECIFIC BOUNDARIES OF THAT. I JUST KNOW HOW IN GENERAL IT WORKS. THERE IS PROBABLY AT LEAST ONE INDIVIDUAL HERE THAT MIGHT BE ABLE TO SPEAK TO THAT.

GOODMAN: WOULD MR. ZAPALAC KNOW? OKAY. WELL, WE'LL COME BACK TO THAT LATER WHEN WE GET TO THOSE KIND OF QUESTIONS, WHEN WE TRY TO GET THROUGH ALL THE STAFF ONES FIRST OR ONCE THAT I THINK ARE STAFF. OKAY. AT THIS MOMENT NONE OF THE STREETS AROUND THIS AREA OFF GUADALUPE HEADING EAST OFF GUADALUPE HAVE ANY RESTRICTIONS ON THE STREETS FOR PARKING, RIGHT?

THERE MAY BE SOME AREAS WHERE THERE'S FIRE HYDRANTS THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO SET BACK SOME. THERE MIGHT BE SOME SEWED LOEDING ZONES. I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY MAJOR RESTRICTIONS ON THE BASIS OF THE GENERAL AREA.

GOODMAN: AND WE DON'T KNOW HOW MANY MULTI-FAMILY UNITS ARE WITHIN A TWO OR THREE-MILE RADIUS OF THIS. WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE FOR US IN THE FUTURE TO MAKE A SURVEY WITHIN CERTAIN BOUNDARY STREETS OR WHAT HAVE YOU, TO FIND OUT HOW MANY UNITS EXIST IN THIS AREA?

WE COULD PROBABLY OBTAIN SOME INFORMATION FROM CENSUS DATA, FROM OUR TRANSPORTATION, PLANNING AND DEPARTMENT. THEY PROBABLY HAVE CENSUS FIGURES AND THINGS LIKE THAT THAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET SOMETHING BACK TO YOU. IF IT COMES BACK LATER, WE COULD BRING THE INFORMATION TO YOU. I DO KNOW THERE ARE FOUR APARTMENTS PROJECTS THAT I DO HAVE SOME INFORMATION ON BETWEEN 27TH AND 29TH IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA. I CAN SPEAK TO THE DENSITIES OF THOSE BRIEFLY. THERE ARE FOUR UNITS. TO MY UNDERSTANDING THERE'S A PROJECT AT 2803 HEMPHILL PARK, APPROXIMATELY 30 UNITS, THREE STORIES. IT'S ABOUT A QUARTER ACRE AND THAT TURNS OUT TO BE ABOUT 25 UNITS PER ACRE BASED ON THE LAND AREA. THERE'S ANOTHER PROPERTY AT 305 WEST 29TH CONTAINING ABOUT 18 UNITS ON A LITTLE LESS THAN A QUARTER ACRE AND IT COMES OUT TO ABOUT 78 UNITS PER ACRE. ANOTHER ONE AT 2801 HEMPHILL PARK HAS ABOUT 12 EFFICIENCY UNITS AND COMES OUT TO ABOUT 66 UNITS PER ACRE. ANOTHER ONE AT 2808 WHITE ADVERTISE HAS ABOUT 24 UNITS AND THREE STORIES AND IT'S ABOUT 28 UNITS PER ACRE. THERE ARE SOME DUPLEXES IN THE AREA AND MORE THAN ONE SINGLE-FAMILY HOME, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S BEEN CHANGED FROM AN APARTMENT STATUS BACK TO A SINGLE-FAMILY, BUT THESE ARE JUST -- OF THE LARGER APARTMENTS AND LARGE BEING ONLY MAYBE 12 UNITS, THAT ARE WITHIN A BLOCK OR SO OF THIS PROJECT.

GOODMAN: JUST FOR LATER, I WANT TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT IF WE HAVE STAFF ON HAND THAT MIGHT BE ABLE TO DO SOME KIND OF SPOT CHECKS ON THIS, CONSIDERING POSSIBLY WE CAN BE LOOKING AT AN ORDINANCE AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR SOME KIND OF PARKING AND WE NEED SOME KIND OF CRITERIA. I'M LOOKING HERE AT THE SITUATION AND IT MIGHT GIVE US SOME FOUNDATION FOR FIGURING OUT WHAT THAT CRITERIA MIGHT BE IN NUMBERS OR UNIT. WE ALSO, I THINK, DO NOT HAVE ANY KIND OF POLICY RELATIVE TO PLACEMENT OR MAYBE WE DON'T HAVE THE MECHANISM TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT PLACEMENT OF STRUCTURED PARKING, DO WE?

I'M NOT AWARE OF ANYTHING OTHER THAN COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS. THE COMPLEX OR SINGLE-FAMILY HOME IN THE AREA COULD TRIGGER HEIGHT LIMITATIONS THAT MAY LIMIT THE HEIGHT OF AN APARTMENT STRUCTURE AND THEN YOU'LL HAVE THE GENERAL SET BACK REQUIREMENTS FROM ANY GIVEN STREET THAT WOULD APPLY TO ANY KIND OF BUILDING, BUT NO, THERE'S NOTHING SPECIAL ABOUT OUR PARKING STRUCTURE THAT WOULD REQUIRE IT TO SET FURTHER BACK OR THAT A REGULAR BUILDING, THE APARTMENT BUILDING THAT'S PROPOSED WOULD HAVE.

GOODMAN: DO WE HAVE ANY KIND OF MECHANISM OR -- I KNOW WE DON'T. DO WE HAVE ANY KIND OF LEGAL PRECLUSION, DO YOU THINK, OR MAYBE MARTY THINKS, ABOUT DIRECTING AND/OR ALLOWING PARKING STRUCTURES TO BE ORIENTED CLOSER TO A CERTAIN KIND OF FEEDER STREET OR CORRIDOR RATHER THAN A STREET SUCH AS GUADALUPE THAT HAS A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT PERSONALITY AND A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT ROLE?

THE COUNCIL WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO MAKE CERTAIN SETBACKS MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN IN THE CURRENT CODE, BUT NOT TO RELAX A RESTRICTION TO ALLOW THE BUILDING TO MOVE CLOSER TO ANY OF THE GIVEN STREETS. RIGHT NOW THE ONLY ORDINANCES THAT I'M AWARE OF THAT WOULD MAYBE SPEAK TO THE SETBACKS THAT MIGHT BE RELAXED MIGHT BE IN ONE OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AREAS WHERE WE IMPLEMENT A PLAN WHILE A MIXED USE BUILDING, WHICH WOULD PROBABLY BE ON A SMALLER SCALE NEAR AN INTERSECTION OR ALONG AN HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY, IT MIGHT PROVIDE FOR ADDITIONAL SET BACKS THAN WHAT WE PRESCRIBED. I'M NOT AWARE OF ANYTHING THAT WOULD ALLOW IT CLOSER TO AN ARTERIAL VERSUS A MINOR COLLECTOR OR A LOCAL STREET.

GOODMAN: LET ME ASK THEN FOR THE FUTURE TOO. IF THROUGH CITY LEGAL WE CAN FIND OUT IF ANYONE ELSE HAS SOMETHING WE CAN LOOK AT IN SOME OF THEIR CITY OR AREA WHERE WE CAN ACTUALLY TRY TO DIRECT THE PLACEMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF STRUCTURED PARKING. NOT TALKING ABOUT SURFACE PARKING MUCH AT THE MOMENT, BUT STRUCTURED PARKING SO THAT YOU CAN ACTUALLY DECIDE THE DESTINATION A LITTLE BIT MORE OF THE CARS THAT YOU ARE BRINGING TO AN AREA. AND THEN, OF COURSE, TRANSIT WILL HAVE TO BE PRETTY GOOD TO GET YOU FROM WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO DIRECT PARKING AND WHERE YOUR BUILT DESTINATION IS. LIKE IF WE WERE KEEPING YOU CLOSER TO LAMAR, I KNOW THAT THERE'S A LOT OF PLANNING GOING ON IN THIS COUNTRY AND A LOT MORE IMPLEMENTATION IN OTHER PLACES THAN TEXAS, SO THERE MUST BE SOMETHING GOING ON THAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO LOOK AT AND TRY TO OVERLAY ON TO OUR OWN CODE. HOW FAR AWAY, GREG, DO YOU THINK IS THE SF PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD? I KNOW THAT THE NEIGHBORS WILL BE ABLE TO TELL ME THIS TOO, BUT ON THE ZONING MAP WE DON'T GO FAR ENOUGH. SO HOW FAR -- WHAT STREET BEGINS SF USE?

I THINK YOU WOULD HAVE TO GO A LITTLE BIT FURTHER NORTH THAN 30TH TO GET IN, BUT THERE ARE A LOT OF SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES THAT ARE NORTH OF 30TH. IN FACT, I'M AWARE OF A LOT OF THE STRUCTURES BEING RENOVATED FOR RESIDENTIAL USE THAT ARE NORTH OF 30TH STREET. I KNOW THE HOMEOWNER THAT -- I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHERE THE STRUCTURE IS BY HEMPHILL PARK I THINK ORIGINALLY BOUGHT A FOUR-PLEX AND WAS CONVERTING IT BACK TO A SINGLE-FAMILY DRELG DWELLING. I KNOW THEY WERE IN THE PROCESS OF THAT, BUT I DON'T THINK THEY COMPLETED THAT. BUT I THINK MOST OF THE RESIDENTIAL IS NORTH OF 30TH, ALTHOUGH IT MIGHT NOT BE ZONED FOR SINGLE-FAMILY, THE STRUCTURES ARE BEING RENOVATED AND USED FOR THAT. I'M NOT AWARE OF ANYTHING REALLY FURTHER TO THE WEST FOR QUITE A GREAT DISTANCE. THE CLOSEST AREA WOULD BE TO THE NORTH. AS YOU GO FURTHER EAST AND NORTH, THEN YOU WILL PROBABLY FIND SOME RESIDENTIAL. I THINK BARBARA LIVES IN A SMALL ENCLAF SURROUNDED BY A LOT OF RESIDENTIAL AND MULTI-FAMILY, SUNT STUDENT HOUSING,.

AND THE LAST THING THAT I THINK WE MIGHT KNOW OR HOPEFULLY WILL, IS YOU KNOW THE PICTURE THAT WE WERE SHOWED THAT HAD THE MF-4 DENSITY AND I THINK THAT CAME FROM THE NEIGHBORS' SIDE, WHICH WAS 26TH AND SAN ANTONIO, WAS IT? DO YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW THE ACREAGE OF THIS PROJECT?

NO, I DO NOT. I DO NOT HAVE A COPY FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF THEIR PROPOSAL, BUT WE COULD RESEARCH THAT IF THIS WERE TO COME BACK ANOTHER DAY AND I COULD FIND THAT INFORMATION AND PROVIDE IT TO YOU.

GOODMAN: IT ALSO IS A LITTLE BIT OFF OUR MAP, SO I CAN'T GUESSTIMATE WHAT THE NUMBER OF UNITS IS IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, WHAT THE ACREAGE IS, AND WITH MF-4, THERE'S A REAL FEELING OF MASS AT THIS PARTICULAR SITE, BUT THERE MAY ALSO BE A DIFFERENCE IN ACREAGE SO THAT EVEN THOUGH THE ZONING IS THE SAME, THE ACTUAL MAP OF THE PROJECT MAY BE MUCH DIFFERENT IN TERMS OF NUMBERS.

WE CAN CHECK ON THAT.

GOODMAN: OKAY.

MAYOR PRO TEM, IF I MAY, I WANT TO ALSO CLARIFY THAT THE ZAP MOTION WAS FOR MF-4 OR CO.

GOODMAN: YEAH. I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, I THINK WHEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD SHOWED US THIS PICTURE, THEY WERE TRYING TO SAY EVEN FM-4 IS QUITE DENSE AND IN THIS CASE A LITTLE BIT LIKE AN URBAN ANT HILL KIND OF THING SO THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DIFFERENT PROJECTS THAT STILL HAVE THE SAME ZONING AND SO I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHETHER THE IMPRESSIONS OF THIS WOULD BE COMPARABLE TO WHAT'S BEEN PROPOSED AT THIS OTHER SITE.

I MIGHT ADD MR. MCCOMB, HE COULD SPEAK TO THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN AND BUILDING THAT WAS DISCUSSED, BUT THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT I WOULD THINK WOULD BE DESIGNED AND AN MF-4 GIVEN A HEIGHT LIMITATION OF FEET. I DON'T KNOW ALL THE PARTICULARS OF THAT SITE, BUT IT'S NOT SOMETHING BEYOND REASON. THAT PROJECT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN BUILT. CERTAINLY A TIME WHEN COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS EXISTED WHICH MAY HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL SETBACKS, BUT SINGLE-FAMILIES OR DUPLEX UNITS THAT ARE ACROSS THE STREET PROBABLY WOULD NOT LIMIT A BUILDING TO BE ANY LESS THAN THREE STORIES EVEN ON THIS PROPERTY.

GOODMAN: OKAY. THANK YOU. THE REST OF MY QUESTIONS, MAYOR, -- I'M MAYOR. ARE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO LET ME ASK IF THERE'S ANYBODY THAT WANTS TO TRY TO BE LIKE A SPOKESPERSON, FIGURING THAT IF YOU DON'T KNOW THE ANSWERS, WE CAN ASK SOMEBODY ELSE TOO IF THEY COME UP. AND I KNOW SUSAN HAD THE ANSWER TO ONE QUESTION AT LEAST. OKAY. WHOEVER. I JUST NEED

[INAUDIBLE].

GOODMAN: WELL, COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE AND I'LL JUST -- I THOUGHT YOU ACTED LIKE YOU KNEW THE ANSWER TO ONE, SO I'LL JUST GO DOWN ALL OF THEM THAT I CAN REMEMBER AND WHOEVER KNOWS.

OKAY.

GOODMAN: SPEAKING ACTUALLY OF THE 26TH AND SAN ANTONIO SITE, DO YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW FROM BEING AROUND A LONG TIME HOW MANY UNITS THIS WAS?

NO, I DON'T. WE WENT -- WE -- IT IS QUITE MASSIVE FOR THE PIECE OF LAND THAT IS THERE AND I TOOK A PICTURE OF IT SINCE WE REALIZED THAT EVEN FOR MF-4, IT FILLS UP A GREAT DEAL OF THE LAND THERE.

GOODMAN: I THOUGHT SOMEBODY MIGHT REMEMBER FROM WHEN IT WENT THROUGH.

'76 IS WHAT WILL SAYS.

GOODMAN: 1976?

NO, 76 UNIT.

GOODMAN: 76 UNITS. OKAY. AND THEY'RE ALL OBVIOUSLY ON ONE SIDE?

YES.

GOODMAN: OKAY.

I'M SORRY, CORRECTION. THEY GO THROUGH THE ENTIRE BLOCK THERE. CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT?

THAT PROJECT FILLS THE BLOCK OR A HALF BLOCK, AND IT IS OVER A PARKING GARAGE AND IT HAS A HARDSCAPED COURTYARD IN THE MIDDLE OF IT. AND I THINK MIKE MIGHT HAVE USED THAT PROJECT IN HIS DEVELOPMENT OF SAR'S THAT HE MIGHT HAVE HAD IN THAT QUESTION, BUT IT IS BASICALLY 100% IMPERVIOUS COVER AND IT IS A DONUT SHAPED APARTMENT COMPLEX.

GOODMAN: OKAY. THAT REMIND ME OF SOMETHING I FORGOT TO ASK GREG, BUT I'LL ASK YOU LATER. ON THE FOLKS WHO HAVE SIGNED THE PETITION, EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT QUITE 20% NOW, I WANTED TO ASK, BECAUSE OF SOMETHING A SPEAKER SAID -- I'M NOT REMEMBERING IF THIS WAS SUSAN OR NOT, BUT THAT IT WAS DIFFICULT TO GET THE PETITION SIGNED BECAUSE OF NON-RESIDENT PROPERTY OWNERS. DID YOU SAY THAT?

YES, MA'AM.

GOODMAN: SO OF THE PETITIONERS, ARE A LOT OF THEM NON-RESIDENT OR -- I KNOW THERE ARE SOME DUPLEXES THAT ARE RESIDENTIAL UNITS THERE, SO WOULD THOSE FOLKS -- .

WE HAVE MANY CLOSE RESIDENTS. WE HAVE PEOPLE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD THAT OWN IT AND THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE IN THE CITY THAT OWN THOSE APARTMENT COMPLEXES. AND THERE'S PEOPLE IN THE AREA. MOST OF THEM ARE EITHER IN TEXAS OR WITHIN THE TOWN. SO FOR THE MOST PART THERE'S FOLKS THAT ARE IN THE AREA. THERE'S SOME IN LOS ANGELES. WE HAVE SOME DIVERSITY TO IT AS WELL.

GOODMAN: OKAY. JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY BECAUSE OF SOMETHING I HEARD EARLY, I'LL JUST ASK YOU IN PASSING AND BRIEFLY, WOULD THOSE OTHERS ARE ABLE TO BE PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION?

YES, THEY'RE ALL MEMBERS. I CAN'T SAY ALL, BUT THEY'VE PAID DUES AND THEY'RE PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.

GOODMAN: SO YOU CAN BE A MEMBER IF YOU OWN PROPERTY, BUT BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIVE THERE DOESN'T MEAN YOU GIVE UP YOUR RIGHT?

RIGHT.

GOODMAN: YOU ALL WOULDN'T HAPPEN TO KNOW HOW MANY UNITS OR GUESS HOW MANY UNITS WITHIN A TWO OR THREE MILE RADIUS, WOULD YOU? SOME FOLKS HAVE BEEN AROUND A LONG TIME AND THEY REMEMBER. I THINK I COULD PROBABLY TELL YOU HOW MANY ARE IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD IN A THREE-MILE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR HAVING FOUGHT MY WAY THROUGH ALL THOSE CASES.

I DON'T HAVE THE NUMBER, BUT I PASSED OUT IN ONE OF THE PREVIOUS MEETINGS A MAP THAT SHOWS IN BLACK THE MULTI-FAMILY AND IN LIGHT COLOR THE SINGLE-FAMILY. AND THAT MAP SHOWS ABOUT A 50% COVER OF AREA FOR MULTI-FAMILY IN OUR AREA. I THINK THAT THERE IS -- I THINK YOUR QUESTION IS WELL TIMED AND I THINK IT WOULD BE VERY IMPORTANT TO FIND OUT THE EXACT NUMBER OF UNITS BECAUSE WE FEEL THE FACT THAT SUDDENLY THERE'S RENTAL AREA GOING UP FOR RENT ALL OVER THE AREA, WHICH IS USUAL DURING THE SCHOOL YEAR, THAT THERE IS A SATURATION OF RENTAL UNITS IN OUR AREA AND THAT WE DO ACCOMMODATE STUDENTS QUITE WELL AND I THINK -- I HOPE THAT THE STAFF GETS YOU AN ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION.

GOODMAN: I THINK WE CAN GET A GUESSTIMATE JUST FROM GOING TO THE CASES THAT WE HAVE IN THE ZONING. AT LEAST WE'LL GET CLOSE. OKAY. I'M NOT SURE IF I HAVE ANY MORE OTHER THAN I DO WANT TO NOTE THAT FROM BOTH SIDES OF THE TABLE HERE WE HAVE LEGITIMATE POINTS AND THAT -- .

MS. GOODMAN, YOU HAD ASKED ABOUT IF THERE WERE ANY SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES OR IF THERE WERE ANY CLOSE TO THE DEVELOPMENT. I LIVE AT 3006 HEMPHILL AND I'M ABOUT A BLOCK AWAY FROM THE DEVELOPMENT AND EVERYONE ON MY STREET IS ALSO IN -- ARE ALSO ALL RESIDENTS.

GOODMAN: YOU WERE ABLE TO SIGN THE PETITION?

I'M NOT WITHIN THE 500 FEET OR WHATEVER OF THIS, BUT I'M SAYING THAT I'M A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME, I'M NOT A HOMEOWNER AND I'M LIVING VERY CLOSE ON THIS DEVELOPMENT.

GOODMAN: YOU'RE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF HEMPHILL?

I'M ON THE OTHER SIDE OF 30TH ON HEMPHILL PARK, YES.

MAYOR PRO TEM? I BELIEVE IN RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTION ABOUT OVERALL DENSITY AND NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS IN NUNA, I CAN RESPOND. THE NUNA, OUR BOUNDARIES MATCH THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING BOUNDARY QUITE WELL AND STAFF DID WORK OUT STATISTICS ON RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS AND DENSITY. I CAN REMEMBER OFFHAND THAT THE DENSITY OF NUNA WAS HIGHEST RESIDENTIAL DENSITY OUTSIDE OF WEST CAMPUS AND RIVERSIDE. IT WAS NOEFER 19 DWELLINGS PER ACRE. THE NEIGHBORHOOD -- THAT NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AREA IS ABOUT A HALF SQUARE MILE, ABOUT 300 ACRES. SO THERE ARE 6,000 TOTAL DWELLING UNITS ROUGHLY. AND WITH THAT I FIGURE THE MULTI-FAMILY TO SINGLE-FAMILY IS ABOUT FOUR TO ONE. SO DOING THE MATH AND YOU HAVE ALREADY SEVERAL THOUSAND MULTI-FAMILY UNITS IN NUNA ALONE. THANK YOU.

GOODMAN: THANK YOU. THAT IS KIND OF THE NUMBER THAT I'M TRYING TO GET AT. SO THAT'S CLOSER, BUT THAT'S A GOOD ESTIMATE. IF ANYBODY WAS GOING FROM THIS POINT PAST KIRBY HALL, WHERE EXACTLY DO YOU THINK THEY'D BE HEADED FOR? WHAT WOULD THEY BE TRYING TO DO, SINCE I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD WORK FOR THEM, BUT I SUPPOSE THEY COULD GO DOWN THERE JUST BECAUSE THEY ASSUMED THEY WERE GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO SOMETHING.

I THINK THIS ISSUE IS REALLY A BUSINESS UNDERSTOOD OR MISREPRESENTED. THE PROBLEM WE SEE IS WHAT WE SEE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE CARS AND WITH VISITORS COMING AND GOING AND WITH STREETS ALREADY FULL IS GOING TO CREATE A LOT OF IN AND OUT TRAFFIC AT ALL PERIODS OF TIME. PEOPLE GOING TO WORK -- THIS IS WHAT'S WHAPING IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD RIGHT NOW. AND OUR CALCULATIONS IS THEY WILL PROBABLY HAVE A LOT OF TWO STUDENTS PER BEDROOM. WE HAVE A LOT OF THAT THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD RIGHT NOW. THESE ARE NOT AFFORDABLE HOUSING HOUSING UNITS. THEY TRY TO STICK IN FIVE PERCENT AS PART OF THE DEBATE ON THE PROGRAM, BUT THESE ARE HIGH END. OUR HIGH END PROPERTIES HAVE TWO BEDROOMS, TWO STUDENTS PER BEDROOM TYPICALLY. SO AS A RESULT OF THIS, THERE'S A LOT OF IN AND OUTFLOW AND A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE CARS. SO THAT'S OUR CONCERN. I DON'T THINK AS PEOPLE COMMUTING TO CAMPUS AS MUCH AS IT IS THEY HAVE JOBS, THEY HAVE OTHER RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES AND THERE'S A LOT OF TRAFFIC, AND THEY'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE ENOUGH PARKING WITHIN THIS KIND OF STRUCTURE.

GOODMAN: BUT WHERE WOULD THEY BE HEADED TO? THIS IS ABOUT THE KIDS' PICKUP TIME. WHERE WOULD THEY BE TRYING TO GO HEADED BY KIRBY?

WHAT THEY DO, MAYOR PRO TEM, IS GO PAST KIRBY HALL, GET ON WHITIS AND GO SOUTH UP TO 27TH STREET. AND THEN THE CHOICE IS TO TURN LEFT OR WHITE AND USUALLY PEOPLE, MY GUESS IS, WOULD TURN TO THE RIGHT TO GO BACK TO GUADALUPE TO GET TO THE LIGHT THERE. SO A LOT OF -- MY GUESS IS THAT A LOT OF THE TRAFFIC ON THE STREET OTHER THAN KIRBY HALL ARE -- WE'VE GOT PEOPLE WHO ARE LOOKING FOR PARKING PLACES TO GO TO CLASS AND THEN THERE ARE LIVING UNITS THERE AND THEY'RE GOING BACK TO THEIR RESPECTIVE DWELLINGS, SO THERE'S THAT KIND OF TRAFFIC THAT GOES ON ALL THE TIME. AND GOING UP ON WHITIS ON THE EAST SIDE IS SCOTTISH RITE DORMITORY, SO THEY MAY BE GOING OVER TO THE DORM TOO. AND WHERE WHITIS COMES INTO 27TH ON THE RIGHT IS PHI GAMMA DELTA WHICH HAS A LARGE NUMBER OF MEMBERS. SO PEEMENT ARE USING IT BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE LIVING IN THERE.

GOODMAN: RIGHT. THAT'S WHAT I WAS THINKING TOO. I KNOW YOU WOULD BE ON THAT STREET IF YOU WERE HEADED TO ONE OF THE PLACES ALONG IT. WHICH ALSO HAS A PARKING PLACE SUPPOSEDLY FOR YOU. BUT I WASN'T REALLY INCLUDING IN TO WHERE THESE FOLKS LIVING AT THIS LOCATION WOULD BE THINKING THAT THEY WERE GOING TO GO TO OR GET TO BETTER BY GOING DOWN WHITIS. SO I GUESS JUST BY ACCIDENT IT'S ALMOST STRAIGHT.

I SPEND A LOT OF TIME IN THIS AREA BECAUSE I ALSO GO TO CHURCH AT 27TH AND WHITIS. SO THE REASON THEY COULD GO PAST KIRBY HALL TO WHITIS IS YOU CAN TURN RIGHT ON GUADALUPE BECAUSE THERE'S A LEFT TURN ARROW. THERE IS NO LEFT TURN ARROW ON 29TH STREET. SO IF YOU WANT TO GET OUT AND DO SO AT MOST PERIODS OF THE DAY, YOU MAKE THE LOOP AND GO DOWN TO 29TH STREET SO YOU CAN MAKE THE LEFT ON GUADALUPE. THANK YOU.

LET ME JUST COMMENT THAT THIS IS A ROUTE THAT YOU COME OUT OF THE COMPLEX PROPOSED, YOU WOULD GO RIGHT IN FRONT OF OUR SCHOOL, DOWN WHITIS AND YOU MAKE A LOOP OUT ON GUADALUPE. WHITIS IS A MISUNDERSTOOD STREET. IT IS PER CAN I AND QUIRKY TOO. WE SOMETIMES HAVE TO WORK OUT TRAFFIC SNARLS OF PEOPLE COMING THE OTHER WAY ON WHITIS. IT'S KIND OF BOTH WAYS. IN A WAY IT'S KIND OF A FUN ROAD TO DRIVE QUICKLY. IT GOES UP, IT'S A SLOPE AND IT'S NOT ALL THE TIME SAFE. ANOTHER THING I MIGHT WANT TO POINT OUT IS ONE OF THE PROPOSED EXITS FROM THE PROPOSED PROJECT REQUIRES A LEFT-HAND TURN ON 29TH STREET WHERE YOU CAN GO LEFT. THAT WOULD COME RIGHT IN TO THE TRAFFIC LINE OF PARENTS TRYING TO APPROACH THE SCHOOL FROM 29TH STREET FROM THE WEST. THAT'S TAKING A LEFT-HAND TURN INTO APPROACHING TRAFFIC. SO IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO DEAL WITH. WE COULD DEAL WITH IT, BUT IT WOULD BE -- IT WOULD BE BREAKING SORT OF A FRAGILE QUM THAT EXISTS THERE NOW, BUT QUITE ADVERTISE IS A QUIRKY STREET.

GOODMAN: YES, I KNOW. I CAN'T IMAGINE WHY PEOPLE WOULD -- NEVER MIND. IT'S A DIFFICULT STREET. OKAY. I THINK THAT'S EVERYTHING THAT I HAD EXCEPT FOR A QUESTION THAT OCCURRED TO ME AS PEOPLE WERE TALKING THIS TIME. AND THAT IS FOR GREG. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT IMPERVIOUS COVER AND THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE LEVELS OF MF AND THEIR IMPACT ON IMPERVIOUS COVER, IS THERE ANY KIND OF REQUIREMENT FOR A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF GREEN SPACE FOR ANY MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT OR IS THE 100% IMPERVIOUS COVER A DE FACTO BENEFIT OF MF OF ANY LEVEL?

WELL, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MF-6 AND MF-4 OF IMPERVIOUS COVER AND 80% OF IMPERVIOUS COVER FOR MF-6. 70% FOR AN MF-4 DISTRICT. IF YOU WENT TO A CS-MU DISTRICT, IT WOULD ACTUALLY ALLOW -- CS WOULD ALLOW UP TO 95. SO YOU GOOD A GREAT DEAL OF IMPERVIOUS COVER THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED BY THAT. SO THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MF-OF AND THE 4, 10%.

THE MU DOESN'T CUT THAT AT ALL OR IF THEY USED MU, COULD THEY STILL HAVE THE 95%?

YOU COULD STILL USE THE 95%.

GOODMAN: OKAY. WE NEED TO WORK ON THAT A LITTLE. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THOSE ARE ALL OF MINE?

SLUSHER: I HAVE A FOLLOW-UP.

GOODMAN: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

SLUSHER: GIVE ME A NUMBER OF UNITS THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE ON THIS PROJECT BETWEEN MF-4 AND MF-6?

WELL, THIS REPORT FOR MF-4 IS ROUGHLY ABOUT 36 AND 54 UNITS PER ACRE. MF-6 REALLY DOESN'T HAVE A LIMITATION PER SE, ALTHOUGH THEY WOULD ASK FOR, I UNDERSTAND, 150 UNITS. AND BASED ON THEIR REVISED AREA THAT WORKS OUT TO BE ROUGHLY 80 UNITS PER ACRE. ON THE AREA THAT THEY'VE AMENDED TO.

SLUSHER: SO WE'RE LOOKING AT HOW MANY -- HOW MANY ACRES ARE WE LOOKING AT HERE?

1.86. IF YOU TOOK IN THE ENTIRE PROPERTY, IT WOULD TAKE IN THE AREA THAT WOULD BE REMAINING CS. MIKE IS INDICATING TO ME THAT IT WOULD GO BACK UP TO BE A LARGER SITE AREA OF 2.SOMETHING ACRES AND IT WOULD DROP IT DOWN TO ABOUT 67, 68 UNITS PER ACRE.

SLUSHER: SO WHAT DO WE THINK THEY WOULD GET UNDER THE ZAP RECOMMENDATIONS?

THE MF-4, I HAVEN'T CALCULATED THAT ALL OUT YET, BUT I KNOW THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION THAT THE LITTLE OVER 80 TO 90 UNITS, I THINK MUCH, BASED ON THE MF-4 DENSITY LIMITATIONS.

SLUSHER: [INAUDIBLE].

MIKE IS SAYING 81 TWO-BEDROOM UNITS. SO 80, 90 WOULD BE PRETTY CLOSE.

SLUSHER: OKAY. AND THEN MR. MCCOMBS, THE OTHER DAY YOU SHOWED ME A LAYOUT THAT HAD THE PARKING GARAGE ENCLOSED. WHAT DO WE HAVE ON THE TABLE NOW? THIS ONE HAS IT DIFFERENT UP HERE.

[INAUDIBLE]. THIS IS THE ORIGINAL AND THIS IS THE PROPOSED. MAYOR PRO TEM WAS ASKING ABOUT BY PUTTING THE HEIGHT LIMITATION HERE, YOU IN FACT PUSH THE PARKING GARAGE BACK BY NECESSITY. THAT IS WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING. AND THE NUMBER OF UNITS OF 150 YEAR. IN THIS RED BOX THAT'S MF-6, YOU HAVE A 70% BUILDING COVERAGE REQUIREMENT, AND THAT'S WHAT WE ARE, BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO HAVE 30% OPEN SPACE IN MF-6. AND THE CS-MU, YOU HAVE A SITUATION WHERE YOU'RE LIMITED BY SITE AREA THAT'S AVAILABLE TO YOU, SO WE CAN ONLY HAVE A CERTAIN NUMBER AND I BELIEVE IT'S ABOUT 38 UNITS OUTSIDE OF THIS BOX. SO IT'S A REAL DELICATE BALANCE OF WHERE WE PUSH AND PUSH THIS PARKING GARAGE SO THAT WE DON'T GET TOO MUCH BUILDING COVERAGE IN THE MF-6 AND HAVE TO HAVE -- AND AT THE SAME TIME DON'T HAVE TO HAVE TOO MANY APARTMENT UNITS OUT OF CS-MU. SO IT'S A REAL DELICATE SITUATION TO DEAL WITH.

SLUSHER: I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT PICTURE WENT, BUT I THINK IT'S CALLED THE CENTENNIAL APARTMENTS.

YEAH. WE WERE JUST LOOKING AT THAT ZONING MAP. AND THIS IS A MAP OF THE ZONING, ALL THE ZONING MAPS. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN SEE IT. AND IF THEY CAN TELL ME THAT ADDRESS AGAIN, I BELIEVE IT'S 26 AND SAN ANTONIO. OKAY, HERE IS 26TH, RIO GRANDE, SETON, NUECES, SAN ANTONIO. THAT TRACT IS ZONED CS.

SLUSHER: OKAY. AND I KNOW APPROXIMATELY WHERE IT IS, BUT WHAT I'M WONDERING IS HOW IS IT THE LENGTH OF THAT ALONG THE STREETS, HOW DOES THAT COMPARE WITH THE LINKS OF THIS? -- THE LENGTH OF THIS?

CENTENNIAL IS ON A SLIGHTLY SMALLER SITE, BUT SPITE SLIGHTLY SQUARE, I BELIEVE. I WOULD HAVE TO MEASURE IT, BUT THIS IS A VERY -- THIS IS A VERY UNUSUAL TRACT IN THAT IT'S 160 FEET AT ITS THICKEST POINT, BUT IT RUNS 900 FEET, SOMETHING LIKE 900 FEET. SO IT'S A LONG, SKINNY TRACT.

SLUSHER: OKAY. SO YOU'RE SAYING IT WOULD BE SLIGHTLY LONGER THAN THAT ONE, BUT NOT AS WIDE?

CORRECT, SIR. AND IT'S PROBABLY LESS -- THE FAR IS PROBABLY A LITTLE BIT LESS BECAUSE THAT WAS BUILT IN '83 PRIOR TO THE CENTENNIAL, YAIN 83, 198383. IT WAS -- 1883, 1983 YEAH.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER QUESTIONS, COUNCIL? COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

ON THIS LAST PLAN YOU HAVE JUST SHOWN, WHAT IS THE TOTAL UNIT COUNT?

150 UNITS, SIR.

WYNN: 150. AND YOU ALL HAVE A BREAKUP AS TO WHAT THOSE UNITS ARE?

YES, SIR. I BELIEVE WE'VE PROVIDED THOSE TO YOU. I DON'T HAVE IT RIGHT HERE, BUT I THINK THAT'S -- .

WYNN: THAT'S ON THE STREET PERHAPS?

YES, SIR, I BELIEVE IT IS. THE SECOND ONE. IT'S GOT TWO DIFFERENT SIZES OF ONE BEDROOM UNITS CALCULATED AT TWO PEOPLE PER UNIT. TWO DIFFERENT SIZES OF THREE-BEDROOM UNITS CALCULATED AT THREE AND FOUR PEOPLE. BASED UPON THOSE SIDES IT'S ABOUT A SEVEN OR EIGHT, IF I'M REMEMBERING CORRECTLY FOUR BEDROOM UNITS. THE REASON FOR THAT, COUNCILMEMBER, IS THAT UNDER THE BUILDING CODE, YOU HAVE TO HAVE CERTAIN KINDS OF WINDOWS FACING AVAILABLE TO YOU SO YOU CAN HAVE EXTERIOR FIRE ESCAPES. AND IT GETS REAL TRICKY IN HERE TO DO THAT AND HAVE THE PARKING GARAGE OPEN ON TWO SIDES, WHICH IS REALLY REQUIRED UNDER THE FIRE CODE, SO YOU WON'T BE IN A SITUATION WHERE YOUR PARKING GARAGE IS COMPLETELY SURROUNDED BY BUILDINGS AND HAVE SUBSTANTIAL MECHANICAL.

WYNN: AND HOW MANY PARKING SPACES?

THIS PARTICULAR STRUCTURE, THE ARCHITECT HAS TOLD ME HE THINKS HE CAN GET ABOUT 410 IN IT. WE'RE SUGGESTING NO MORE THAN 395. AGAIN, THESE ARE VERY PRELIMINARY PLANS AND SO WE HAVEN'T DONE THE LOADING CALCULATIONS OF ACTUALLY HOW YOU WOULD BUILD THE PARKING GARAGE, SO YOU MIGHT LOSE THREE OR FOUR WHEN YOU GET INTO YOUR SITE DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA.

WYNN: WHAT IS THE CODE REQUIREMENT?

313 FOR THAT. WE'RE TRYING TO MEET EVERYONE'S NEEDS AT 395.

WYNN: THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER QUESTIONS? ANYTHING OF THE APPLICANTS OR THE NEIGHBORHOOD? I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION -- GREG, THIS IS THE FIRST READING THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE?

YES, MAYOR, THIS IS FOR FIRST READING. WHEN IT ORIGINALLY CAME THROUGH COUNCIL TOOK A MOTION ON A PORTION OF THE TRACT, BUT WE HAVE SINCE RENOTIFIED TO TAKE ON THE LARGER AREA, SO IT TAKES IN ALL THE PROPERTY THAT WENT FROM 29TH THROUGH 27TH STREET. THE APPLICANT HAS AMENDED PART OF THE REQUEST TO TAKE OFF A SMALL TRIANGULAR AREA RIGHT AT 27TH, BUT THIS WOULD BE FOR FIRST READING.

MAYOR GARCIA: TELL ME AGAIN THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION?

STAFF DID RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST FOR THE MF-6, THE ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED THE MF-4. BOTH WITH CONDITIONS OF STAFF.

WYNN: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

WYNN: I'LL GIVE IT A SHOT, BUT FIRST I WANT TO TALK TO A COUPLE OF DYNAMICS. OBVIOUSLY THE DRIVING DYNAMIC OF THIS AND THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT AND THE CONCERNS RELATED TO IT AND THIS PARTICULAR PART OF TOWN IS THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS. AND, YOU KNOW, THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT THE END OF THE DAY IS THE BEST ASSET WE HAVE IN THIS CITY. I CAN SAY THAT BECAUSE I'M AN AGGIE. BUT IT'S ALSO HAD -- .

MAYOR GARCIA: WE APPLAUD YOU FOR THAT.

WYNN: IT ALSO BURDENS US WITH SEVERAL ELEMENTS THAT OTHER CITIES OUR SIZE HAVE DIFFERENT DYNAMICS. THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT 50,000 STUDENTS AND, YOU KNOW, PERHAPS TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DAYTIME EMPLOYEES IS THE URBAN PLANNING ISSUE WE HAVE TO DEAL AROUND. FOR US TO HAVE -- I'LL PICK A NUMBER, THREE TO 5,000 UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS STUDENTS LIVING ON EAST RIVERSIDE DRIVE IS INSANITY. IT'S INSANITY INTUITIVELY WITH TRAFFIC. WE KNOW THAT THAT'S SUCH AN ISSUE IN OUR COMMUNITY, PARTICULARLY TRAFFIC WHEN YOU REALIZE THAT THAT TRANSPORTATION CROSSES I-35 ON THE TOWN LAKE BRIDGE AND HAS 225 THOUSAND VEHICLES CROSSING. IT'S JUST OUTRAGEOUS. INTUITIVELY IT'S INSANITY WHEN WE TALK ABOUT AIR QUALITY IS DOING TO BE MORE AND MORE OF AN ISSUE FOR US. BUT IN MY OPINION THE REAL ISSUE WITH THAT, AND THAT BEING THAT WE HAVE THOUSANDS OF U.T. STUDENTS LIVING ON EAST RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND THOUSANDS OF U.T. STUDENTS LIVING ELSEWHERE IN SORT OF SIMILAR SITUATED PARTS OF OUR TOWN IS THAT IT'S A GIGANTIC BURDEN ON OUR AFFORDABILITY ISSUE. WE KNOW APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY HOUSING UNITS IN A PERFECT WORLD WE WOULD TRY TO GET IN AND NEAR THIS CAMPUS BECAUSE OF THE... THE -- ESSENTIALLY THE MAX NUMBER. AND 50,000, IS ISN'T GOING TO GROW MUCH MORE. BUT FOR EVERY STUDENT HOUSING APARTMENT AND EVERY STUDENT HOUSING UNIT THAT WE DELIVER IN AND NEAR U.T., WE BEGIN TO FREE UP OTHERWISE AFFORDABLE UNITS THAT IN ANY OTHER CITY WOULD BE RESERVED AND USED BY THE WORKING POOR AND RESERVED AND USED BY, YOU KNOW, FIREFIGHTERS OR POLICE AND TEACHERS. AND, YOU KNOW, THE DYNAMIC IS DRIVEN BY THE UNIVERSITY, IT'S DRIVEN BY THE SIZE OF THE UNIVERSITY, AND WE HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THAT. SO WE -- EVERYBODY TALKS ABOUT SORT OF THE TRAFFIC AND THE AIR QUALITY ISSUES OF NOT HAVING U.T. STUDENTS LIVING CLOSER TO THE CAMPUS, BUT THE REAL ISSUE IS THOUSANDS OF OTHERWISE AFFORDABLE UNITS ALL OVER THE CITY THAT COULD BE USED AND UTILIZED BY OUR WORKING POOR. AND AS MUCH AS WE ALL GRIPE ABOUT TRAFFIC, THE MOST SINFUL DYNAMIC IN THIS CITY RIGHT NOW IS THE LACK OF AFFORDABILITYABILITY AND THE FACT THAT WHEN -- AND HOUSING PRICES HAVE GONE UP 70% IN A DECADE. THAT'S SOMETHING WE HAVE TO GET OUR ARMS AROUND FOR AN URBAN PLANNING STANDPOINT. IN MY OPINION WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO LOOK LONG-TERM AND START TO RECOGNIZE THE ADVANTAGE OF A DYNAMIC OF HAVING AN APPROPRIATE DENSIFICATION OF THE IMMEDIATE U.T. AREA. NUNA IS A GREAT NEIGHBORHOOD. KIRBY HALL IS A PHENOMENAL SCHOOL. SCHOOL CHILDREN'S SAFETY IS PARAMOUNT. BUT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THAT WE HAVE TO GET TO THE NEXT LEVEL. WE HAVE TO TRANSITION FROM A CITY WHERE WE ALL DRIVE ALONE IN OUR CARS AND WE ALL EVEN STILL TRY TO DRIVE ALONE IN OUR CARS IN AN AREA AROUND THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS IS SUCH AN OBVIOUS PLANNING ADVANTAGE FOR US TO GET OUT OF THAT DYNAMIC. I'M GOING TO BE SUPPORTIVE OF DELIVERING 150 UNITS ON THIS SITE. I HOPE AND TRUST THAT OUR STAFF CAN HELP US CREATIVELY LOOK AT THE TRANSPORTATION ISSUES, CREATIVELY LOOK AT THE DYNAMICS OF HAVING KIRBY HALL THERE ON 29TH, FIGURING OUT WHAT PROBABLY IS THE COMMUNITY DYNAMIC OF THOSE PARENTS AND THOSE -- COMMUTING DYNAMIC OF THOSE PARENTS AND THOSE CHILDREN. MORE THAN LIKELY WHAT IS THEIR ACCESS TO AND FROM THAT SCHOOL. AND DO THE CERTAIN THINGS THAT WE CAN DO, BUT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO OVER TIME RECOGNIZE THAT WE NEED TO TRANSITION TO A SLIGHTLY MORE DENSE LEVEL OF HOUSING IN THIS IMMEDIATE AREA. IN 19 -- YOU KNOW, IN THE 1960'S, YOU KNOW, U.T. HAD 10,000 PEOPLE. THIS WAS ALL MANAGEABLE. IT'S NOT LONG-TERM. AND FOR US TO HAVE U.T. STUDENTS ALL OVER THIS TOWN IN UNITS THAT OTHERWISE OUR WORKING POOR COULD BE LIVING IN IS, YOU -- YOU KNOW, IS SINFUL. AND SO I'M GOING TO ATTEMPT A MOTION. THIS IS SLIGHTLY CONFUSING. IS BUT BASED ON THIS LAST PROPOSAL THAT SHOWS THE GARAGE WRAPPED WITH RESIDENTIAL UNITS, I BELIEVE THAT MOTION TO BE PROOF STAFF RECOMMENDATION SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: TRACT 2, CS-MU-CO, EXCEPT THE STRIP OF LAND ALONG 29TH STREET FOR A DEPTH OF 30 FEET SHALL BE LIMITED TO A HEIGHT OF 40 FEET AND THE STRIP OF LAND ALONG HEMPHILL PARK STREET FOR A DEPTH OF 30 FEET SHALL BE LIMITED TO A HEIGHT OF 40 FEET. THE HEIGHT WILL BE MEASURED IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF 29TH AND HEMPHILL PARK. TRACT 1, MF-6-CO, LIMITING THE HEIGHT TO 60 FEET. ADDITIONALLY BOTH TRACTS 1 AND 2 WHEN COMBINED SHALL HAVE THE FOLLOWING LIMITS IN SIGHT AREA PER UNIT. ONE BEDROOM UNITS, 586 SQUARE FEET OF SITE AREA PER UNIT, TWO OR MORE BEDROOM UNITS OF 681 SQUARE FEET OF SITE AREA PER UNIT. THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF UNITS SHALL BE 150. THE PARKING GARAGE SIMPLY LOCATED IN THE INTERIOR OF THE PROJECT WITH LIVING UNITS FACING ALL STREET FRONTS. THE PARKING GARAGE SHALL HAVE AT LEAST TWO ENTRANCES, ONE ON 29TH STREET AND ONE ON THE ALLEY. THE PARKING GARAGE SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM OF 395 SPACES. AND I PROPOSE THIS FOR A FIRST READING ONLY. I THINK THERE'S -- YOU KNOW, THIS NEEDS TO GET DOCUMENTED AND WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT EXACTLY WHAT THAT TRAFFIC PATTERN IS ON 29TH STREET, AND I'M CERTAINLY PREPARED AND BE OPEN MINDED TO LISTEN TO AND HOPEFULLY IMPROVE ON SECOND AND THIRD READING OF SOME OF THE TECHNICALITIES.

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU'VE HEARD THE MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND?

SLUSHER: I'LL SECOND IT.

MAYOR GARCIA: SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. DISCUSSION?

GOODMAN: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYOR PRO TEM?

GOODMAN: COULD I ASK COUNCILMEMBER WYNN TO REPEAT JUST A FEW THINGS? THE SITE AREA AND THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES? THE SITE AREAS ON THE TWO?

WYNN: AND I'M TAKING THIS FROM A SHEET THAT I THINK WE HAVE SEEN, BUT ONE BEDROOM UNITS, 586 SQUARE FEET OF SITE AREA PER UNIT. TWO OR MORE BEDROOM UNITS, 681 SQUARE FEET OF SITE AREA PER UNIT. AND THEN THE MINIMUM GARAGE PARKING SPACES TO BE 395.

GOODMAN: AND THIS IS ON FIRST READING ONLY?

WYNN: FIRST READING ONLY. AND IF I COULD, ALSO -- I'M SORRY. PERHAPS OFF TO THE SIDE I'LL CHALLENGE THE DEVELOPER. YOU'RE GOING TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT YOUR COST IS PER RESIDENTIAL UNIT, PER BEDROOM. YOU WILL KNOW EXACTLY WHAT YOUR COST IS PER PARKING SPACE IN THAT GARAGE. TO THE EXTENT THAT WE START BIFURCATING AND YOU CHARGE YOUR PROFITS FOR THE UNIT AND YOU CHARGE YOUR PROFIT FOR THE PARKING SPACE, THERE WILL BE SOME STUDENTS OVER TIME, MAYBE NOT THE FIRST ROUND THAT YOU'LL SEE, BUT I SUSPECT THERE WILL BE SOME AND THAT WILL GROW OVER TIME THAT IN FACT WILL START LEASING AN APARTMENT, TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT THEY DON'T HAVE TO PAY FOR THE PARKING SPACE. THEY'LL ACTUALLY SHOW UP WITHOUT A CAR OR IN FACT BRING A ROOMMATE WHO HAS A CAR. BUT THAT'S NOT -- WE DON'T DO THAT AS PART OF ZONING, BUT I THINK IT'S INEVITABLE FOR THE FUTURE OF THIS CITY AND THE FUTURE OF A MODERATELY DENSE PART OF TOWN.

SLUSHER: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

SLUSHER: I'M GOING TO HAVE TO SEE THE TRAFFIC WORK ON -- BEFORE I VOTE FOR IT ON FINAL APPROVAL AS WELL, LIKE COUNCILMEMBER WYNN SAID, BUT I THINK REALLY I FRANKLY DON'T WANT TO SEE THIS AREA CHANGE ALL THAT MUCH, BUT COUNCILMEMBER WYNN LAYS OUT SOME VERY REAL ISSUES THAT THIS CITY FACES AND THAT WE HAVE RESPONSIBILITY TO DEAL WITH AS COUNCILMEMBERS WHO REPRESENT THE WHOLE AREA. AND I WOULDN'T WANT THIS KIND OF APARTMENT COMPLEX TO THE NORTH OF HERE WHERE THERE'S A LOT OF SINGLE-FAMILY, AND I WOULD NOT VOTE FOR THAT AND I WILL NOT VOTE TO START BRINGING THOSE KIND OF APARTMENT COMPLEXES IN AND TOEGTSLY TRANSFORM THE AREA, BUT I THINK ON THIS TRACT, EVEN THOUGH I DON'T PARTICULARLY LIKE THE LENGTH OF A BLOCK OF APARTMENT COMPLEX RIGHT THERE, I THINK THIS CLOSE TO THE UNIVERSITY THAT WE NEED TO APPROVE THIS AND I THINK THE STUDENTS ARE GOING TO BE WALKING TO THE UNIVERSITY. SURE, THE ONES THAT HAVE CARS WILL BE GOING IN THEIR CARS AND GOING TO PLACES AT NIGHT AND SOMETIMES DURING THE DAY, BUT I THINK THIS IS A REALLY SOUND PLACE TO PUT A HIGH DENSITY APARTMENT COMPLEX JUST TWO BLOCKS FROM THE UNIVERSITY. AND PART OF IT RIGHT ON GUADALUPE STREET.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ?

ALVAREZ: I HAD A QUESTION FOR COUNCILMEMBER WYNN OR COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. THE PROPOSAL THAT YOU LAID OUT, WAS IT BASICALLY A PROPOSAL THAT HAS BEEN LAID OUT BY THE APPLICANT?

WYNN: YES. IT'S THE FINAL VERSION, YES?

ALVAREZ: OKAY.

GRIFFITH: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH?

GRIFFITH: FOR SEVERAL REASONS I'M GOING TO NEED TO TRY A SUBSTITUTE MOTION. CHILD SAFETY IS A BIG REASON. THIS FRAGILE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS ALREADY PASSED MULTI-FAMILY IN TERMS OF LAND USE, THE DANGER OF THE PRECEDENT SETTING THAT MF-6 WOULD BE. I DON'T THINK WE CAN DO THAT. THERE ARE ALREADY RENTAL UNITS IN THE AREA THAT ARE AVAILABLE AND EMPTY AND GOING BEGGING. WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS NOT WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A DENSE DEVELOPMENT AND IT'S GOING TO BE RESIDENTIAL AND IT'S GOING TO BE STUDENTS. ALL WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS THE LEVEL OF INTENSITY AND TAKING THE RISK OF CHANGING THE -- WHAT HAS BEEN FAIRLY WELL TRADITIONALLY CAPPED MF-4 AND MOVING IT UP TO WHAT I THINK WOULD BE A DANGEROUS LEVEL. SO DENSITY'S A GIVEN, IT'S JUST HOW DENSE, HOW MUCH AND HOW CLOSE TO THE EDGE CAN YOU GET BEFORE YOU SACRIFICE SOMETHING REALLY SPECIAL THAT'S CLOSE TO THE UNIVERSITY? ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE STUDENT AT THE UNIVERSITY AND THE FACULTY VALUE, AND THE WHOLE COMMUNITY VALUES, IS THE REMAINING CLOSE-IN, STABLE NEIGHBORHOODS. THAT ADDS TO THE QUALITY OF THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE. AND I KNOW THAT PERSONALLY. SO IF THAT REASON -- SO FOR THAT REASON I WOULD PROPOSE AS A SUBSTITUTE MOTION THAT WE ZONE THE ENTIRE SITE MF-4-CO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE BLOCKBUSTER VIDEO. AND THAT WOULD BE CS-MU, THAT WE HAVE A HEIGHT LIMIT THAT'S THREE STORIES AND 40 FEET ALONG 29TH. AND ALONG HEMPHILL FOR A DEPTH OF 45 FEET. NO SURFACE PARKING. TWO POINTS OF ACCESS. THE WRAPPAROUND GARAGE IS A GOOD THING. AND REQUIRE THAT THE STRUCTURED PARKING HAVE AT LEAST A 45-FOOT SET BACK FROM BOTH 29TH FEET AND HEMPHILL PARK STREET AND THAT IT BE SCREENED BY RESIDENTIAL UNITS. I THINK WE'RE VERY, VERY CLOSE TO AGREEMENT, AND THE RISK OF RATCHETING THE WHOLE AREA UP FROM MF-4 TO MF-6 TO GET THIS IS NOT WORTH THE RISK.

MAYOR GARCIA: THERE'S A SUBSTITUTE MOTION ON THE FLOOR. IS THERE A SECOND?

ALVAREZ: SECOND.

MAYOR GARCIA: SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ.

ALVAREZ: YEAH, MAYOR, I'VE BEEN LOOKING AT THIS VERY CLOSELY FOR SEVERAL MONTHS AND MEETING WITH THE APPLICANTS AND THE NEIGHBORS, AND AT LEAST THE WAY IT CURRENTLY IS, I DON'T THINK..... THINK -- INIT'S TOO DENSE AND THERE ARE SEVERAL DIFFERENT POINTS I WANTED TO CALL ATTENTION TO BECAUSE I THINK WE TRY TO COMPARE IT TO OTHER PROJECTS IN THE VICINITY SAYING THAT IT HAS THE SAME FIND OF F. A. R., BUT REALLY THOSE ARE MUCH SMALLER PROJECTS. MOS OF THOSE HAVE HIGHER F. A. R.'S AND NOT OVER 30 UNITS. SO HERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HAVING A HIGHER F. A. R. THAN THOSE, BUT FIVE TIMES MORE UNITS. AND THEN -- AND I REALLY DO THINK THAT THE PHOTO THAT THEY PASSED OUT HERE OF THE 26TH AND SAN ANTONIO IS EXACTLY WHAT THAT'S GOING TO LOOK LIKE RIGHT THERE, ALL THE WAY ALMOST FROM 29TH TO WHEREVER THE BLOCKBUSTER IS GOING TO BE. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE BASICALLY A WALL OF APARTMENTS ALONG THAT WHOLE STRETCH THERE. AND PART OF THAT'S GOING TO BE 60 FEET, I GUESS, OF -- NOT QUITE 60 FEET, BUT THAT'S GOING TO BE THE HEIGHT LIMIT, AND THEN THE OTHER PART IS GOING TO BE LIMITED TO 40 FEET, BUT YOU WILL STILL HAVE THAT AFFECT I THINK ACROSS THAT WHOLE STRETCH THERE. AND FOR ME THAT JUST ISN'T -- IN TERMS OF THE CHARACTER OF WHAT'S THERE NOW, IT DOESN'T SEEM TO NECESSARILY FIT. AND THE OTHER THING IS THAT I DON'T KNOW HOW WE CAME UP WITH THESE CREATIVE TRACT 1 AND TRACT 2 AND WHY -- I MEAN, IT'S KIND OF -- IT'S MADE IT HARD FOR ME TO FIGURE OUT ALL THE ROW ZONING OF CERTAIN TRACTS AND THE DENSITY AND A CERTAIN TRACT ANOTHER DENSE ATND WHAT WILL WE HAVE? IT'S REAL DIFFICULT TO DO THAT BASED ON THE STRUCTURE. AND THEN JUST FINALLY I THINK -- I MEAN, THEY CALL ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT THIS IS CURRENTLY ZONED CS, AND LET'S SAY WE JUST GO FROM CS TO MU, THEN WHAT YOU GET IS MF-4. SO IT'S -- I REALLY DO THINK THIS IS -- THIS IS A ZONING MATTER. I DO THINK THAT MAYBE MORE THAN 80 UNITS COULD BE APPROPRIATE, BUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE, I REALLY DO THINK IT'S NOT 150, BUT HOW MUCH MORE THAN 80, I'M NOT SURE, BUT I REALLY DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH A NUMBER THAT'S 150. AND SO -- AND ALL ALONG I'VE EXPLAINED TO THE APPLICANT THAT I TEND MORE TOWARD MF-4 MYSELF, SO THAT'S WHY I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND SUPPORT THE COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH'S SUBSTITUTE.

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYOR PRO TEM?

GOODMAN: CAN I ASK A QUESTION OF EITHER COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITHTH OR ALVAREZ ABOUT THAT MOTION?

MAYOR GARCIA: SURE.

GOODMAN: THE SETBACKS, WOULD YOU MIND GOING THROUGH THAT AGAIN?

GRIFFITH: THE HEIGHT LIMIT? WELL, IT'S REFERRED TO TWICE. THERE'S A HEIGHT LIMIT OF NO MORE THAN THREE STORIES, AND NOT TO EXCEED 40 FEET ALONG 29TH STREET AND ALONG HEMPHILL PARK STREET FOR A DEPTH OF 45 FEET.

GOODMAN: CAN I ASK IF THIS.... THIS -- WHICH I'M NOT REMEMBERING -- WAS THE ORIGINAL -- ONE OF THE OPTIONS FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD? I DON'T REMEMBER THOSE.

GRIFFITH: YES. IT'S OPTION 1. AND THEN THE SECOND REFUSE REFUSE SENSE IS TWO POINTS OF ACCESS, REQUIRES THAT THERE BE TWO POINTS OF ACCESS FOR THE PARKING GARAGE, ONE ON 29TH AND THE OTHER ON THE ALLEY, IF POSSIBLE. SO I THINK ALL THREE OF THOSE THINGS ARE IMPORTANT.

GOODMAN: OKAY. THE REASON I ASKED ABOUT THAT IS BECAUSE ALTHOUGH I KNOW A LOT OF THIS IS GETTING SORT OF BLURRED INTO EACH OTHER IN DIFFERENT WAYS, I THOUGHT THAT THAT WAS A DEPTH OF 30 FEET AND A HEIGHT OF 40 FEET ALONG HEMPHILL, AND -- OR NO, THAT'S 29TH. OKAY. AND THEN 30 AND 40 ON HEMPHILL TOO. SO -- WELL, THAT'S DIFFERENT. DID YOU SAY SOMETHING ELSE, THOUGH, ABOUT SET BACKS ON THE STREET, STREET FRONT?

GRIFFITH: ABOUT THE WRAPPAROUND? THE WRAPPAROUND GARAGE? PARKING SET BACK AND SCREENING REQUIREMENTS REQUIRE THAT STRUCTURED PARKING HAVE AT LEAST A 45-FOOT SET BACK FROM BOTH 29TH AND HEMPHILL AND THAT IT BE SCREENED WITH RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND THE WRAPPAROUND DOES THAT.

GOODMAN: AND THAT SCENARIO WOULD RESULT IN HOW MANY UNITS?

GRIFFITH: I HAD HEARD ESTIMATES OF 80.

GOODMAN: 80?

GRIFFITH: 80 IS MY UNDERSTANDING. BUT WE MAY NEED STAFF TO CLARIFY THAT. IS THAT TRUE?

I THINK I NEED A LITTLE TIME TO DO AN ANALYSIS OF THAT. WE WERE NOT GIVEN A COPY OF THE TWO OPTIONS THAT WERE PROPOSED THIS EVENING.

GRIFFITH: I'LL BE HAPPY TO HAND YOU ONE IF YOU WANT TO DO THAT.

I'LL DO THAT AND I CAN QUICKLY GO THROUGH AND GET AN ESTIMATE. IF MR. MCCONE HAD BEEN GIVEN A COPY OF THE OPTIONS, HE MIGHT BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT AS WELL, THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD PROPOSED THIS EVENING.

GOODMAN: I WAS WONDERING WHAT THE IMPACT OF 45-FOOT SETBACKS ON TWO OF THE STREET SIDES DOES BECAUSE 45 FEET IS PRETTY GOOD SET BACK. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE REQUIRE THAT ANYWHERE ELSE.

I THINK MR. MCCONE IS -- HE'S WHISPERING OVER MY SHOULD IRRELEVANT. HE'S INDICATING THAT THE SETBACKS WOULD CAUSE DIFFICULTY CONSTRUCTING THE PARKING GARAGE TO BE UTILIZED IN AN EFFICIENT MANNER. AND HE'S INDICATING SHOULD HAVELY 81 UNITS -- ROUGHLY 81 UNITS OF TWO BEDROOMS AND THE DENSITY LIMITATION THERE IF YOU CALCULATE IT -- WHETHER IT'S TWO BEDROOM OR THREE-BEDROOM, I WOULD NOT NECESSARILY CHANGE, HOWEVER, THE PARKING REQUIREMENT. IT WOULD GO UP AS THE NUMBER OF BEDROOMS WOULD GO UP.

GRIFFITH: MY CONCERN -- .

GOODMAN: MY CONCERN HERE IS THE PRACTICALITY OF DESIGNING A PARKING STRUCTURE THAT YOU'VE MADE VERY NARROW, AND I DON'T THINK -- BUT LET ME ASK YOU, IS YOUR MOTION FOR THE FIRST READING?

GRIFFITH: IT IS FOR FIRST READING. AND BETWEEN FIRST READING AND SECOND, WE CAN TALK ABOUT PERHAPS MODERATING THE SETBACKS IF IT WOULD MAKE YOU MORE COMFORTABLE.

GOODMAN: I'M NOT SURE WHICH OF THESE MOTIONS OR EITHER OF THEM WILL BE ONE THAT I'LL VOTE FOR SINCE ON FIRST READING I KNOW THAT WE COULD DO EITHER ONE AND NOT LOCK IN TO ANYTHING. I REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH'S PROPOSAL LOOK LIKES BECAUSE I HAVE TROUBLE FIGURING OUT THE FEET, THE SQUARE FEET IN THE SETBACK AND ALL THAT, BUT SINCE WE'RE ON FIRST READING, PERHAPS A COMBINATION OF THE TWO IN SOME SENSE COULD BE WORKED OUT FOR LATER.

GRIFFITH: SOUND GOOD.

MAYOR GARCIA: ANY MORE DISCUSSION? FURTHER DISCUSSION?

THOMAS: YES, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS?

THOMAS: I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. MCCONE?

YES?

THOMAS: MY CONCERN IS ALSO THE TRAFFIC AND THE KIDS. IF YOU CAN THE OPTION 2, COULD YOU AFFORD TO -- I KNOW THIS IS A PRETTY TOUGH QUESTION. UNDER OPTION 2 I KNOW THE FIRST OPTION HERE, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO MAYBE FIVE PERCENT AFFORDABLE HOUSING? WHAT WOULD YOU DO ON OPTION 2?

ON OPTION 2, SIR, I DON'T BELIEVE WE WILL PROCEED WITH THE PROJECT.

THOMAS: OKAY. COUNCILMEMBER WYNN HAD A -- HAD THAT IN HIS HOETION -- THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR YOU. BRINGING UP SOME HOUSING FOR TEACHERS, POLICE OFFICERS, LOW INCOME PEOPLE, MODERATE INCOME PEOPLE. IS THE IDEA AND IT'S A PROBLEM THAT WE DO HAVE ALL OVER THE CITY, BUT ALSO MY HEART GOES OUT TO THE NEIGHBORS, KIDS, U.T. STUDENTS. I WAS HOPING THAT WE WOULD COME TO A COMPROMISE AND WE WOULDN'T BE HERE THIS LONG TONIGHT. BOTH AREAS ARE VERY CONCERNED AND THE STUDENTS DO NEED TO HAVE SOMEWHERE TO LIVE. I KNOW THAT THE NEIGHBORHOODS, WHEN THEY FIRST CAME TO ME, I LISTENED AT BOTH SIDES. I UNDERSTAND THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I THOUGHT WE MAYBE COULD SHOW THE FIRST OPTION AND AFTER WE CHANGED IT, I THOUGHT WE WERE CLOSER TO THE TABLE. I WOULD LIKE TO DO A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, IF I CAN ON THE FIRST OPTION BEFORE THE SECOND AND THIRD READING AND DO THE FIVE PERCENT AFFORDABLE HOUSING. [ONE MOMENT, PLEASE, WHILE CAPTIONERS CHANGE] I WOULD LIKE TO PUT IN A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, THAT WE WOULD COMMIT TO 5% AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT'S A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

SLUSHER: YES, SIR.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

OPPOSED, NO.

NO.

GOODMAN: MAYOR PRO TEM? FIRST READING?

GOODMAN: AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: PASSES ON A VOTE OF 5 TO 2. THAT'S FOR FIRST READING AND I THINK THAT THE COUNCIL, WITH THE DISCUSSION, SENT A MESSAGE THAT WE ARE NOT QUITE THROUGH WITH THIS ONE. WE WOULD LIKE MORE DISCUSSION AMONG THE PARTIES. SO THAT -- SO THAT WE CAN DO SOMETHING THAT REALLY BENEFITS THE COMMUNITY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. [ APPLAUSE ] WE WILL TAKE ABOUT A FIVE MINUTE RECESS, TO LET THE CHAMBERS CLEAR. AND WE WILL BE BACK FOR THAT ONE FINAL ITEM.

I CALL THE MEETING BACK TO OR OF THE CITY COUNCIL. IT'S 8:340. -- IT'S 8:40. I THINK, MS. CITY CLERK, WE HAVE, WHAT, ONE MORE ITEM?

RIGHT.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. THIS ITEM WAS PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER -- OOPS, OOPS, JUST A SECOND. COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. AND COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS. IT'S NUMBER 53, APPROVE A SIGN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 25-10 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO APPEALS TO THE SIGN REVIEW BOARD AND NON-CONFORMING SIGNS. I WILL RECOGNIZE WHOEVER WANTS TO GO FIRST, CAN -- CAN TAKE THE FLOOR. SINCE THE COUNCILMEMBER IS NOT HERE THAT MEANS -- [ LAUGHTER ]. OH, OKAY.

WYNN: THANK YOU, MAYOR. ONCE AGAIN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT BILLBOARDS. AND WE TEND TO DO THIS A LOT UP HERE. I'M SAD YOU MISSED OUR FIRST 10 MEETINGS ABOUT THIS, MAYOR. MR. HEIGHTS, IF YOU COULD JUST CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, I GUESS WE HAVE PASSED THIS ON FIRST READING ONLY, SEVERAL MEETINGS AGO, SO WE ARE ACTUALLY UP FOR SECOND AND THIRD READINGS OR WHERE ARE WE STATUS-WISE ON --

WELL, COUNCILMEMBER, ON DECEMBER 6TH, THE COUNCIL DID PASS THE FIRST READING OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AND WE WERE ASKING TO GO BACK AND TO -- TO PUT TOGETHER A -- A RECOMMENDED -- SOME RECOMMENDED CHANGES THAT WAS MADE BY THE COUNCIL AND FROM SOME OF THE CITIZENS. AND WE -- WE WENT BACK AND WE INCORPORATED THAT AND BEFORE YOU IS THAT REVISED ORDINANCE. IF YOU WANT ME TO GIVE YOU A PRESENTATION AND GO OVER THOSE CHANGES, I WILL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO DO SO.

WYNN: BRIEFLY, IT WOULD HELP ME, YES.

OKAY. AS I INDICATED THE COUNCIL DIRECTED STAFF TO REVIEW ALL OPTIONS AND COME BACK WITH A FINAL PROPOSAL. THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS AS FOLLOWING. TO INCLUDE ALL THREE REPLACEMENT OPTIONS DISCUSSED IN THE DECEMBER 6TH COUNCIL MEETING WHICH ARE, 1, ALLOW A SIGN TO BE REPLACED AT FULL SIZE IF TWO OTHER SIGNS ARE PERMANENTLY REMOVED. SECOND, ALLOW A SIGN TO BE REPLACED AT FULL SIZE IF ONE OTHER SIGN IS PERMANENTLY REMOVED AS ON A SCENIC ROADWAY, AS WITHIN 500 FEET OF A HISTORIC SIGNING DISTRICT OR AS A MONO POLE CONSTRUCTION. THIRD KEEP THE CURRENT REPLACEMENT OPTION THAT ALLOWS ANY SIGN TO BE REPLACED BUT MUST BE 25% SMALLER. MUST BE REPLACED AT ITS CURRENT LOCATION, MUST BE CONSTRUCTED OF THE SAME MATERIALS. IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE ADDED A RESTRICTION TO THE TWO NEW REPLACEMENT OPTIONS THAT PROHIBIT THE SIGN OWNER FROM OFFERING A SIGN FOR PERMANENT REMOVAL THAT IS ALREADY DESIGNATED FOR REMOVAL THROUGH THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY. REQUIRE THAT THE SIGN OR SIGNS DESIGNATED FOR PERMANENT REMOVAL IN THE NEW REPLACEMENT OPTIONS BE REMOVED BEFORE THE PERMANENT FOR REPLACEMENT IS ISSUED. REQUIRE THE LANDOWNER'S SIGNATURE ON ALL APPLICATIONS FOR REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF THE SIGN. REQUIRE THAT THE APPLICATION FOR REPLACEMENT OR RELOCATION -- OR RELOCATION BE FILED WITH THE CITY BEFORE THE SIGN IS DISMANTLED. ADD A REQUIREMENT THAT NOTICE OF APPLICATION BE SENT TO ALL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS WHOSE BOUNDARIES FALL WITHIN THE SIGN LOCATION, THE SIGN OWNER AND THE APPLICANT NO LATER THAN THE 7TH DAY AFTER THE APPLICATION IS FILED. CHANGE THE REVIEW PERIOD FOR REPLACEMENT APPLICATION TO 14 DAYS AN KEEP THE REVIEW -- AND KEEP THE REVIEW PERIOD FOR REPAIR APPLICATIONS AT 7 DAYSMENT AND DELETE THE APPEAL LANGUAGE THAT ALLOWS THE PERSON AGRIEVED BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION TO APPEAL TO THE SIGN REVIEW BOARD. THAT WILL NOW GO TO THE DIRECTOR. THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE ACCOMPLISHES THE FOLLOWING. IT PROVIDES INCENTIVES TO SIGN COMPANIES TO REMOVE BILLBOARDS. IT PROVIDES SIGN COMPANIES THE ABILITY TO REDUCE BILLBOARDS THAT WILL LIKELY NEVER BE REMOVED. AND CURRENTLY WE HAVE 4,518 SQUARE FEET OF SIGN FACE THAT'S BEEN REDUCED OVER THE PAST SEVEN MONTHS AS -- AS REPLACEMENT SIGNS. AND ENSURE THAT THE LAND OWNER IS IN AGREEMENT WITH THE SIGN COMPANY'S APPLICATION FOR REMOVAL OR REPLACEMENT OF A SIGN ON THEIR PROPERTY. PROVIDE NOTIFICATION TO REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOODS, ASSOCIATIONS, TO HELP MONITOR THE REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT WORK OF SIGN COMPANIES. AND FINALLY, TO THIRD VENT SIGN COMPANIES FROM TAKING PROPERTY RIGHT DISPUTES TO THE SIGN REVIEW BOARD.

WYNN: THANK YOU, MR. HEIGHTS. I'M GOING TO BRIEFLY TRY TO SUMMARIZE WHAT I REMEMBER TO BE SORT OF THE TRANSITION AND THE EVOLUTION OF THIS -- OF THIS ORDINANCE. WE TALKED ABOUT THIS AT LENGTH LAST -- MID LAST YEAR, IF YOU REMEMBER. AND ULTIMATELY WE ASKED A TASK FORCE, ESSENTIALLY A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE THEN PLATION TO REALLY -- OF THE THEN PLANNING COMMISSION TO REALLY TAKE A LOT MORE PUBLIC INPUT FROM SORT OF BOTH SIDES OF THE SIGN COMPANY DEBATE. AS WELL AS NEIGHBORHOOD ACTIVISTS, ET CETERA. AND WHAT HAD HAPPENED IS, IF MY REMEMBRANCE IS CORRECT, IS THAT THAT TASK FORCE CAME UP WITH A SET OF RECOMMENDATIONS THAT -- THAT MOSTLY IS IN THE ORDINANCE BEFORE US. BUT BY THE TIME THEY REPORTED BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WE HAD SPLIT THE PLANNING COMMISSION INTO ZONING AND PLATTING AND PLANNING COMMISSION. SO IN FACT WHEN THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARD THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THIS TASK FORCE THAT WE CREATED ABOUT THE BILLBOARDS, IT WAS NEW TO MANY OF THEM AND WE SORT OF LOST THAT -- THE SEQUENCE. SO IN FACT WHAT ENDED UP, IN MY OPINION, COMING BACK TO COUNCIL THEN IN DECEMBER WAS WHAT IS CALLED THE DROP BACK 15 AND PUNT SCENARIO WHERE THE PLANNING COMMISSION THEN ESSENTIALLY PUT BOTH ELEMENTS BACK TOGETHER FOR THE MULTIPLE OPTIONS APPROACH, GAVE IT TO COUNCIL, WE STRUGGLED WITH IT IN DECEMBER. SO AS I DID IN OUR LAST DISCUSSION, I'M GOING TO -- I'M GOING TO ATTEMPT TO -- TO ALIGN THE ORDINANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THAT TASK FORCE. I THINK THAT THE WORK THAT STAFF HAS DONE SINCE OUR DECEMBER 6TH MEETING IS RIGHT ON AND THEY HAVE DONE VERY GOOD -- VERY GOOD QUALIFICATIONS OF ALL OF THE -- OF THE INTRICACIES OF THIS APPEAL PROCESS, THE -- THE PERMITTING PROCESS, THE NOTIFICATION, ET CETERA. SO I'M GOING TO MOVE APPROVAL OF THIS ORDINANCE --

MAYOR GARCIA: DO YOU WANT TO LISTEN TO THE SPEAKERS FIRST?

WYNN: OH, SURE. HAVEN'T WE ALREADY HAD LIKE THE PUBLIC HEARING OR SOMETHING?

MAYOR GARCIA: WE HAVE -- WE HAVE FOUR SPEAKERS AND ONE -- JIM WALKER LEFT THE FOLLOWING NOTE, MUST SUPPORT THE ORIGINAL GOAL OF ELIMINATING BILLBOARDS. I SUPPORT THE PLANNING COMMISSION SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE 3 FOR 1 REPLACEMENT POLICY. WE SHOULD TREAT BILLBOARDS AS NON-CONFORMING USE AND PHASE THEM OUT. NOT ALLOW REBUILDS OF ANY KIND. MR. WINFRED KELSEY. MR. KELSEY HERE? HE'S AGAIN. SAYS: WE ARE FOR THE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS AGAINST THE PLANNING COMMISSION ONE FOR ONE THANK YOU. SARAH CROCKER? SIGNED UP, IT'S THE MOST BEAT UP SIGNED UP CARD I HAVE EVER SEEN. DID YOU HAVE IT IN YOUR POCKET FOR A WHILE OR WHAT? [ LAUGHTER ].

I WAS RINGING IT IN MY HANDS AS I WAS WALKING AROUND THIS AFTERNOON. ARE WE GOING TO BE ALLOWED TO SPEAK THIS EVENING, MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: WELL, SURE. I MEAN, -- THIS DOESN'T SAY SECOND OR THIRD READING. YOU SIGNED UP, SO GO AHEAD AND SPEAK.

MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL, MY NAME IS SARAH CROCKER. I WAS BEFORE YOU, I REPRESENT ACME SIGNS. I THINK THAT THE CURRENT ORDINANCE AS IT'S BEEN CRAFTED AND PRESENTED TO YOU THAT YOU VOTED ON THE FIRST TIME AROUND IS PROBABLY THE BEST SOLUTION THAT YOU COULD PROBABLY COME UP. I SAY THIS PRIMARILY BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE -- ONE OF THE REASONS -- THIS WHOLE ORDINANCE WAS CRAFTED ON SAN ANTONIO'S ORDINANCE AND THE ONE ELEMENT THAT'S NOT IN THIS PARTICULAR ORDINANCE THAT SAN ANTONIO HAS IS IF YOU TAKE DOWN BILLBOARDS IN SAN ANTONIO, YOU ARE PERMITTED TO PUT UP A NEW SIGN ON A LOCATION THAT DIDN'T PREFSLY HAVE A BILL -- PREVIOUSLY HAVE A BILLBOARD. THAT GIVES PEOPLE AN INCENTIVE TO TAKE DOWN BILLBOARDS. BECAUSE THEY HAVE -- THEY CAN PUT UP A NEW SIGN ON A LOCATION THAT THEY DON'T HAVE A SIGN ON CURRENTLY. THE PROBLEM WITH OUR ORDINANCE AS IT SITS TODAY IS IF YOU TAKE OUT THE 25 CENT REPLACEMENT, IT DOES TWO THINGS: IF THERE'S JUST A TWO FOR ONE REPLACEMENT AND YOU HAVE A NUMBER OF BILLBOARDS IN TOWN, NOBODY YET CAN EXPLAIN TO ME WHY A SIGN COMPANY WOULD GO OUT AND TAKE DOWN TWO SIGNS WHEN THEY CAN'T ONE UP AT A NEW LOCATION, WHAT ARE THEY TAKING THE TWO SIGNS DOWN FOR? WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO REPLACE? SO I DON'T SEE ANY INCENTIVE THERE FOR ANY OF THE SIGN COMPANIES TO ACTUALLY REMOVE SIGNS. THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE WERE ALL CHARGED TO DO LAST YEAR. THAT WAS TO COME BACK WITH AN ORDINANCE THAT ACTUALLY REDUCED THE NUMBER OF SCIENCE. THE -- THE NUMBER OF SIGNS. THE SECOND THING, THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT, YOU ALSO HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THE LANDOWNERS. THE COURTS STATED THAT THE RIGHT TO HAVE A BILLBOARD BELONGS WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER. IF THE PROPERTY OWNER IS IN A POSITION WHERE THAT PARTICULAR SIGN COMPANY SITTING IN FRONT OF THEM DOESN'T WANT TO PAY AN INCREASE IN RENT, DOESN'T WANT TO WORK WITH THEM, THE SIGN -- THE PROPERTY OWNER, THE PERSON WHO ACTUALLY OWNS THE ENTITLEMENT IS NO LONGER ALLOWED TO DO BUSINESS. BECAUSE THE SIGN COMPANY DOESN'T LIKE IT, THEY CAN TELL THEM, I'M TAKING MY SIGN DOWN AND YOU WILL KNOW LONGER HAVE A BILLBOARD. I DON'T THINK THAT THE INTENT OF THIS ORDINANCE, THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE WAS TO CONTINUE TO DECREASE HOPEFULLY THE NUMBER OF BILLBOARDS AND I DON'T SEE THAT YOU ARE GOING TO GET ANY DECREASE IN THE NUMBER OF BILLBOARDS BECAUSE THERE'S NO INCENTIVE TO DO THAT. KEEPING THE 25% OPTION KEEPS THIS BUSINESS COMPETITIVE. IT KEEPS THE PROPERTY OWNER WHO HAS THE ENTITLEMENT GIVES THEM THE RIGHT TO CONTINUE TO TRY AND DO BUSINESS WITH OTHER PEOPLE. AND IT WILL DO ONE THING, AS MR. HEIGHTS JUST POINTED OUT. THERE HAVE BEEN PERMITS PULLED FOR OVER 4,000 SQUARE FEET REDUCTION, AN AVERAGE NATIONAL STANDARD IS 760 FEET PER BILLBOARD, THAT'S SIX BILLBOARDS, 6.5. NOW, NO BILLBOARDS HAVE GONE DOWN. BUT THAT'S A LOT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE. AND THAT'S A RESULT, A SEVEN-MONTH RESULT. YOU TAKE THAT AWAY, [BUZZER SOUNDING], I DON'T THINK YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE ANY BILLBOARDS COME DOWN. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: SCOTT JOHNSON. IS SCOTT HERE? SCOTT ROAJ CENTERED AGAINST. THE IF IT DOES NOT REDUCE THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF BILLBOARDS, HE'S AGAINST IT. LYDIA ALTIZ, [INAUDIBLE], HERE?

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR.

WELCOME AGAIN.

COUNCIL. THANK YOU. I'VE -- I WAS APPOINTED TO THE TASK FORCE THAT LOOKED AT THE SIGN ORDINANCE AND LEARNED MORE ABOUT BILLBOARDS THAN I EVER THOUGHT THAT I WOULD KNOW, WHICH I'M SURE YOU GUYS ARE IN THAT SAME POSITION. WE LISTENED TO ALL INTERESTED PARTIES OVER ABOUT A FOUR-MONTH PERIOD. AND WE CAME UP WITH WHAT WE THOUGHT WAS A THOUGHTFULLY CRAFTED ORDINANCE THAT WOULD BE EFFECTIVE IN REDUCING THE NUMBER OF SIGNS IN THE CITY AND THAT WOULD ALSO ALLOW FOR COMPETITIVENESS IN THE SIGN MARKET. I AGREE WITH MS. CROCKER, WHO SPOKE EARLIER, THAT SAYS -- WHEN SHE SAYS THIS ISN'T THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF BILLBOARDS. I THINK THE BEST WAY TO DO THAT WOULD BE TO ALLOW FOR NO REPLACEMENT. BUT BECAUSE WE ARE LOOKING FOR SOMETHING THAT WOULD ACCOMMODATE THE INTERESTS OF BOTH SIDES OF THE DEBATE, WE CRAFTED SOMETHING THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR COMPETITION. AND THAT IS THE TWO RECOMMENDATIONS THAT YOU HAVE THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR TWO FOR ONE AND THREE FOR ONE REPLACEMENT. I THINK IN THIS CITY, WE ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT OUR QUALITY OF LIFE. AND I WOULD PUT BILLBOARDS IN THE SAME CATEGORY THAT -- OF REGULATION THAT WE PUT THINGS LIKE THE ENVIRONMENT OR THINGS LIKE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY. THESE ARE THINGS THAT WE -- THAT WE AS A SOCIETY, AS A COMMUNITY, FEEL LIKE SHOULD BE MORE STRICTLY REGULAR LATED- REGULATED BECAUSE THEY HAVE SUCH IMPACT ON OUR DAILY LIVES. IT FALLS INTO THE CATEGORY OF QUALITY OF LIFE, SOMETHING WE SHOULD LOOK AT REGULATING MORE STRICTLY. AND AS A TASK FORCE MEMBER, I TOOK THAT RESPONSIBILITY VERY SERIOUSLY AND I HAVE TO APOLOGIZE TO YOU FOR BRINGING FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT REALLY DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. IT -- IT COMBINES TWO THINGS THAT REALLY WORK AGAINST EACH OTHER. THE -- THE FIRST IS THE TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION, WHICH GETS TO REDUCING THE NUMBER OF BILLBOARDS. AND THE SECOND IS BASICALLY WHAT WE HAVE NOW. IT'S THE 25% REDUCTION. WHEN YOU COMBINE THOSE TWO THINGS IT REALLY JUST GETS YOU WHAT WE HAVE NOW. SO I WOULD URGE YOU, IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN DOING SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE HAVE NOW, WHICH REALLY IN MY MIND IS AN EFFECTIVE TO REDUCING THE NUMBER OF BILLBOARD SIGNS, THEN THE ALTERNATIVE IS TO -- IS TO SUPPORT THE TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION THAT GETS US TO REDUCING SIGNS BY TWO FOR ONE AND THREE FOR ONE REPLACEMENT. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. QUESTIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER? THE LAST SPEAKER IS MS. [INAUDIBLE] READER.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, MY NAM IS ALAN READER. I'M THE GENERAL MANAGER FOR LAMAR HERE IN AUSTIN, TEXAS. WE ARE A LARGE COMPANY, BUT WE ARE OPERATED AS A SMALL COMPANY. EVERYBODY THAT WORKS FOR US LIVES HERE. WE -- WE BOUGHT ADVANTAGE OUTDOOR AND WE BOUGHT THEM IN A MARKET THAT DOESN'T ALLOW BILLBOARDS. AND THERE WAS A QUESTION THAT ONE OF THE COUNCILMEMBERS ASKED US IS HOW DO YOU COMPETE IN A MARKET LIKE THIS, WHERE IF YOU HAVE A TWO FOR ONE YOU DON'T HAVE A REDUCTION. THE WAY YOU DO IT, YOU PULL OUT YOUR CHECKBOOK, YOU BUY A BILLBOARD. THAT'S THE WAY IT'S DONE ACROSS THE COUNTRY. AUSTIN DOESN'T ALLOW BILLBOARDS, PER SE, IN -- IF YOU WANT TO BUILD BILLBOARDS, YOU GO SOMEWHERE WHERE THEY ARE ALLOWED. THIS 25% REDUCTION IS NO INCENTIVE. IF YOU LOOK AT -- I'M IN THE BUSINESS, WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD I WANT TO REDUCE A BILLBOARD BY 25%? NO ONE CAN ANSWER THAT. THE ONLY WAY THAT -- THE REASON THAT'S SET UP THAT WAY IS TO CREATE A TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE TYPE OF ATMOSPHERE, IF THAT'S THE GOAL, THAT CREATES COMPETITION BETWEEN THE BILLBOARD COMPANIES BUT NOT THE LAND OWNERS. IT'S A PROPERTY RIGHTS ISSUE. WE DO HAVE AN INVESTMENT, WE ARE MEMBERS OF THIS COMMUNITY. WE DO PROVIDE SERVICE TO THE CITY, AND TO VARIOUS COMMUNITY FUNCTIONS. AND THE MORE IMPORTANTLY THAN ANYTHING, I THINK THAT -- THAT THE RELOCATION POLICY THAT'S IN PLACE RIGHT NOW, IF YOU CANNOT -- IF YOU CANNOT RELOCATE IT AGAIN, THERE IS NO -- THERE IS NO REASON TO DO THAT. I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE TWO BILLBOARDS DOWN TO PUT ONE BACK UP IN THE EXACT SAME PLACE. IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE FINANCIALLY. IT JUST DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. I CAN'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU CAN HAVE THESE THREE DIFFERENT VERSIONS AS A BUSINESS PERSON, PUT YOURSELF IN A BILLBOARD COMPANY'S POSITION, THAT -- IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. SO WHAT I SEE THAT'S BEING PRESENTED TO THE COUNCIL IS A REHASH. YOU OUGHT TO JUST NOT DO ANYTHING IF YOU ARE GOING TO DO THIS. THIS DOESN'T -- WE HAVE WASTED OUR TIME. IT'S A TOTAL WASTE OF TIME. WE ASKED THAT THE 25% GET REMOVED BECAUSE IT'S JUST -- IT'S BAD LAW. IT'S GOING TO CREATE FURTHER FRUSTRATIONS FOR US AND FOR YOU AND IT'S THE WRONG WAY TO GO. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MR. REEDER. NORMAN FURLEY, HE IS THE LAST SPEAKER.

COUNCILMEMBERS, GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS NORMAN FURLEY. WE HAVE DONE THIS A NUMBER OF TIMES NOW. I HAVE BEEN HERE, LAMAR HAS BEEN HERE, REAGAN HAVE BEEN HERE. I IN SOME WAYS FEEL LIKE I AM ALICE TUMBLING DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE BECAUSE IT IS AMAZING TO ME THAT THE 10TH LARGEST BILLBOARD COMPANY IN THE UNITED STATES, THE UNITED STATES, AND THE THIRD LARGEST BILLBOARD COMPANY IN THE UNITED STATES ARE COMING BEFORE YOU TO TELL YOU HOW TO GET RID OF BILLBOARDS. IT'S AMAZING. IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. YOU HAVE TO ASK YOURSELF WHAT REASON WOULD THEY POSSIBLY HAVE TO ENCOURAGE YOU TO GET RID OF BILLBOARDS. THE VERY BUSINESS THAT THEY ARE IN. IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. IN ORDER FOR A TWO FOR ONE TO WORK, YOU HAVE TO BE ALLOWED TO HAVE COMPETITION IN THIS CITY. IF A TWO FOR ONE IS GOING TO WORK, YOU HAVE TO HAVE OTHER PEOPLE HAVING THE ACCESS TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A PORTION OF THE MARKET. IF THEY DON'T, THEN YOU HAVE GOT ONE COMPANY IN THIS TOWN WHO HAS CONTROL OF THE MARKET. IF WE, THE SMALLER GUYS, COMPANIES LIKE ACME, DINOSAUR, CAPITAL OUTDOORS, MY COMPANY, IF WE HAVE THE CHANCE TO GO IN THERE AND GET BILLBOARDS FOR A ONE FOR ONE REPLACEMENT, MIND YOU WHEN THE ONE FOR ONE HAPPENS, WE DO SHRINK THE BOARDS BY 25%, WHICH IS A BONUS FOR YOU ALL, IF WE HAVE THE CHANCE TO GET IN THERE AND HAVE SOME BILLBOARDS, THAT MEANS THAT WE HAVE BILLBOARDS THAT WE CAN SACRIFICE, TWO, I CAN GET RID OF THEM SO I CAN REPLACE ANOTHER ONE. IF YOU DISALLOW ONE FOR ONE, YOU PUT THE POWER IN REAGAN NATIONAL ADVERTISING HANDS BECAUSE THEY HAVE A MONOPOLY ON THIS MARKET, THEY HAVE OVER 80%, THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT'S ALL OF THE SPEAKERS THAT WE HAVE. YES, MA'AM?

[INAUDIBLE - NO MIC].

MAYOR GARCIA: COME UP TO THE MIKE.

I'M WINFRED KELSEY WITH SCENIC AUSTIN.

MAYOR GARCIA: I CALLED YOU, YOU WEREN'T HERE.

I DIDN'T -- I THOUGHT THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. IF YOU DON'T MIND.

MAYOR GARCIA: IT WAS, WE HAD THE SPEAKERS.

SORRY. I WILL BE QUICK. I GUESS I AM HERE TO ADDRESS A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. AS YOU KNOW WE TRIED TO MAKE THE SIGN, WE WORKED WITH THE TASK FORCE TO MAKE THE STRONG ORDINANCE STRONGER TO ELIMINATE BILLBOARDS. WE THINK THE BEST WAY TO DO IT WOULD BE TO PUT IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE. IF YOU WERE TO NEED A BUILDING PERMIT EVERYTHING GOES UP TO CODE INCLUDING TAKING AWAY YOUR BILLBOARDS. WE ARE NOT GOING TO DO THAT HERE, WE ARE NOT GOING TO GET RID OF REPLACEMENTS WITHIN THOSE PARAMETER. WE REALLY FEEL THAT THE TWO FOR ONE, THREE FOR ONE IS THE BEST OPTION THAT WE HAVE. I THINK THE GUY FROM LAMAR SAID THAT -- SPOKE VERY CLEARLY TO HOW SOMEBODY WOULD GET A NEW BILLBOARD IN THIS TOWN. YOU GO AND BUILD -- BUY THEM. WITH THE TWO FOR ONE, THREE FOR ONE, YOU HAVE TO BUY TWO AND ONE COMES DOWN. THEY ARE NOT GOING TO GO DOWN FAST. BUT THEY ARE THE ONLY WAY TO GO DOWN. BUT THE ONE FOR ONE, THEY WON'T GO DOWN AT ALL, THEY HAVEN'T GONE DOWN. I THINK WE HAVE ALL SEEN THEY HAVEN'T GONE DOWN WITH THE ONE FOR ONE. IF YOU ADD A ONE FOR ONE IN THE SAME ORDER AS A TWO FOR ONE, A THREE FOR ONE, WE MIGHT AS WELL NOT HAVE DONE ANY WORK FOR THE LAST YEAR. THE BILLBOARDS HAVE NOT GONE DOWN WITH THE ONE FOR ONE. WITH THE TWO FOR ONE, YES, EVERYBODY IS GOING TO HAVE TO WORK HARDER. THE BIG COMPANIES, THE LITTLE COMPANIES. YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO GO OUT AND FIND A WAY TO BUY TWO BILLBOARDS. THAT MEANS WORKING WITH TWO DIFFERENT LAND OWNERS AND ONE OF THEM WILL COME DOWN. BUT THEY HAVE COME DOWN, SAN ANTONIO IS THE RELOCATION ISSUE IS DIFFERENT. THERE ARE PLACES ALL AROUND THE COUNTRY WHERE THEY HAVE COME DOWN WITHOUT RELOCATIONS. RELOCATION WOULD BE FINE AS LONG AS I GET TO BE ON THE COMMITTEE AND NONE OF THE ROADS THAT I EVER DRIVE ON ARE ROADS DESIGNATED FOR THOSE NEW BILLBOARDS. BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHO IS GOING TO BE -- WE ARE ALL GOING TO SAY, OH, WELL, THEY WON'T GO UP, THEY ARE NOT GOING TO GO UP AROUND TOWN LAKE. WELL, WHO GETS TO SAY THAT THEY WON'T -- NEW ONES ON CONGRESS OR LAMAR, BUT THEY WILL GO UP ON SOUTH FIRST OR THEY WILL WILL GO UP ON OUR GATEWAYS INTO AUSTIN WE WANT TO MAKE PRETTIER. I DON'T THINK RELOCATION IS GOING TO WORK. SO WITHIN THE PARAMETERS THAT WE HAVE, I REALLY THINK THE TWO FOR ONE, THREE FOR ONE IS THE ONLY WAY RIGHT NOW THAT WE CAN MAKE SOME BILLBOARDS COME DOWN. AGAIN NOT A LOT OF THEM ARE GOING TO COME DOWN, SOME WILL COME DOWN. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: I WANT TO ASK YOU ONE QUICK QUESTION. MOPAC DOESN'T HAVE SIGNS.

YES, EXACTLY.

MAYOR GARCIA: HOW DID WE DO THAT.

WHEN WE BUILT THE ROAD, JUST LIKE 360, ACTUALLY MOPAC I THINK WAS BEFORE WE STOPPED ALL BILLBOARDS, 360 WE HAD ALREADY STOPPED ALL NEW BILLBOARDS.

WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN OVER ON SH 130 IS THAT I'M WORKING REAL HARD ON THAT. IT'S OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS.

PART OF IT IS INSIDE.

ON THE PART INSIDE NO NEW BILLBOARDS ASSUMING WE DON'T ALLOW RELOCATIONS. IF WE ALLOW RELOCATIONS THAT COULD BE ANYWHERE IN OUR ETJ, PFLUGERVILLE, ROUND ROCK, ALL OF THOSE HAVE STOPPED BILLBOARDS IN THE ETJ'S. OUTSIDE THE ETJS, I HAVE SOME SOLUTIONS BUT IT'S GOING TO TAKE A LITTLE WORK.

DO COUNTIES HAVE THE RIGHT -- THE.

COUNTIES HAVE NO RIGHT. THAT'S WHY THEY ARE GOING UP ALL OVER THE HILL COUNTRY AND OUTSIDE THE CITIES. THESE GUYS CAN BUILD BILLBOARDS ALL OVER, JUST NOT IN AUSTIN.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCIL, THAT'S ALL OF THE SPEAKERS THAT WE HAVE. WE DON'T NEED THE CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING BECAUSE WE WEREN'T HAVING A PUBLIC HEARING. BACK TO YOU COUNCILMEMBER WYNN.

WYNN: THANK YOU, MAYOR. MR. HEIGHTS. I WANT TO CONFIRM ON THE ORDINANCE THAT'S BEFORE US. ON THE THREE FOR ONE, TWO FOR ONE SCENARIOS, THOSE ARE NOT -- I JUST LOST THE TERM. THOSE ARE REPLACING IN EXISTING LOCATIONS, THOSE ARE NOT NEW LOCATION SCENARIOS, CORRECT?

LET ME CLARIFY THAT, COUNCILMEMBER. WE DO NOT HAVE A THREE FOR ONE ON THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE THAT'S BEFORE YOU TODAY.

I --

WE DO HAVE A TWO FOR ONE. TWO FOR ONE AFFECTS THREE SIGNS. YOU ARE TAKING DOWN TWO SIGNS, AND THEN ONE SIGN THAT YOU HAVE YOU CAN REPLACE IT AT FULL SIZE.

AT ITS CURRENT LOCATION.

AT ITS CURRENT LOCATION. THERE'S NO NEW LOCATIONS BEING OFFERED IN THIS ORDINANCE.

WYNN: OKAY. AND MAYOR, I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION.

MAYOR GARCIA: SECOND OR THIRD READING?

WYNN: THIS IS SECOND AND THIRD READING. AS I TRIED TO DO AT OUR LAST DISCUSSION, I MOVE THAT WE STRIKE THE PROVISION THAT ALLOWS FOR THE CURRENT ONE FOR ONE SWAMP WITH THE 25% FACE REDUCTION AND OTHERWISE LEAVE THE ORDINANCE AS WRITTEN.

MAYOR GARCIA: TWO FOR ONE? IS THAT A TWO FOR ONE?

WYNN: IN A SENSE THERE WILL BE TWO OPTIONS NOT THREE. THE TWO OPTIONS BEING A -- WHAT I CALL A TWO -- AS IT'S WRITTEN NOW, WHICH I WILL REFER TO IT AS A TWO FOR ONE SWAMP, BRING DOWN TWO, ONE GOES UP IN ITS CURRENT LOCATION. OR THERE'S THE WHAT I WOULD CALL THE INCENTIVE VERSION OF THAT, YOU BRING DOWN ONE AND THEN ONE CAN GO UP IN ITS CURRENT LOCATION IF IT'S A SCENIC ROADWAY, IF IT'S A MONO POLE, THERE'S A COUPLE OF DEFINING INCENTIVES WHY WE WOULD HAVE THAT. BUT ESSENTIALLY --

MAYOR GARCIA: IF IT'S NOT A SCENIC ROADWAY.

[EVERYONE TALKING AT ONCE]

I WOULD LIKE TO REMOVE THE THIRD OPTION, AND LEAVE THE FIRST TWO, WHICH ARE A --

MAYOR GARCIA: BASICALLY A TWO FOR ONE.

WYNN: A TWO FOR ONE, WHICH IS THE FIRST OPTION. THE SECOND OPTION IS WHAT CALL A ONE FOR ONE, TAKE DOWN ONE SIGN, THEN YOU CAN REPLACE AN EXISTING SIGN IF -- BECAUSE IT'S EITHER A MONO POLE, THE ONE THAT YOU TOOK DOWN WAS EITHER MONO POLE CONSTRUCTION OR IT WAS ON THE SCENIC ROADWAY. ESSENTIALLY ALL THAT I AM DOING IS REMOVING THE THIRD OPTION OF THE ORDINANCE THAT'S BEFORE US. THREE OPTIONS, I'M REMOVING OPTION NUMBER 3, WHICH IS THE ONE FOR ONE, 25% FACE SIZE REDUCTION OPTION.

MAYOR GARCIA: IS THERE A SECOND? SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ. DISCUSSION?

SLUSHER: I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. HEIGHTS. WHY DID YOU LEAVE THAT PORTION IN THERE IN YOUR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? THE ONE -- THE 25% REPLACEMENT?

COUNCILMEMBER, WE FEEL SOME OF THESE SIGNS WILL NEVER BE REMOVED. IF YOU INCREMENTALLY GO IN AND DO MAINTENANCE ON A SIGN OVER A TWO, THREE, FOUR YEAR PERIOD, HOWEVER WAY YOU WOULD WANT TO STAGE IT, AT THE PENNED OF THAT PERIOD OF TIME YOU BASIC -- AT THE END OF THAT PERIOD OF TIME YOU COULD BASICALLY HAVE A BRAND NEW SIGN. IT'S OUR FEELING THAT THE SIGNS WILL NOT GO AWAY. THE ONLY INCENTIVE IF THERE'S A CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP AND THEY WANT TO REPLACE THAT SIGN, THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO REDUCE IT BY 25%, SO I -- I THINK IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT FOR US TO HAVE THE SIGNS GO AWAY, BUT I THINK WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF SIGNAGE, IF YOU WILL, ON SIZE AND AS I INDICATED EARLIER, WE HAVE REMOVED 4,518 SQUARE FEET OF SIGN FACE AND -- IN JUST THE SEVEN MONTHS THAT THIS WAS IN PLACE.

SLUSHER: OKAY. AND THE CHANGE THAT -- YOU HAVE TALKED ABOUT CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP WHEN THE SIGN -- THAT'S WHEN THE SIGNINGS DOWN BY 25% WHEN IT'S REPLACED THIS THAT MANNER.

IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP. IT COULD BE IF --

SLUSHER: IS THAT HOW IT'S GENERALLY HAPPENED?

GENERALLY, YES. THAT'S PART OF THE THING THAT INITIATED THIS.

SLUSHER: SO, I'M CONCERNED ALSO ABOUT THE COMPETITION ISSUE. I MEAN, I WOULD LIKE FOR THERE NOT TO BE ANY BILLBOARDS, EITHER. BUT WE ARE NOT GETTING ANY MORE, THOUGH, IN AUSTIN. SO -- SO THE REST OF THEM ARE GRANDFATHERED. SO I'M JUST -- SINCE WE HAVE A BILLBOARD INDUSTRY, I WANT TO TRY TO HAVE SOMETHING OF A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD, NOT DO SOMETHING THAT WOULD DAMAGE THE SMALLER COMPANIES. DOES -- DO YOU SEE THAT POTENTIALLY HAPPENING WITH -- WITHOUT THE 25% REDUCTION OPTION?

THE 25% REDUCTION, I DON'T THINK IS PART OF THE COMPETITION ISSUE. I THINK WE TRIED TO CORRECT THE COMPETITION ISSUE BY MAKING SURE THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER WAS NOTIFIED OF ANY CHANGES THAT'S GOING TO BE PROPOSED FOR A SIGN ON THEIR PROPERTY. IF YOU REMEMBER, AS IT CURRENTLY WAS WRITTEN, THE SIGN COMPANY COULD COME IN AND ASK FOR A PERMIT. THE PROPERTY OWNER WAS NOT AWARE OF IT. SO IT'S A -- DIFFERENT PROPOSALS WERE BEING MADE. WE WANTED TO ADDRESS THAT. SO IF THE PROPERTY OWNER, IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO MAKE CHANGE, IF IT'S AT THE END OF A LEASE, THEN THE PROPERTY OWNER COULD THEN MAKE SOME INQUIRIES AS TO DIFFERENT SIGN COMPANIES ON WHAT HIS OPTIONS MIGHT BE.

SLUSHER: WOULDN'T IT BE LESS LIKELY TO -- IF THE SMALLER COMPANIES DON'T HAVE THE NUMBER OF BILLBOARDS TO REPLACE TWO TWO ONE -- TWO FOR ONE, DOESN'T THIS GIVE THEM MORE OF AN ENTRY INTO THE MARKET?

NOT NECESSARILY. THE -- THERE ARE A LOT OF SIGNS ON ROADS THAT YEARS AGO WERE HEAVILY TRAVELED THAT TODAY MAY NOT BE AND SOME OF THOSE SIGNS MAY BE IN DISREPAIR AND MAY NOT BRING IN THE REVENUE THAT THEY COULD GET IN ANOTHER LOCATION. SO THERE IS SOME OPPORTUNITIES FOR PEOPLE TO GO AND PURCHASE THOSE TYPE OF SIGNS, REMOVE THEM, AND THEN GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO REPLACE THE SIGN AT FULL HEIGHT, AT FULL SIZE. OR TO GET ONE IN ONE OF THE AREAS THAT COUNCILMEMBER WYNN SAID THAT WOULD BE IN A -- IN A AN HISTORIC DISTRICT OR A SCENIC ROADWAY OR A MONO POLE.

SLUSHER: BASICALLY YOUR THING ON THE 25% IS THAT YOU ARE WORRIERED THAT REDUCED THE AMOUNT OF SIGN FACE, ALTHOUGH NOT THE NUMBER OF SIGNS. YOU ARE WORRIED THAT NOT HAVING THAT IN THERE, THE TWO FOR ONE WON'T GET A LOT OF SIGNS REMOVED AND SO YOU WON'T REALLY BE REDUCING THEM.

I THINK THE MAIN SIGNS THAT MOST OF US SEE ARE THE SIGNS THAT AREN'T GOING TO BE REPLACED. THERE ARE SIGNS ELSEWHERE THAT LIKE I SAY ARE IN DISREPAIR, MAY NOT HAVE THE EXPOSURE THAT THESE OTHER SIGNS DO HAVE. WE DO FEEL THAT THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY HERE.

SLUSHER: OKAY. THAT'S ALL THAT I HAVE.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER QUESTIONS?

GOODMAN: YEAH, MAYOR.

GOODMAN: MAYOR PRO TEM?

GOODMAN: SO GET WHAT I THINK IS A DEVIL'S ADVOCATE POSITION, ALTHOUGH AT THIS POINT I'M NOT QUITE SURE, COULD I ASK MS. CROCKER A QUESTION.

THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION THAT THE ONLY WAY TO MAKE A SIGN POSSIBLY COME DOWN, THE 25% REDUCTION THAT WE USED TO HAVE OR MAY STILL HAVE, SO WITH THE MOTION AS LAID OUT BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, WHERE WE TAKE AWAY THE ONE FOR ONE AND 25% IF -- IS THAT CORRECT? COUNCILMEMBER?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

WYNN: I'M SORRY, I MISSED THAT, MAYOR PRO TEM.

GOODMAN: YOUR MOTION WAS TO TAKE OUT THE ONE FOR ONE AT 25% REDUCTION AND LEAVE IN THE FIRST TWO.

WYNN: YES.

GOODMAN: OKAY. SO WHAT DO YOU THINK THAT DOES FROM THE PERSPECTIVE THAT YOU HAVE BEEN ADVOCATING.

THE AMOUNT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE AND SIGN FACE THAT HAVE BEEN OVERALL REDUCED AS MR. HEIGHTS AS REPORTED TO THE COUNCIL HAVE COME ABOUT AS A RESULT OF THE CHANGE OF LEASES, THE ENTITLEMENT RUNS WITH THE LANDOWNER, BUT THE SIGN COMPANIES EJECT THE SIGNS. ERECT THE SIGNS. IN THEIR MIND THEY OWN THEM, THEY DO. THEY PAY TO PUT THEM UP. BUT THE ENTITLEMENT IS WITH THE LAND OWNER, UNDER OUR CURRENT ORDINANCE, THOSE REZUKSS HAVE -- REDUCTIONS HAVE COME ABOUT BECAUSE THE LEASE HAS TAKEN PLACE, A NEW LEASE HAS COME IN, THE OLD SIGN COMPANIES GOES OUT AND JERKS DOWN THEIR SIGN, WHICH IS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE CHANGED THIS PROCESS WAS TO STOP THE FOOT RACE FROM OCCURRING THAT WE ALL HAD TO HEAR ABOUT THIS SUMMER. THE NEW SIGN COMPANY CAN COME IN AND PUT UP A POLE AT 25% LESS, THAT'S WHY YOU ARE GETTING THE REDUCTION IN THE SQUARE FOOTAGE. IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE 25% RULE AND THE ONE FOR ONE ANY LONGER, WHAT HAPPENS IS THE -- YOU CAN'T NEGOTIATE A NEW LEASE BECAUSE THE OLD SIGN COMPANY CAN -- CAN TELL THE LAND OWNER, IF I DON'T WANT TO PAY YOUR RENT AMOUNT OR WHATEVER, THEN I CAN TAKE MY SIGN DOWN AND YOU LOSE YOUR RIGHT TO HAVE A BILLBOARD HERE, PERIOD. NOW I GUESS SOMEBODY COULD COME IN AND PURCHASE A BILLBOARD. BUT WHEN YOU HAVE AS WAS POINTED OUT BY MR. FURLEY OVER 80% OF THE MARKET CONTROLLED BY ONE COMPANY, I DON'T SEE THAT THERE'S A WHOLE LOT OF INCENTIVE FOR THEM TO SELL THEIR ASSETS TO A SMALLER COMPANY AND THE ONLY WAY THAT THEY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO GET A TOE HOLD IS THROUGH THE LEASE SITUATION. AND YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO GO IN AND TAKE A LEASE AWAY FROM A LARGER COMPANY ANY LONGER IF THE -- IF THE ONE FOR ONE GOES AWAY. BECAUSE YOU WILL KNOW LONGER BE ALLOWED TO DO REPLACEMENT BILLBOARDS. THAT'S IT. THAT'S IT IN A NUT SHELL. COULD YOU BUY ONE? I SUPPOSE YOU COULD IF YOU COULD COME IN LIKE MR. -- THE GENTLEMAN FROM LAMAR SAID, THEY CAME IN AND BOUGHT A WHOLE ADVERTISING COMPANY. THERE AREN'T ANY OF THOSE SMALL ADVERTISING COMPANIES AROUND ANYMORE. SO IF YOU LOSE -- THE WAY THESE GUYS HAVE GOTTEN ANY BILLBOARDS IN TOWN IS BY GOING IN AND PAYING THE LAND OWNER MORE MONEY FROM THAT LEASE AND BEING ABLE TO REPLACE THE BILLBOARD. YOU TAKE THE ABILITY TO DO THE ONE FOR ONE AWAY, I SEE THE COMPETITION GOING -- THE COMPETITIVE ASPECT OF THIS IS DISAPPEARING, TOTALLY DISSIPATING. AND THERE'S A REASON, AS MR. FURLEY POINTED OUT, WHY THE LARGER BILLBOARD COMPANIES ARE REALLY FOR THIS. IF I WERE THEM, I WOULD BE FOR IT, TOO. 100% SAFE. MY LEASES ARE IRONCLAD. THEY ARE GOLDEN. NOBODY CAN TAKE THEM AWAY FROM ME ANYMORE.

GOODMAN: THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. PY OTHER -- ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, DISCUSSION? [ONE MOMENT PLEASE FOR CHANGE IN CAPTIONERS] TALKING ABOUT THIS FOR SOME TIME NOW. AND IT MAY APPEAR THAT WE HAD SOMETHING IN LINE, BUT WE DID NOT. OKAY. WELL, I'M NOT REMEMBERING THE CONVERSATION NOW, BUT I THOUGHT POSSIBLY IT WAS EVEN ILLEGAL FOR SOMEONE WHO HAD NO CONTROL OR AUTHORITY AT ALL OVER SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY TO WALK IN AND BEGIN A PROCESS ON ANYTHING ON BEHALF OF THAT PROPERTY.

MARTY, DO YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THAT?

I THINK MAYBE I CAN ADDRESS THE REALITY OF THE SITUATION. THE REALITY OF THE SITUATION IS A LOT OF THE COMPANIES IN THEIR LEASE AGREEMENTS THE LANDOWNER AGREES THAT THAT COMPANY REPRESENTS THEM AND HAS THE ABILITY TO SPEAK FOR THEM BEFORE -- BEFORE THE CITY. HOW THE THIS SUMMER THERE WAS A DIFFERENT FACT SCENARIO THAT OCCURRED, IF YOU WILL RECALL, IS THAT WE HAD A SITUATION -- AND I'M FUZZY BRAINED ON THIS, SO I NEED A LITTLE HELP FROM MY FRIENDS. BUT FACT SITUATION THAT OCCURRED THIS SUMMER IS WE ACTUALLY HAD TWO COMPANIES COMING IN AT APPROXIMATELY THE SAME TIME. THE DIFFERENCE IS ONE COMPANY CAME IN WITH THE LANDOWNER AND THE LANDOWNER SAID, I WANT TO DO BUSINESS WITH THIS COMPANY. WHAT THIS ORDINANCE DOES AND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET OUT OF THE BUSINESS OF IS GETTING CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THOSE KINDS OF CONFRONTATIONS. WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS AN ABSOLUTE REQUIREMENT AND SAY YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE THE LANDOWNER'S SIGNATURE. IT'S NOT ENOUGH FOR YOU TO BE THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE THE LANDOWNER'S SIGNATURE. THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE. AM I STATING IT -- .

YEAH.

THAT'S WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO GO WITH THIS. THE SITUATION WE HAD THIS SUMMER IS WE HAD A DISPUTE OVER WHETHER SOMEBODY WAS AUTHORIZED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE LANDOWNER. WE WANT TO GET OUT OF THAT BUSINESS OF REFUSE RIO GRANDE THESE DISPUTES. -- REEFFER REING THOSE DISPUTES.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. IS THE MOTION OWE THERE'S A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. IS THERE A SECOND, COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

WYNN: I BELIEVE COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ SECKED IT.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ YOU SECONDED THAT. DISCUSSION? FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. OPPOSED NO?

NO.

MAYOR GARCIA: NO, NO. IS THERE THREE NO'S.

SLUSHER: MAYBE FOUR.

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYBE FOUR. WHY DON'T YOU CALL THE ROLL.

GARCIA: YES.

GOODMAN: NO.

ALVAREZ: YES.

GRIFFITH: NO.

SLUSHER: NO.

THOMAS: ABSTAIN.

WYNN: YES.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT MOTION FAILS ON A VOTE OF THREE TO THREE TO ONE.

SLUSHER: I MOVE FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

MAYOR GARCIA: THERE'S A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

GRIFFITH: SECOND.

MAYOR GARCIA: SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH. DISCUSSION?

GOODMAN: CAN WE BE CLEAR ABOUT WHAT THAT IS?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, CAN YOU GIVE US THE DETAILS?

WELL, MR. HEIGHTS DID A PRETTY GOOD JOB EARLIER.

I AGREE.

THE MOTION MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN WAS TO REMOVE THE CURRENT REPLACEMENT OPTION THAT ALLOWS ANY SIGN TO BE REPLACED MUST BE REDUCED BY 25%. SO IF WE'RE GOING WITH THE STAFF OPTION, ALL OF THE DIFFERENT -- ALL THE DIFFERENT ITEMS THAT I PRESENTED TO YOU EARLIER AND IT KEEPS THIS 25% REDUCTION IN THE ORDINANCE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. FURTHER QUESTIONS OF MR. HEIGHTS? MAYOR PRO TEM?

GOODMAN: IS THAT IN AREA 25% REDUCTION IN AREA?

YES, THAT'S CORRECT.

GOODMAN: I'M WONDERING IF COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER WOULD CONSIDER A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, THAT THE 25% REDUCTION BE IN DIMENSION AS OPPOSED TO AREA.

MAYOR GARCIA: CAN YOU TELL US WHAT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DIMENSION AND AREA IS?

GOODMAN: LET ME READ IT FOR YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: SO THE SHAPE WOULD BE THE SAME, IT WOULD JUST BE SHRUNK, THE SIGN ITSELF?

GOODMAN: A 10 BY 100 FOOT SIGN, PRESENTLY 1,000 SQUARE FOOT, WHEN REDUCED BY 25% TO 750 SQUARE FEET BECOMES ABOUT 8.7 FEET BY 87. IT'S ONLY ACTUALLY ABOUT A 13% REDUCTION. IN DIMENSION.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. SO IT'S IT BY AREA -- .

GOODMAN: DIMENSION.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND THAT?

SLUSHER: I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT TOTALLY. I DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND -- .

MAYOR GARCIA: WELL, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO REDUCE SQUARE FEET FROM A THOUSAND TO WECHB HUNDRED 50. YOU HAVE TO KEEP IT IN THE SAME CONFIGURATION. IN OTHER WORDS, EVERYTHING IS REDUCED. IF THIS WAS 10 BY 100, NOW IT'S GOING TO BE EIGHT BY WHATEVER.

ARE WE SAYING THAT THE LENGTH WOULD BE REDUCED BY 25% AND THE WIDTH WOULD BE BY 25%?

MAYOR GARCIA: THE RECTANGLE IS LIKE THIS, IT WOULD BE LIKE THAT.

OKAY.

MAYOR, ARE YOU SAYING IT SHOULD BE IN THE SAME PROPORTIONS, ONLY REDUCED?

THANK YOU, MR. ARCHITECT. I KNEW IF WE GOT SOMEBODY THAT HAD TECHNICAL EXPERTISE TEES AND KNEW HOW TO SPEAK ENGLISH, WE WOULD SOLVE THIS ONE.

GET THE LAWYERS OUT OF HERE!

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. FURTHER DISCUSSION?

GOODMAN: WILL HE ACCEPT THAT?

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU SIPPED THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, RIGHT, COUNCILMEMBER?

SLUSHER: I HAVEN'T YET. I JUST AM UNCOMFORTABLE BECAUSE WE'VE HAD THIS LENGTHY AND IN MY OPINION WAY TOO LENGTHY DISCUSSION ON SIGN STRETCHING OVER SEVERAL MONTHS AND I THINK WE'RE ABOUT TO MAYBE GET IT OFF THE TABLE, BUT I HAVEN'T HEARD -- NO ONE THAT'S INVOLVED IN IT HAS A COMMENT. DO YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THIS, MR. HEIGHTS? DO YOU WANT TO GIVE IT A SHOT? I MEAN, IS THIS -- .

IF YOU HAVEN'T LOST ME, I'M READY.

SLUSHER: OKAY. I JUST DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS PLAUSIBLE OR NOT. I MEAN, ARE WE DOING SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO OWE ON OWE MAY TAKE AWAY -- .

MAYOR GARCIA: HERE IS THE WAY I SEE IT. LET'S SAY YOU HAVE A THOUSAND FEET, 10 BY 100. YOU GET 750. BUT INSTEAD OF BEING REDUCED, LIKE HE SAID, SOMEBODY PUTS UP 700 SQUARE FEET LIKE THIS GOING UP TO ATTRACT ATTENTION.

SO YOU'RE SAYING WE'LL GO FROM REC TANK U LAR TO RECTANGULAR, FROM CIRCLE TO CIRCLE, FROM SQUARE TO SQUARE.

SLUSHER: OKAY.

MAYOR GARCIA: IS THAT A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT?

SLUSHER: YEAH. I JUST HOPE THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT CAUSES US TO BRING UP BILLBOARDS LATER.

GRIFFITH: AS THE SECOND, I BELIEVE THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.

I BELIEVE WE HAVE ENOUGH INSTRUCTIONS WE CAN DRAFT THIS ORDINANCE.

GRIFFITH: COULD WE TALK TO.

MAYOR GARCIA: IS THAT A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT?

GRIFFITH: NO, SIR, IT'S NOT BECAUSE I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT WELL ENOUGH BECAUSE I NEED TO KNOW HOW THAT WOULD AFFECT THE INDUSTRY. COULD WE HEAR FROM SOME OF THE INDUSTRY FOLKS IN TERMS OF THIS IS NEW TO ME, WHICH IS WHY I'M QUESTIONING IT, REAL NEW, AND REAL DIFFERENT. AND I NEED TO KNOW HOW THAT WOULD AFFECT.

GOODMAN: BEFORE HE GETS UP HERE, LET ME ADD WHAT MAY BE A HELPFUL INSIGHT. WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE VARIOUS ISSUES THAT COME UP RELATIVE TO WHETHER OR NOT COMPETITION IN FACT CAUSES MUCH REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF SIGNS AND CONSIDERING THE THOUSANDS OF SIGNS THAT ARE AROUND. OUR BIGGEST IMPACT MAY SOMETIMES BE THE FACT THAT THE COMPETITION CAME IN AND A SIGN MUST BE REPLACED. THE 25% REDUCTION IN AREA IS REALLY VERY MINIMAL. THE 25% REDUCTION IN DIMENSION ACTUALLY COMES OUT TO BE ALMOST -- SOMEWHERE AROUND 44% REDUCTION IN AREA.

[INAUDIBLE].

GOODMAN: WELL, IF YOU LIKE YOUR SIGNS A LITTLE BIT SMALLER THAN THEY ARE, THEN NO, YOU WOULD NOT LIKE THIS. IF YOU LIKE THEM A WHOLE LOT SMALLER ....

GRIFFITH: RIGHT. I'M WONDERING HOW PRACTICAL THAT WOULD BE. COULD MS. CROCKER OR SOMEBODY WHO IS REPRESENTING THE INDUSTRY, HOW WOULD THAT AFFECT THE FUTURE OF THE INDUSTRY?

I WOULD REALLY PREFER THAT MR. FURLY, WHO DOES REPLACEMENT SIGN ON A REGULAR BASIS, ANSWER THAT QUESTION. I UNDERSTAND WHERE COUNCIL -- WITH THE MAYOR PRO TEM IS GOING AND FROM A THEORETICAL STANDPOINT I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT, BUT I GUESS MY QUESTION WOULD BE, DOES THIS -- IF IT'S A 25% REDUCTION DIMENSION ALLY, AS LONG AS THAT DOESN'T EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE TOTAL 25%, YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE WAY THEY'RE DOING IT NOW, THEY'RE NOT GETTING TO 100% OF THE 25% REDUCTION. IS THAT WHAT I'M HEARING YOU SAY?

GOODMAN: YEAH, MORE OR LESS. THAT'S THE CONCEPT.

I'D RATHER HAVE MR. FURLEY ANSWER THIS QUESTION IF YOU DON'T MIND.

IT'S HARD ENOUGH FOR US TO COMPETE IN THIS MARKET WITH A QUARTER OF A DIFFERENCE IN TERMS OF THE ADVERTISING SPACE THAT WE'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE IN DOING ONE FOR ONE REPLACEMENT. AND I'VE HEARD THE A ARGUMENT MADE THAT A 25% REDUCTION IN THE AREA OF A SIGN SPACE MAKES NO DIFFERENCE. I THINK IT WOULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE IF SOMEBODY TOOK 25% OF YOUR PAYCHECK AWAY. IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE TO ME. IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE IF SOMEONE TAKES A QUARTER OF ANYTHING AWAY FROM ME OF ANYTHING THAT'S IMPORTANT TO ME. SO IF WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING IS THAT THE SIGNS THAT I HAVE TO REPLACE BE EVEN FURTHER REDUCED THAN OBVIOUSLY, THEN THAT'S GOING TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A CRIPPLING BLOW TO ME IN TERMS OF BEING ABLE TO DO BUSINESS IN THIS TOWN, IN THIS BILLBOARD BUSINESS.

GOODMAN: WELL, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT FROM MY PERSPECTIVE THE POINT IS TO TRY TO GET THE SIGNS TO CHANGE SIZE SO MUCH THAT EVENTUALLY THEY'RE SORT OF LOLLIPOPS AND THEY DON'T SHOW AT ALL AND THERE'S NO LONGER ANY PROFIT TO BE MADE.

AND I AGREE WITH THAT AND I THINK THAT HAPPENS THE DAY SOMEONE -- LIKE THE SIGNS THAT I REPLACED NEAR THE AIRPORT. IF SOMEONE WERE TO COME AND REPLACE THOSE, THAT'S WHEN YOU REALLY START TO SEE A MARKED DIFFERENCE. YOU SEE THE SIGN CUT IN HALF THE WAY THE ORDINANCE IS RIGHT NOW. THE WAY IT IN MY OPINION SHOULD STAY.

GOODMAN: I UNDERSTAND IT WOULD NOT BE GOOD FOR BUSINESS.

CORRECT, THAT'S RIGHT.

GOODMAN: I GOT THAT POINT. AND COULD I ASK THE MAYOR BEFORE I -- .

SLUSHER: MAYOR PRO TEM, IF WE'RE GOING TO LET MR. FURLY SPEAK TO THAT, I THINK WE OUGHT TO LET THE OTHER GENTLEMAN, MR. REAGAN AS WELL.

THANK YOU. MY NAME IS PHIL REAGAN. AND COUNCILMEMBERS, YOU'RE RIGHT. YOUR ASSESSMENT IS CORRECT. IT WOULD OBVIOUSLY BE A FALLER SIGN. THAT WOULD BE THE END RESULT. THAT'S THAT WAS ALL I WAS GOING TO ADD. THANK YOU.

GOODMAN: SINCE I DON'T HAVE MY ORDINANCE APPARENTLY, THERE WAS A REQUEST FOR US TO PUT AN INTRODUCTION IN OR A PREAMBLE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT SPECIFICALLY STATING, OR A STATEMENT OF PURPOSE TO DELINEATE THAT THE GOAL IS TO EVENTUALLY DO AWAY WITH ALL BILLBOARDS. IS THAT SOMEWHERE ELSE OR DID WE TRY TO PUT THAT INTO IT THIS LANGUAGE?

I DO NOT KNOW WHETHER THERE WERE INSTRUCTIONS TO THE STAFF TO DO THAT. I CAN TELL YOU THAT FROM A GOOD LEGISLATIVE DRAFTING STANDPOINT THAT PREAMBLES ARE NOT FAVORED, AND IN FACT IF YOU HAVE THE SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS WHICH DO NOT JIBE WITH THE PREAMBLE, THEN YOU ARE OPENING UP YOUR ORDINANCE TO CHALLENGE, YOU ARE NOT CLARIFYING IT. AS A RESULT, WE WOULD -- FROM A LEGISLATIVE DRAFTING STANDPOINT, WE WOULD NOT ENCOURAGE YOU TO DO THAT. WE BELIEVE THE LANGUAGE SPEAKS FOR ITSELF, AND THAT IS YOUR LANGUAGE ACTUALLY TALKS ABOUT WHAT CAN AND CANNOT BE DONE, AND THAT LANGUAGE SHOULD STAND ON ALL FOUR CORNERS IN AND OF ITSELF. BUT AS FAR AS THE LEGISLATIVE DRAFTING IS -- IT'S JUST SIMPLY NOT FAVORED BECAUSE IT CAN HAVE THE PROBLEMATIC EFFECT OF INTRODUCING AMBIGUITY. HOWEVER, IF IT IS YOUR DESIRE, WE WILL WRITE IT.

GOODMAN: WELL, I JUST DIDN'T THINK THAT WAS VERY AMBIGUOUS, THAT THE GOAL WAS TO ULTIMATELY TAKE ALL BILLBOARDS OUT OF EXISTENCE.

I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT EVEN STILL THE LANGUAGE IN THE ORDINANCE DOES ALLOW BILLBOARDS TO BE REPLACED.

GOODMAN: WELL, YEAH, THAT'S WHY SOME PEOPLE REALLY NEED THE SECURITY OF THAT STATEMENT OF PURPOSE BECAUSE THE ORDINANCE ITSELF DOESN'T REALLY GIVE MUCH CONFIDENCE THAT WITHIN OUR LIFETIMES THAT WILL HAPPEN.

WELL, THE PREAMBLE DOES NOTHING BUT CLOUD THE ISSUE. THE OPERATIVE LANGUAGE WILL BE THE PROVISIONS IN THE ORDINANCE ITSELF. IF THE OPERATIVE PROVISIONS DO NOT, CANNOT ACHIEVE THE OBTAIN ACTIVE, THEN THE PREAMBLE IS NOT TO HELP YOU. THAT'S WHY THAT IS WHY WE HAVE STRONGLY URGED THAT WE DO NOT DO THAT.

MAYOR PRO TEM, I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT AT THE TASKFORCE LEVEL, THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WE HAD AN INTEREST IN STATING A PREAMBLE. AND I'M TOLD NOW THAT IT EXISTS IN THE 1999 ORDINANCE. WE HAD AN INTEREST IN STATING THAT THE GOAL WOULD BE TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF SIGNS, AND WE WERE ADVISED BY THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT THAT THAT WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE OR SUITABLE FOR THE SAME REASONS THAT MS. TERRY HAS GIVEN TONIGHT.

GOODMAN: OKAY. SO NOBODY WILL KNOW THAT WAS OUR GOAL, I GUESS. THAT'S OKAY.

IF IT WILL HELP YOU, YOU ALWAYS HAVE THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND THE COUNCIL'S TAPES, AND THAT ALWAYS LENDS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY TO THE ACTION THAT YOU TAKE.

GOODMAN: OF COURSE. OUR DISCUSSIONS ON THIS ARE NOTORIOUSLY TORTURE US AND SO I DOUBT PEOPLE WILL WANT TO FIND OUT WHAT WE SAID, BUT WHILE THE MAYOR'S OFF THE DIAS, LET ME OFFER THAT AT LEAST AS AN AMENDMENT, AS A MOTION, A SEPARATE AMENDMENT FROM THE MOTION. AND THAT WAS THE 25% REDUCTION IN DIMENSIONS AS OPPOSED TO AREA. COUNCILMEMBER -- OH, I CAN'T DO THAT WHILE GUS IS GONE. RATS. OKAY. WHEN HE COMES BACK.

GRIFFITH: MAYOR PRO TEM? I SHARE YOUR GOALS. CERTAINLY I THINK HISTORICALLY YOU WILL SEE THAT WHAT REALLY TAKES BILLBOARDS DOWN PERMANENTLY IS THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LANDS THAT THEY'RE ON. THAT'S WHAT REALLY DOES IT. AND THE REASON THAT I THINK WE NEED TO KEEP THE 25% OPTION IS BECAUSE IT REDUCES THE AMOUNT OF SQUARE INCHES, SQUARE FEET WHILE AT THE SAME TIME KEEPS AN INDUSTRY ALIVE WHILE IT IS BEING DESTROYED BY THE GRADUAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE VACANT LAND THAT SIGNS GO ON. SO IT'S A COMPROMISE POSITION.

MAYOR PRO TEM, COULD I MAKE ONE CLARIFICATION OR ASK FOR A CLARIFICATION? WHEN YOU'RE ASKING FOR DIMENSIONS, WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR IS THAT IF WE HAVE A DIMENSION ALONG THE -- THE LINKS OF THE SIGN, THE DEPTH, WHATEVER THE DIMENSION MAY BE, THAT THAT BE PRODUCE REDUCED BY 25% AND THE HEIGHT OF THE SIGN BE REDUCED 25%. IF DOING IT DIMENSION ALLY, I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING?

GOODMAN: I'M NOT SURE THE WAY YOU SAID THAT, THAT SOUNDED LIKE AREA.

IT DOESN'T. THAT WAS WHY I WANTED THE CLARIFICATION. THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WHAT THEIR RECOMMENDATION WAS WAS 25% OF THE AREA OF THE SIGN. IF YOU CHANGE THE DIMENSION, AS YOU INDICATED, THAT WOULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE ON THE SQUARE FOOTAGE AND IT WOULD BE QUITE A BIT HIGHER. IT WOULD BE HIGHER THAN 25% ON THE REDUCTION. THE OTHER ISSUE WAS THAT WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE KEPT THEM PRETTY MUCH THE SAME SIZE. IF YOU DID IT DIMENSIONALLY, THAT WOULD DO THAT. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE COUNCIL UNDERSTANDS TOO THAT THEN WE'RE CHANGING IT FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION RELIGIOUS OF SQUARE FOOTAGE TO THE RECOMMENDATION OF DIMENSIONALLY.

GOODMAN: YEAH. THAT WAS WHY I TRIED TO GIVE YOU THE EXAMPLE AND THE REDUCTION IN AREA IS NO LONGER 25% IN TERMS OF AREA, BUT 44%.

RIGHT.

GOODMAN: SO THAT'S ALMOST HALF. WELL, I DON'T KNOW, WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO? DO YOU WANT TO WAIT FOR THE MAYOR OR DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO SAY?

MAYOR GARCIA: WE CAN WAIT FOR THE MAYOR. [LAUGHTER].

GOODMAN: WE HAVE NOTHING MORE TO DISCUSS UNTIL YOU GET HERE, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYOR PRO TEM? -- .

THOMAS: MAYOR PRO TEM? SINCE -- I THOUGHT THE FIRST THING WHEN THIS STARTED LAST YEAR THAT WE WERE TRYING TO -- MY UNDERSTANDING IS PREVIOUS COUNCIL JUST WANTED TO GET RID OF BILLBOARDS. AS THE MOTION IS ON THE FLOOR NOW FOR THIS PARTICULAR ORDINANCE, WE'VE HEARD FROM ONE SIDE AND THE OTHER. WHAT DOES THIS DO FOR BOTH SIDE? DOES THIS WOULD, FOR BOTH SIDES? BECAUSE IT'S STILL GOING BACK AND FORTH. OH, I DONE STARTED SOMETHING.

NO, I'M WITH LAMAR ADVERTISING. I'M WITH THE GENERAL MANAGER OF THIS PLANT HERE IN AUSTIN. I'M THE REGIONAL PERSON WHO ALSO WORKS IN AUSTIN AS WELL. THIS WOULD BE UNIQUE IN TEXAS. IT WILL BE THE ONLY ONE LIKE THIS. DALLAS YOU CAN'T BUILD OR DO ANYTHING. AND BILLBOARDS ARE COMING DOWN. HOUSTON, SCENIC HOUSTON TELLS US THAT 3,000 BILLBOARDS -- 2,000 BILLBOARDS OUT OF 5,000 ARE GOING TO COME DOWN AND THERE'S NO REDUCTION RULE. SAN ANTONIO TELLS US 22% OF THEIR BILLBOARDS HAVE COME DOWN. THEY HAVE A TWO FOR ONE. A RELOCATION IN REASONABLE AREAS, NOT IN SEENIC PLACES AND THINGS LIKE THAT. THIS WILL BE UNIQUE. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN. SO LET'S SEE. I DON'T THINK MR. FURLY CAN DO IT. I DON'T KNOW. BUT MAYBE HE CAN. WE'LL SEE. BUT THAT WILL BE REALLY UNIQUE. LOS ANGELES SPENT A LOT OF MONEY DEBATING THE BILLBOARD ISSUE AND WHAT THEY DECIDED TO DO IS LET THE BILLBOARD COMPANIES TAKE THE BILLBOARDS OUT OF THE INNER CITY AND PUT THEM ON AREAS OF THE INTERSTATE. THAT WAY THEY GOT RID OF THE SMALLER SIGNS INSIDE THE CITY. CLEVELAND, CHICAGO HAS ALL LOOKED AT THIS ISSUE. THIS IS OBVIOUSLY -- THIS WILL BE UNIQUE IN THE COUNTRY, AND SO WE JUST HAVE TO SEE HOW IT WORKS. THERE'S WAY TO TELL.

JUST TO ADDRESS THAT QUESTION, IF I MAY. I'LL BILL REAGAN IN CASE YOU GUYS MISSED IT THE FIRST TIME. I THINK WHAT IT BASICALLY COMES DOWN TO IS IF THIS STAYS IN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THE SAME CONDUCT THAT YOU WITNESSED THE PAST YEAR WITH THIS -- WHERE THERE'S BEEN EVIDENCE THAT YOU HAVE THE COMPANIES, THE SMALLER COMPANIES CONTINUING TO GO OFF THE LARGER COMPANY'S LOCATIONS. AND IF THAT'S YOUR INTENT, SO BE IT. IF YOUR INTENT IS TO TRY TO ELIMINATE SIGNS, THEN I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU WOULD PROBABLY GO ABOUT IT THE WAY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN HAD MADE HIS MOTION. SO LOOKING AT IT OBJECTIVELY, YOU'RE KIND OF AT A CROSSROADS ON WHAT YOU WANT TO DECIDE WOULD BE MY ASSESSMENT OF THE SITUATION.

COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS, I WOULD SAY THAT THERE ISN'T A GOOD SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM THAT ANYBODY HAS PUT FORTH TO YOU. THE ONE THING ABOUT THE ORDINANCE AS ITS CRAFTED, LEAVING THE CURRENT REGULATIONS IN AND THE OTHER TWO OPTIONS IS THAT IF IN FACT THE OTHER MAJOR SIGN COMPANIES -- AND MAYBE YOU OUGHT TO ASK THEM HOW MANY SIGNS THEY PLAN ON TAKING DOWN THIS YEAR AND WHERE, BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T -- WE KNOW THE 25% REDUCTION WORKS. HE TOLD YOU, 45 HUNDRED SQUARE FEET OF SIGN SPACE IN THE LAST SEVEN MONTHS. WE HAVE NO IDEA IF ANY OF THESE GUYS WOULD EVER TAKE DOWN A SIGN. AND YOU'VE GOT TO ASK YOURSELF, IF YOU HAVE 500 SIGNS AND ALL YOU CAN DO IS TAKE DOWN ONE AND PUT ONE UP AT THE SAME LOCATION YOU ALREADY HAVE ONE, WHAT IS YOUR INCENTIVE TO TAKE THEM DOWN? I DON'T KNOW, BUT IF YOU HAVE ALL THREE OF THOSE, I THINK MR. REAGAN SAID IT THE BEST. IF EITHER ONE -- IF YOU WANT TO SEE THE LITTLE GUYS COME AFTER THE BIG GUYS' LEASES, THEN GO AHEAD AND LEAVE THAT ONE FOR ONE IN THERE. AND I'M TELLING YOU THAT FROM A BUSINESS STANDPOINT, FROM A COMPETITIVE STANDPOINT, JUST THE ALL-AMERICAN WAY STANDPOINT, IT OUGHT TO BE LEFT IN THERE. THANK YOU.

I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ONE FINAL STATEMENT THAT I FORGOT AND I GOT A LITTLE STARSTRUCK UP THERE. THERE ARE ABOUT 10 TO 20 COMPANIES OUT THERE RIGHT NOW WAITING IN THE WINGS FOR YOU GUYS TO PASS THIS THING JUST LIKE IT IS. SO THEY CAN COME IN AND BUILD NEW BILLBOARD. I KNOW THAT. I'M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT NORMAN FURLY OR CURTIS FORD. I AM CONCERNED FOR THE CITY AND FOR THESE OTHER PEOPLE OUT THERE JUST WAITING FOR THIS THING TO CONTINUE. AND THAT'S COMING FROM A BUSINESS STANDPOINT. SO THANKS.

IN ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION THAT YOU ORIGINALLY ASKED, COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS, YOU ASKED ABOUT DIMENSIONS VERSUS THE AREA AND HOW THAT WOULD AFFECT ME. DOING IT BY DIMENSIONS IT'S JUST A TRICKY WAY TO CHANGE IT FROM A 25% REDUCTION TO CLOSER TO 50. AND AS HARD AS IT IS TO ADMIT THAT I CAN'T DO SOMETHING, I CAN'T DO THAT. I CAN'T COMPETE IN THAT MARKET IN -- IN THIS MARKET WITH HAVING TO GO WITH A 50% REDUCTION IN SIZE. I CAN'T DO IT.

GOODMAN: MAYOR, CAN I MAKE MY AMENDMENT AS A MOTION TO SEE IF IT GETS A SECOND?

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYOR PRO TEM?

GOODMAN: IT WOULD BE FOR THE REDUCTION OF 25% BY DIMENSIONS AS OPPOSED TO AREA. AND THE SPEAKER WAS EXACTLY RIGHT, THE ACTUAL REDUCTION WOULD BE CLOSE TO 50%. IT WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY 44%.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, IS THAT A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT?

SLUSHER: NO, MAYOR. I WOULD ENTERTAIN IT LATER, ALTHOUGH THAT WOULD MEAN CONTINUING TO DEBATE THE BILLBOARD ISSUE, WHICH I'M TOTALLY AGAINST. BUT I JUST AM UNCERTAIN ABOUT WHAT EXACTLY WOULD HAPPEN, SO I WOULD RATHER STICK WITH WHAT THE STAFF CAME FORWARD WITH AND HAS WORKED THROUGH OVER A NUMBER OF MONTHS. SO NO, I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO ACCEPT IT AT THIS TIME. I WOULD CONSIDER IT WHEN THERE'S -- WHEN IT'S BEEN BEDDED A A LITTLE MORE.

MAYOR GARCIA: SO IT'S NOT A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT?

GOODMAN: I ACTUALLY WASN'T OFFERING IT AS ONE.

MAYOR GARCIA: DO YOU WANT TO MAKE THAT IN THE FORM OF -- .

GOODMAN: JUST A MOTION FOR AN AMENDMENT SEPARATE FROM THE MOTION.

MAYOR GARCIA: THERE'S A MOTION TO AMEND BY MAYOR PRO TEM GOODMAN. IS THERE A SECOND? OKAY. WE'RE BACK TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

YEAH.

THOMAS: ABSTAIN.

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED? NO BY COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ AND COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. AND -- .

THOMAS: NO, I ABSTAINED.

SLUSHER: I THINK IT WAS THREE, THREE, ONE.

ALVAREZ: COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS ABSTAINED.

MAYOR GARCIA: WHO VOTED AGAINST IT? ONE, TWO, THREE. IT FAILS. ON A VOTE OF THREE TO THREE TO ONE.

GRIFFITH: LET'S DO THAT AGAIN. [LAUGHTER]. LET'S DO THAT ONE MORE TIME.

MAYOR GARCIA: LET'S CALL THE ROLL.

GOODMAN: YES.

ALVAREZ: NO.

GRIFFITH: -- .

SLUSHER: WE'RE VOTING ON THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, CORRECT?

YES!

SLUSHER: YES.

THOMAS: -- .

WYNN: NO.

MAYOR GARCIA: YES. IT PASSES, RIGHT? FOUR TO THREE. FOUR TO TWO TO ONE. ON SECOND READING. YEAH, IT WAS FOUR VOTES. I CAN'T PASS IT ON THIRD READING UNTIL I GET FIVE VOTES AND I ONLY GOT FOUR. SLUSHER, GOODMAN.

SLUSHER: MAYBE WE COULD APPEAL TO ONE OF THE OTHERS FOR A MERCY FIFTH VOTE. [LAUGHTER].

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT'S ALL THE ITEMS WE HAVE ON THE AGENDA. I'LL ENTERTAIN -- I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN.

SO MOVE!

MAYOR GARCIA: WE'RE OUT OF HERE.

MAYOR GARCIA: IT IS 9:45. DO YOU KNOW WHERE YOUR CHILDREN ARE?

End of Council Session Closed Caption Log