Closed Caption Log, Council Meeting
Wednesday, March 25, 2002

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.

[Partial meeting transcript, meeting joined in progress]

GOODMAN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. TOMMY EDEN? HE SAYS, IF THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVES EXECUTION OF THIS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT, THEN THE URBAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION WILL NEVER HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE CITY STAFF'S PLANS FOR STREET AND SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS ON SOUTH FIRST STREET. AND THOSE ARE ALL THE SPEAKERS SIGNED UP. I'M GOING TO TURN IT BACK TO COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER.

SLUSHER: MR. RIEK, YOU WILL WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ON THE DETOURS ISSUE?

YES, SIR.

SLUSHER: OKAY. AND HOW LONG — WHAT'S THE START AND COMPLETION DATE ON THIS?

THE START IS JUNE, AND THE ANTICIPATED COMPLETION DATE IS, I BELIEVE, NOVEMBER OF 2003.

SLUSHER: OKAY. SO JUNE OF —

304 WORK DAYS.

WHAT'S THE LANE CLOSURE GOING TO BE LIKE AT THAT TIME?

AGAIN, WE ONLY HAVE FOUR LANES, AS YOU KNOW, ON SOUTH FIRST STREET AND IT'S ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO DO IT LANE BY LANE, SO WE HAVE VERY LITTLE CHOICE BUT TO GO TWO LANES AT A TIME. AS WAS INDICATED, WE WILL ATTEMPT TO KEEP TRAFFIC OR AS MANY LANES AVAILABLE DURING RUSH HOUR. I THINK THERE'S A POSSIBILITY THAT COMMUTERS WILL TRY TO FIND DIFFERENT ROUTES IN ORDER TO GET OFF SOUTH FIRST STREET. WE'VE HAD SOME PREVIOUS RECONSTRUCTIONS ON SOUTH FIRST STREET AND I THINK WE DID THIS VERY SUCCESSFULLY. I DON'T THINK WE HAD A LOT OF COMPLAINTS FROM ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOODS AND WE'RE WILLING TO WORK AGAIN THIS TIME TO MAKE SURE THAT THE LEAST POSSIBLE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROJECT. BUT AS YOU KNOW, THERE'S ONLY TWO MAJOR ARTERIALS THAT ARE ADJACENT THAT ARE READILY AVAILABLE AND BOTH OF THOSE ARE RELATIVELY BUSY. THOSE ARE SOUTH CONGRESS AND SOUTH LAMAR. CONGRESS HAS A LITTLE BIT MORE VOLUME THAN — PARTICULARLY IN THE NORTHERN PORTION.

SLUSHER: THAT COMES WITH THE PROGRAM. I REALLY DO BELIEVE THIS STREET NEEDS TO BE REPAIRED AND I KNOW YOU'RE STILL WORKING ON THE PLAN FOR WAYS TO REPAIR STREETS WITHOUT HAVING TO CLOSE A LANE, RIGHT?

THAT'S RIGHT.

SLUSHER: OKAY. THANKS.

WE ARE WORKING WITH GENE TECHNOLOGY AND CLONING OF ROADWAYS SO WE JUST HAVE TO DROP THE NEW ONE IN AFTER WE CLONED IT SUCCESSFULLY.

SLUSHER: SO YOU'RE GETTING SOME OPTIONS THERE.

PETER, IF I COULD ASK YOU, HE MENTIONED GALINDO ELEMENTARY WHERE THERE ARE NO SIDEWALKS. IF YOU WILL WORK WITH AUSTIN, SEE IF THERE'S A NEED IN TERMS OF A PRIORITY FOR EITHER TEMPERATURE SIDEWALKS FOR KIDS TO WALK TO SCHOOL OR MAYBE WE CAN PUT THAT IN THE PROGRAM TO GET THAT DONE. IF YOU WILL CHECK THAT OUT AND SEE IF THERE'S A NEED FOR THAT AREA.

GOODMAN: MAYOR? IN OUR BACKUP YOU HAVE SOME INFORMATION THAT I ASKED ABOUT ON SOUTH FIRST. IT HAS BEEN A LONG, LONG TIME SINCE SOUTH FIRST WAS ABLE TO FUNCTION AS A STREET. AND THOSE OF US WHO DO TRAVEL FROM NORTH TO SOUTH AND BACK AGAIN HAVE BEEN IN A CONTINUAL STATE OF FRUSTRATION FOR ABOUT FOUR OR FIVE YEARS NOW AND WE'RE ABOUT TO ADD TWO MORE ON TO THAT. SO EVEN THOUGH I KNOW IT'S NECESSARY, I THINK ONE OF THE CRITICAL POINTS THAT WE JUST MENTIONED ABOUT HOW EXACTLY WE CHANNEL TRAFFIC OFF OF THAT STREET IS GOING TO BE CRUCIAL. ROAD RAGE IS JUST — IS JUST SOMETHING THAT YOU TAKE ON ONCE YOU GET ON SOUTH FIRST BECAUSE THERE'S NEVER SMOOTH SAILING. THREE OR FOUR YEARS AGO WHEN WE AS A CITY WERE IMPROVING THAT STREET BECAUSE IT WAS SO READY FOR IMPROVEMENT AND THEN I CAN'T REMEMBER, THIS MAY BE A SLIGHT EXAGGERATION, BUT I THINK IT STAYED SMOOTH FOR A COUPLE OF WEEKS UNTIL ONE OF THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANIES STARTED TEARING UP A HUGE PORTION OF IT. SO JUST TO MENTION A FEW THINGS THAT CAUSE PAIN FOR THOSE WHO LIVE ALONG AND DRIVE ALONG SOUTH FIRST, OBVIOUSLY WHEN THERE'S AN EMERGENCY SITUATION WE HAVE TO GO IN AND DO WHAT HAS TO BE DONE, SO THERE WERE 26 EMERGENCY WATER AND WASTEWATER CUTS. BUT THOSE ARE VERY QUICKLY FIXED AND FINISHED. THEY DON'T STOP TRAFFIC FOR DAYS OR MONTHS. BUT THERE WERE ALSO IN THE LAST TWO, MAYBE THREE YEARS, 11 TELECOMMUNICATIONS CUTS, NINE SOUTHERN UNION GAS CUTS, A FEW DISRUPTIONS TO TRAFFIC SIGNALS, THREE, AND THEN PRIVATE CONTRACTORS OR CIP'S MADE EIGHT. AND THIS IS ALL IN THE SPACE OF I THINK JUST TWO YEARS. '98 UNTIL NOW. I MEAN, FROM '98 TO — THAT 2000? WHEN WAS THE FINAL DATE?

I THINK 2001 WAS WHEN WE CLOSED THE BOOK ON THAT DATA.

GOODMAN: SO THAT'S ROUGHLY THREE YEARS. SO THE CONCERNS THAT FOLKS HAVE FOR IT THIS STREET, AMONG OTHERS, IS VERY REAL AND I'M HOPEFUL THAT WITH THIS FINAL CUT ORDINANCE WE HAVE — AND STANDING STRONG FOR THE KIND OF IMPACT THAT TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANIES HAVE BROUGHT TO US AND THAT WE NEED TO MITIGATE SOMEHOW, MEANS A NEW DAY FOR MAYBE NOT ONLY SOUTH FIRST, BUT MAYBE LAVACA AND A FEW OTHERS SO THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY TAKE BACK THE STREETS FOR THE PEOPLE RATHER THAN THE POWER TOOLS AND TRUCKS AND NO POSSIBLE WAY FOR TRAFFIC TO MOVE SMOOTHLY. AND I KNOW I'M VENTING, MAYOR, AND I CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT, BUT HOPEFULLY THIS IS FINALLY THE BEGINNING OF A NEW DAY. AND I KNOW WE'VE TRIED TO DO SO MUCH. I WANT TO THANK MR. RIEK, WHO HAS TRIED TO COORDINATE, MITIGATE, INTIMIDATE IN HOPES OF MAKING OUR STREETS PASSABLE AGAIN. THANKS.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM. ITEM 25, COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

SLUSHER: MOVE APPROVAL. MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF SEVEN TO ZERO SLUSHER TO APPROVE. SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH. DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. OPPOSED NO? MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF SEVEN TO ZERO. ALL THE COUNCILMEMBERS IN THE CHAMBERS. COUNCIL, WE HAVE THREE ITEMS THAT DON'T REQUIRE EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR US TO CONSIDER. AND I'M GOING TO CALL THEM UP AT THIS TIME. TWO OF THEM ARE ITEMS THAT I HAVE PULLED, ITEM 32 AND 33. AND WE HAVE HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH STAFF ABOUT THE ISSUES OF HOW TO HANDLE THESE KINDS OF PURCHASES, AND MS. BRUBAKER IF YOU COULD SUMMARIZE THE DISCUSSION THAT YOU HAD WITH MY STAFF ON THAT ONE, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL, MY NAME IS SUE BRUBAKER AND I'M THE PURCHASING OFFICER OF THE THE QUESTION POSED BY THE MAYOR REGARDING THESE TWO ITEMS WAS WHY WE DIDN'T COMBINE THIS INTO A SINGULAR BID AND NOT ONLY WITH THIS ONE, BUT WITH SIMILAR ITEMS OF THIS SIZE. OUR RESPONSE TO THAT QUESTION IS THAT WHEN THEY ARE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME KIND OF ITEM WITH THE SAME KIND OF USE, THAT'S A REAL ISSUE THING TO DO AND WE USUALLY COMBINE THEM. IN THIS EXAMPLE BEFORE YOU, YOU'VE GOT ONE PURCHASE WITH FREIGHT LINER. THOSE ARE FOR TWO WATER TANK SPECIAL MOUNTED BODIES ON TWO DIFFERENT SIZE CHEASS. ONE A VERY LARGE TRUCK, THE OTHER RELATIVELY LARGE. IT'S THE BODY THERE THAT COMPLICATES PUTTING IT INTO THAT OTHER BID, WHICH IS JUST A STRAIGHT LARGE CHEAS TRUCK FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER. IT HAS NO SPECIALIZED BODY. AND THAT ONE IS AN EASY ONE TO BID A SEPARATE ONE BECAUSE ALL OF THE TRUCK BIDDERS THAT DID IT, THIS ONE BECAME MORE COMPLICATED BECAUSE OF THE BODY. IN THE INSTANCES, THOUGH, WHERE WE CAN, WE DO COMBINE THEM. AND I THINK ANOTHER THING YOUR STAFF ASKED WAS THE POSSIBILITY OF EXPANDING WITH THE HOUSTON-GALVESTON. WE'VE BEEN VERY SUCCESSFUL ON AN ANNUAL BASIS. WE REVIEW THE REQUEST THAT COME IN FROM OTHER CITIES, INCLUDING OUR OWN. AND THIS LAST YEAR WE WERE ABLE TO GET SOME OF OUR LARGE SEWER TRUCKS OUT OF THERE. SO WE'LL CONTINUE WHERE WE SEE THOSE OPPORTUNITIES TO GET A BIG VOLUME BUY WHERE THERE'S A LIGHT KIND OF SERVICE TRUCK OR THOSE KIND OF THINGS TO DO THAT. DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ON THAT, I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER THEM?

MAYOR GARCIA: QUESTIONS? I THINK YOU'VE ANSWERED ALL OUR QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME. SO DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON ITEMS 32 AND 33.

WYNN: MOVE APPROVAL, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION. DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED NO? MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF SEVEN TO ZERO. ITEM 51, COUNCILMEMBER WYNN? THANKN: THANK YOU, MAYOR. THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF THE DISCUSSION WE HAD LAST WEEK REGARDING THE ORDINANCE LANGUAGE FOR THE PROPOSITION 1 ORDINANCE THAT SAYS THAT WE MUST IMMEDIATELY FUND THAT ACT UPON THE EFFECTIVE DATE, WHICH WE KNOW TO BE TWO WEEKS AGO. SO I GUESS WE'RE DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO, YOU KNOW, ANALYZE IN THE INTERIM ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE IMMEDIATELY FUNDED. AND IF I COULD, ASK PERHAPS FOR SOMEBODY TO EXPLAIN THE SUGGESTION FROM STAFF?

GOOD AFTERNOON MAYOR AND COUNCIL. I'M VICKY SHRU BETTER, ACTING DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICES. WE HAVE DONE A PROJECTION OF THE ESTIMATED ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS FOR THE PROPOSED CAMPAIGN FINANCE CHARTER AMENDMENT. AND THE ANALYZED COSTS WE HAVE RANGES FROM 215 TO 230,000 DOLLARS. THIS INCLUDES DIRECT SALARIES AND BENEFITS FOR TWO AND A HALF STAFF PEOPLE. THE PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT REFERS TO AN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. WE'RE ASSUMING THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME SORT OF PROGRAM MANAGER TO DO THAT WORK. WE'VE INCLUDED A HALF-TIME ATTORNEY AT LEAST FOR THE FIRST YEAR BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THAT THE LANGUAGE IS COMPLEX ENOUGH AND THE ETHICS COMMISSION WILL NEED SUPPORT IN SETTING UP THEIR PROCESS, PROCEDURES AND FORMS THAT WILL HAVE TO DEVOTE SOME SUBSTANTIAL LEGAL TIME TO IT. AND THEN A CLERICAL POSITION TO SUPPORT THEM. THAT'S ABOUT $150,000 ON AN ANALYZED BASIS. THEN WE HAVE ALSO INCLUDED SOME TEMPORARY COSTS AND AUDIT RELATED COSTS. WE'VE TALKED TO SOME OF THE OTHER CITIES AND AS YOU GET CLOSER TO THE ELECTION AND YOU HAVE CANDIDATES TURNING IN FORMS AND THOSE FORMS HAVE TO BE VERIFIED AND DISBURSEMENTS MADE QUICKLY, THAT TAKES SOME TIME. AUDIT, THERE'S THE ABILITY FOR THE ETHICS COMMISSION TO DIRECT AUDITS, SO WE'VE ASSUMED ONE AUDIT PER CANDIDATE BASED ON THE NUMBER OF CANDIDATES WE PRESENTED LAST WEEK. THERE'S ABOUT ANOTHER $57,000. THEN THERE'S, LET'S SEE, ABOUT $20,000 LEFT AS PART OF THE ONE TIME COSTS RELATED TO FURNITURE. THE REST OF IT IS RENT AND THINGS LIKE THAT, WHICH IF WE CAN FIND EXISTING OFFICE SPACE, WILL GO AWAY. THAT'S WHY I'VE GIVEN YOU A RANGE OF 215 TO 230. WHAT WE WOULD RECOMMEND IN TERMS OF ACTION NEEDED IMMEDIATELY UPON PASSAGE IF THAT HAPPENS IS A BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR ABOUT $51,000. THAT WOULD COVER ONE-QUARTER OF THE SALARY OR ONE-QUARTER OF THE YEAR FOR THESE, SO WE WOULD ASSUME THEY WOULD BE FUNDED BEGINNING IN JULY FOR THE REST OF THIS FISCAL YEAR AND THEN WE COULD CONSIDER THEIR FULL SALARY IN THE BUDGET PROCESS FOR 2003. SO WE WOULD RECOMMEND APPROPRIATING 51,000 IN THIS YEAR AND USING AS A FUNDING SOURCE THE GENERAL FUND CONTINGENCY.

WYNN: THE REASON WHY WE'RE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION ON PROPOSITION 1 AND NOT OTHER PROPIZATIONS IS BECAUSE OF THE LANGUAGE IN THE ORDINANCE THAT CLEARLY STATES THAT WE HAVE TO IMMEDIATELY FUND IT UPON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ACT. I GUESS PERHAPS IT MIGHT BE A QUESTION FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY IN THAT — I MEAN, IS YOUR OFFICE COMFORTABLE THAT DESPITE THAT LANGUAGE IN THE ORDINANCE THAT WE MUST IMMEDIATELY FUND THE ACT UPON ITS EFFECTIVE DATE, THAT SIMPLY BY ALLOCATING THIS SORT OF INTERIM ADMINISTRATIVE FUNDING, WE WON'T BE IN VIOLATION OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE ACT?

WELL, AS WE DISCUSSED LAST WEEK, THERE'S NOT MUCH IN THE WAY OF LEGISLATIVE INTENT IN THE INITIATIVE, SO IT'S REALLY UP TO THE COUNCIL TO DETERMINE WHAT LEVEL OF FUNDING. AT THIS POINT THE LANGUAGE THAT YOU READ IS VERY STRONG, IT SAYS SHALL IMMEDIATELY FUND UPON EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE PASSAGE OF THE ACT. SO IT IS CERTAINLY REASONABLE TO BELIEVE THAT THAT'S WHAT'S REQUIRED BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE LANGUAGE SAYS.

WYNN: AND I GUESS A CONCERN — AND WE HEARD FROM, I GUESS, ONE OF THE AUTHORS OF THE LEGISLATION LAST WEEK, AND ESSENTIALLY HIM SAYING THAT HE WON'T SUE US FOR NOT IMMEDIATELY FUNDING THE ACT UPON THE EFFECTIVE DATE. I GUESS A QUESTION MIGHT BE WHAT IF — AND HE'S OBVIOUSLY A PROPONENT FOR PROPOSITION IS. MY QUESTION IS WHAT IF THERE'S SOMEBODY OUT THERE WHO IS AN OPPONENT OF PROPOSITION 1 AND THIS — AND THIS COUNCIL TAKES THIS SORT OF MODERATE INTERIM ACTION AND COME THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE PROPOSITION 1 PASSED, THEN THE EFFECTIVE DATE BEING MAY 8TH OR NINTH, WHENEVER IT WILL BE, WHAT WOULD BE SORT OF THE CITY'S RESPONSE OR WHAT WOULD BE PERHAPS SOME LIKELY LO SIS O. — LOGISTICS IF WE'RE SUED BY AN OPPONENT OF PROPOSITION 1 SAYING THAT WE ARE ALREADY IN VIOLATION OF THE ACT COME MAY 11TH WHEN WE HAVEN'T FUNDED PER THE ORDINANCE?

WELL, I THINK ANYONE CAN BRING A LAWSUIT TO SEEK IN — INJUNK ACTIVE RELIEF TO GET AN ISSUE TO COMPEL THE COUNCIL TO PERFORM WHATEVER DUTY IT HAS UNDER THE LAW. AND THAT KIND OF LAWSUIT COULD BE BROUGHT. IT WOULD NOT BE ONE FOR DAMAGES OR MONETARY RELIEF, IT WOULD BE ONE SEEKING A COURT ORDER MAN DAY O.O. MAN DAY MUST TO GET THE COUNCIL TO PERFORM THE ACTION THAT IT IS REQUIRED TO PERFORM UNDER LAW.

WYNN: I GUESS BY THEN WE'RE ALREADY IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR BUDGET DELIBERATIONS ANYWAY AND WE'LL BE HAVING FURTHER DISCUSSIONS ABOUT ITS FUNDING BY THEN. OKAY. AND IS IT THE STAFF'S SUGGESTION THAT WE GO AHEAD AND TAKE ACTION TODAY OR — TECHNICALLY THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ACT WOULDN'T BE UNTIL WE CANVASS THE ELECTION AND I GUESS WE'LL BE HAVING A SPECIALLY CALLED COUNCIL MEETING WHEN WE DO THAT CAN CANVASSING. SHOULD WE HAVE AN ACTION ITEM POSTED FOR THAT SPECIAL CALLED CITY COUNCIL MEETING FOR THE CANVASSING AND ONE BEING THE CANVASS AND A SECOND ITEM BEING, YOU KNOW, THIS INTERIM ADMINISTRATIVE FUNDING?

SURE. IF IT'S PROPERLY POSTED FOR THAT, IT COULD BE DONE AT THAT TIME. THE CANVASSING THE SPECIAL CALLED MEETING IS A PUBLIC MEETING, SO IT COULD HAVE THAT AS AN AGENDA ITEM.

WYNN: MAYOR, I THINK THAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION. I CERTAINLY WOULD WANT TO HEAR FROM MY COLLEAGUES, BUT I CAN SEE US JUST TAKING ACTION LITERALLY AS THE SPECIFIC EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ACT AND PROBABLY BE IN COMPLIANCE.

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU'RE SAYING WE'RE GOING TO TAKE ACTION AT THE MAY 9TH MEETING OR TODAY?

WYNN: WELL, I GUESS I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ON THIS — WHAT I WOULD CALL SORT OF AN INTERIM ADMINISTRATIVE FUNDING, AND THAT — BUT AS OPPOSED TO TAKING ACTION TODAY, THAT WE WOULD POST THIS FOR ACTION WHEN WE HAVE THE CANVASSING MEETING.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY.

GOODMAN: I HAVE SOME THINGS ABOUT THE LANGUAGE, MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: CANVASSING WOULD BE LIKE MAY THE 6TH. DOES THAT GIVE YOU ENOUGH TIME, MS. BROWN?

YES. I BELIEVE THAT'S THE 7TH.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. MAYOR PRO TEM?

GOODMAN: IN THE LANGUAGE IS THERE ANY SORT OF CORRELATION ABOUT THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE ETHICS COMMISSION RELATIVE TO EARMARKING THE MONEY? I MEAN, IT'S JUST SORT OF — DOES IT ALL GO TOGETHER? DO YOU HAVE TO DO ALL OF THOSE THINGS? IS THAT A SHALL DO AS WELL?

IT TALKS ABOUT A SINGLE PROPOSITION, DOESN'T — APPROPRIATION, DOESN'T TALK ABOUT IT BEING DONE IN A PIECEMEAL FASHION. IT DOESN'T PRECLUDE THAT FROM HAPPENING, BUT IT TALKS ABOUT AN APPROPRIATION.

GOODMAN: I WASN'T JUST TALKING ABOUT THE MONEY, BUT THE WHOLE SYSTEM THAT WILL CONTROL THIS. IS THAT ALL AN IMMEDIATE THING?

MY UNDERSTANDING IS WHEN I ASKED MS. SCHUBERT HOW WE WERE INTERPRETING THAT IS THAT THE INDIVIDUAL THAT WE WERE HIRING TO DO THIS SPECIFIC FUNCTION WOULD ALSO BE ENTRUSTED WITH DEALING WITH WORKING AND STAFFING THE COMMISSION, UNDERSTANDING THAT THE COUNCIL WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH AN APPOINTMENT PROCESS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. SO IT WOULD BE AWHILE BEFORE YOUWOULD GET TO THOSE EXPENDITURES. BUT THOSE ARE FIXED COSTS AT THAT POINT. YOUR STAFFING OF THE OFFICE, DESKS, UTILITIES, WOULD BE PART OF THAT BUDGET AND THAT WILL BE PART OF THEIR ASSIGNMENT. AND REALLY UNTIL YOU GET INTO THIS TO DETERMINE EXACTLY WHAT IT WOULD REQUIRE FROM ADDITIONAL STAFF TIME AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE, YOUR BUDGET WILL BE MORE REALISTIC AND YOU ADOPT SHOULD THIS PASS ON THE FOURTH OF MAY, THEN AS YOU ADOPT THE BUDGET, WE WILL HAVE A BETTER IDEA OF HOW MUCH YOU NEED TO APPROPRIATE TO STAFF THE OFFICE.

GOODMAN: I'M ALSO WONDERING ABOUT ANY PROCEDURAL ORDINANCES AND WHAT KIND OF LEEWAY WE HAVE IN ESTABLISHING? IS THERE AN ORDINANCE THAT GOVERNS THE PROCESS OR SOMETHING THAT — [ INAUDIBLE ]

THOSE ARE INTERESTING QUESTIONS THAT WE'LL HAVE TO WORK THROUGH. IT IS A SOVEREIGN BOARD UNDER THE INITIATIVE LANGUAGE AND SO THERE ARE A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS, LEGAL ISSUES THAT I THINK WE'LL HAVE TO WORK THROUGH. THAT'S PART OF THE REASON WHY THERE'S — THE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS WILL INVOLVE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF LAWYER TIME.

AND YOU WILL BE POSTING THIS ITEM AS IF IT WERE TO PASS. UNFORTUNATELY, IF IT DOESN'T PASS, THEN WE WILL PULL IT.

MAYOR GARCIA: ONE OTHER THING THAT I WANTED TO MENTION, CITY ATTORNEY, IS I THINK THAT THERE'S AN ARTICLE IN TODAY'S PAPER OR YESTERDAY'S PAPER, I DON'T REMEMBER, HAVING TO DO WITH THIS SAME ISSUE AT THE STATE LEVEL. AND WITH LEGISLATORS SAYING THAT THE TEXAS ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION SHOULD NOT HAVE SUBPOENA POWERS. SO I WOULD ALSO LIKE FOR YOU TO LOOK TO THAT ISSUE AND TRY TO GET US SOME INFORMATION BACK, IF IT PASSES, BY THE TIME WE DO THE CANVASSING.

I SURE WILL.

MAYOR GARCIA: SO COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, YOU DIDN'T MAKE THAT IN THE FORM OF A MOTION, DID YOU?

WYNN: YES, I DID.

MAYOR GARCIA: I'LL SECOND THAT. ONE. FURTHER DISCUSSION?

ALVAREZ: MAYOR? A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. DID YOU PROVIDE THE SUMMARY OF THOSE COSTS TO US, A COPY OF THAT?

YES, SIR. IT WAS IN THE BACKUP.

ALVAREZ: I'LL LOOK AT THAT. AND A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT YOU MENTIONED, ONE WAS ABOUT LAWYERS AND HIRING A LAWYER FOR THE ETHIC COMMISSION. SO ARE WE SAYING THAT OUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT CANNOT SERVE AS COUNSEL?

NO, SIR. WE WOULD BE HIRING ADDITIONAL STAFF TO WORK IN OUR LAW DEPARTMENT AND THEY WOULD WORK IN SUPPORT OF THE ETHICS COMMISSION ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM. SO IT WOULD BE A CITY STAFF PERSON WORKING ON IT, BUT WE BELIEVE THERE WILL BE A NUMBER OF LEGAL ISSUES THAT HAVE TO BE WORKED THROUGH WITH RESPECT TO LANGUAGE, AND WE FELT LIKE WE NEEDED ADDITIONAL ATTORNEYS TO HELP.

ALVAREZ: WE DON'T HAVE THAT EXPERTISE IN HOUSE?

WELL, I'LL LET —

I GAVE VICKY THE INFORMATION. WE DO HAVE ELECTION LAW EXPERTISE IN-HOUSE AND ETHICS EXPERTISE IN-HOUSE, BUT IT'S A MATTER OF THE ASSIGNMENT OF RESOURCES. THERE MAY BE — AND WE DON'T KNOW. THERE ARE GOING TO BE A NUMBER OF ISSUES ON IMPLEMENTATION, WHAT SORT OF LANGUAGE MEANS AND HOW THAT GETS CARRIED OUT AND IMPLEMENTED. WE DON'T KNOW IF THERE ARE GOING TO BE A NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS FILED. WE DO JUST DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT TO EXPECT, BUT I IMAGINE THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF INITIAL TIME. I HAVE, AS YOU KNOW, ONE LAWYER WHO IS VERY EXPERT IN THE AREA OF ELECTION LAW AND ETHICS LAW, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT HIS TIME COULD BE DEVOTED 50% OR 100% IF THAT'S REQUIRED TO THIS PARTICULAR BOARD.

ALVAREZ: COULD WE SEE HOW IT PLAYS OUT, IF INDEED IT IS APPROVED. THE OTHER ISSUE IS ABOUT RENT. AND IN TERMS OF CHARGING THESE PARTICULAR — THIS PARTICULAR OFFICE OR COMMISSION RENT.

I INCLUDED THAT ONLY IF WE COULDN'T FIND SOME EXISTING SPACE FOR THEM. AND THAT'S WHY I GAVE A RANGE BETWEEN 215 AND 200,000. IF WE FIND SPACE FOR THEM WITHIN THE EXISTING OFFICES, THEN THERE'S NO INCREMENTAL COST TO CONSTITUENT AND WHOA WOULDN'T SPECIFICALLY CHARGE THEM BECAUSE THEN I ASSUME THEY WOULD BE PART OF AN EXISTING OFFICE, EITHER THE LAW DEPARTMENT OR THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

ALVAREZ: OKAY. THAT'S ALL MY QUESTIONS. THANKS.

MAYOR GARCIA: ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE?

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED NO? MOTION CARRIES. COUNCIL, THAT'S ALL THE ITEMS THAT WE HAVE —

SLUSHER: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: I'M SORRY, I HAVE ONE MORE ITEM. THAT'S APPROVAL OF MINUTES, ITEM NUMBER 14.

SLUSHER: SO MOVE.

MAYOR GARCIA: SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED NO. MOTION CARRIES ON COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

SLUSHER: YES, MAYOR. I HAD MEANT TO TAKE 56 OFF THE CONSENT AGENDA, SO I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO RECONSIDER. I WANT TO HOLD BACK ON THAT ONE FOR A WHILE.

MAYOR GARCIA: THERE'S A MOTION TO RECONSIDER ITEM NUMBER 56. I'LL SECOND THAT ONE. DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED NO? THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER PASSES. NOW WHAT'S THE MOTION, COUNCILMEMBER?

SLUSHER: I WOULD JUST LIKE TO HOLD IT BACK FOR A WHILE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. SO THE MOTION WOULD BE TO POSTPONE THAT. IS THAT INDEFINITELY?

SLUSHER: IT ALSO RELATES TO SOME OF THE EXECUTIVE SESSION MATTERS. I WON'T DO ANYTHING ON IT FOR RIGHT NOW. AND IF WE NEED TO POSTPONE IT LATER, I'D WAIT UNTIL AFTER THEN.

MAYOR GARCIA: I'LL PUT IT AS AN ITEM THAT MAY BE RECONSIDERED AFTER EXECUTIVE SESSION. IS THAT OKAY? OKAY. AT THIS TIME THE COUNCIL WILL GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO CONSIDER ITEMS THAT I PREVIOUSLY READ INTO THE RECORD, INCLUDING ITEM NUMBER 30, ITEMS 16, 17 AND 18 — ACTUALLY, LET ME GO BACK AND SAY THAT IT'S ON THE EXECUTE ACTIVE SESSION — EXECUTIVE SESSION AGENDA IT'S ITEM NUMBER 3, DISCUSS LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO SALES TAX ON AIRPORT SERVICES. WE HAVE NOT COMPLETED THE DISCUSSION ON LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO THE DAVE SVEN PORT RIM ON LOOP 360 AND WAY MAKER WAY. AND WE HAVE DISCUSS LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DAY CARE USE SERVICES LOCATED AT 4814 RED RIVER STREET, FILE NUMBER SPC010026A SAMMY HOUSE. AND ALL THOSE ARE UNDER PRIVATE CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY, SECTION 551.086. AND ALSO 551.072, DISCUSSION ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY IN THE OPEN SPACE PROJECT AUTHORIZED BY PROPOSITION 2 OF THE NOVEMBER 2000 ELECTION THROUGH CITY'S AGREEMENT WITH HILL COUNTRY CON SERVE ANTSY.

WE ALSO HAVE UNDER ADVICE FROM COUNCIL AND 551.571, ITEMS 16, 17 AND 18, 21 AND 22. AND THEN LATER. 30. AND THEN ITEM 56 IS UNDER THE REAL ESTATE SECTION, WHICH IS 551.072. THE COUNCIL IS NOW GOING INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.

SLUSHER: MAYOR? WHAT ABOUT — DO YOU WANT TO TAKE 17 NOW? I THINK WE GOT A SPEAKER ON THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: LET'S SEE. WE CAN — ACTUALLY, WE CAN TAKE 16 AND 17 BECAUSE WE ALREADY DISCUSSED THOSE. WE DON'T HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON 16, BUT WE COULD HAVE A BRIEF PRESENTATION ON IT. THIS IS SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN PERSES PAUWELS CANADA.

WE HAD SOME INSURANCE ISSUES THAT WERE STILL IN DISPUTE IN A LITIGATION. WE FINALLY RERESOLVED THOSE WITH THE INSURANCE COMPANY. WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT'S THE — THE AMOUNT OF THE SETTLEMENT IS?

$2 75,000 THAT WE'LL BE RECEIVING.

MAYOR GARCIA: I'LL ENTERTAIN ON MOTION ON THAT ITEM. MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. COUNCILMEMBERUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER? OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED NO? MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF SEVEN TO ZERO. AND ITEM 17, MR. CON (.

ITEM 17 IS A APPREHENSIVE SETTLEMENT RELATED TO THE LAWSUIT WE FILED AGAINST CONVERGE ENS COMPANY THAT HAD BEEN HIRED TO INCIDENT GRATE SOME — INTEGRATE SOME SOFTWARE FOR US. THIS SETTLES ALL CLAIMS. WE BELIEVE THIS IS A VERY FAVORABLE SETTLEMENT. WE'LL BE RECEIVING 1.75 MILLION DOLLARS FROM SCHLUMBERGER, WHICH BROUGHT BAUT OUT CON VERNL ENS. — CONVERGE ENS. IN ADDITION, WE'LL BE PURCHASING SOME CUTTING EDGE TECHNOLOGY, AUTOMATIC METER READING TECHNOLOGY AND THAT WILL ENABLE US TO IMPROVE — THE CONSIDERABLE OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS RELATED TO THAT AND IT WILL GREATLY IMPROVE OUR CUSTOMER SERVICE CAPABILITIES AS FAR AS REREADS. WE MIGHT HAVE TO DO — FOR EXAMPLE, IF A CUSTOMER CALLS US AND HAS A QUESTION ABOUT THEIR METER READ, WE DON'T HAVE TO SEND SOMEBODY ELSE OUT AGAIN TO READ IT, WE CAN TAKE CARE OF IT RIGHT THERE WITHIN SECONDS. WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT.

MAYOR GARCIA: AND ONE OTHER THING IS THAT ORIGINALLY THE CONTRACT WITH CONVERGE ENT WAS FOR 8.0.

THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT WAS FOR 8.9 MILLION DOLLARS.

YOR MARY AND THE APPLES —

MAYOR GARCIA: AND THE APPLES TO APPLES COMPARISON IS 7.3 MILLION.

I THINK IF YOU DID AN APPLES TO APPLES THAT IT LOOKS LIKE WE WOULD END UP PAYING TO COMPLETE THE DATA 1 PROJECT INSTEAD OF 8.9, WHICH WE HIRED CON VERICUT VER JENT TO DO, IT WOULD BE ABOUT 1.7.

MAYOR GARCIA: WE HAVE TWO PEOPLE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, WITH ONE GIVING THEIR TIME — MR. PAUL ROBBINS. MR. ROBBINS, YOU HAVE SIX MINUTES BECAUSE MR. TOMMY EDEN SIGNED UP TO SPEAK AND GAVE YOU HIS TIME.

SLUSHER: MAYOR, I HAD A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR MR. CONN.

MAYOR GARCIA: JUST A SECOND, MR. ROBBINS.

SLUSHER: TELL ME A LITTLE ABOUT BIT ABOUT HOW THE DEVICE WORKS?

THIS IS A WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY, NO LINES INVOLVED. WE'LL BE INSTALLING APPROXIMATELY 60,000 NEW METERS AND RETROFITTING MANY OTHERS ON NAMELY APARTMENT COMPLEXES WITH WE HAVE A LOT OF REREADS. THIS WILL SAVE A LOT OF TRAVEL TIME. AND THE INFORMATION FROM THE METERS WILL BE — BECOME PART OF OUR DATABASE, WHICH AS I SAID WILL MAKE IT A LOT EASIER TO RESPOND TO CUSTOMER QUESTIONS.

SLUSHER: NOW COULD YOU SPEAK TO THE ISSUE OF MAKING THIS PURCHASE WITHOUT A BID AS PART OF THE SETTLEMENT?

AS PART OF OUR PURCHASING RESOLUTION, WHICH IS ALLOWED BY STATE LAW, IT PROVIDES US A LOT OF FLEXIBILITY IN ADDRESSING WHAT WE CALL CRITICAL BUSINESS NEEDS. AND THIS PURCHASE WOULD FALL UNDER THAT ITEM IN OUR PURCHASING RESOLUTION AND STATE LAW.

LUSHER: AND WHEN YOU SAY WE, YOU'RE TACKING ABOUT STATE LAW RELATING TO THE ELECTRIC UTILITY.

STATE LAW RELATING TO ALL MUNICIPALLY OWNED UTILITIES IN THE STATE OF TEXAS.

SLUSHER: THANK YOU, SIR.

MAYOR GARCIA: MR. PAUL ROBBINS. AND IF YOU COULD PUT SIX MINUTES ON THE TIMER. MR. ROB INS, WELCOME, SIR. MOMENT MOMENT [ONE MOMENT, PLEASE, WHILE CAPTIONERSATZdNO CARRIERRINGCONNECT 1200?

THERE IS NO INDICATION — THERE IS NO INDICATION IF OR WHEN IT BE. COMPETITION IN THE POWER MARKET IS RELEVANT TO POWER PLANTS. NOT DISTRIBUTION AND METERING. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE LINES AND METERS OR COMMON CARRIES AND AUSTIN WILL NOT — COMMON CARRIERS AND ALSO WILL NOT JEOPARDIZE ANYTHING BY REVEALING COMMON CARRIER INFORMATION. I MEAN, I AM NOT AWARE OF PERHAPS ONE GAS UTILITY AND NO ELECTRIC UTILITIES IN THE WHOLE COUNTRY THAT HAVE — THAT HAVE SEPARATE LINES THAT PROVIDE CUSTOMERS FOR THEIR OWN COMPANY. IT'S USUALLY DONE THROUGH A COMMON CARRIER. I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY, BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS AN UNWRITTEN RULE IN THE LEGAL SYSTEM IN A TRIAL THAT — THAT YOU NEVER ASK A QUESTION THAT YOU DON'T ALREADY KNOW THE ANSWER TO. BUT I'M GOING TO BE GAME AND ASK MR. CONN TO PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME WHY COMMON CARRIERS ARE PROPRIETARY. WHY WE ARE NOT GOING TO GET THE COSTS REIMBURSED IF WE GO TO COMPETITION.

MAYOR GARCIA: GO AHEAD AND FINISH WITH YOUR TESTIMONY.

OKAY I'M — THIS IS MY TIME, IF IT'S OKAY WITH COUNCIL, COULD MR. CONN PLEASE EXPLAIN TO US.

I WOULDN'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR BOB. IF BOB REALLY BELIEVES HE WOULD PROVIDE YOU AS ADVICE FOR COUNSEL, THEN IT MAY NOT BE APPROPRIATE FOR HIM TO PROVIDE THIS COUNCIL IN OPEN SESSION.

YOU MEAN YOU CAN'T EVEN TELL US WHY THIS IS SECRET?

MAYOR GARCIA: YOUR CLOCK IS TICKING?

YES, IT IS. THAT'S WHY I ASKED FOR SIX MINUTES SO THAT WE COULD HAVE A PUBLIC EXPLANATION!

MAYOR GARCIA: WELL, YOU KNOW THAT UNDER — THAT SECTION OF THE LAW THAT ALLOWS THE COUNCIL TO HAVE DISCUSSIONS IN EXECUTIVE SESSION BECAUSE OF THE COMPETITIVE NATURE OF THE INDUSTRY —

THAT ALLOWS, IT DOESN'T MANDATE.

WELL, YOU KNOW WHERE WE ARE.

ACTUALLY, I DON'T. OR I WOULDN'T BE ASKING.

MAYOR GARCIA: DON'T PUT ME IN A CORNER THAT YOU ALREADY KNOW WHAT'S IN THAT CORNER.

— I'M ONE SKINNY ACTIVIST, MAYOR GARCIA, I'M NOT SURE THAT I AM CAPABLE OF PUTTING YOU ALL IN THE CORNER. I THINK THIS IS A PUBLIC ISSUE. I DON'T SEE ANY REASON WHY IT CANNOT BE PUBLICLY ADDRESSED. YOU CAN'T EVEN TELL US WHY THIS IS SECRET?!!

MAYOR GARCIA: WELL, IF ANYBODY CAN TELL US ANYTHING, IT WOULD BE MR. CONN, MR. CONN YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY THIS IS SOMETHING THAT HAS TO BE UNDER EXECUTIVE SESSION AND THAT WOULD BE —

I THINK THAT I CAN MAKE A GENERAL STATEMENT. I DON'T THINK THAT I'M GOING TO ADDRESS THE SPECIFIC ISSUE. BUT I CAN TELL YOU WHAT THE LAW SAYS JUST GENERALLY. REGARDING OPEN RECORDS, ISSUES, OPEN MEETINGS ISSUES, WHEN THEY — WHEN THEY AMEND IT, THE OPEN MEETINGS AND OPEN RECORDS — WHEN THEY AMENDED THE OPEN MEETINGS AND OPEN RECORDS ACT, THE LEGISLATURE RECOGNIZED THAT THERE WERE CERTAIN THINGS THAT MIGHT NEED TO REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL, EVEN IF WE WEREN'T IN COMPETITION YET. THAT IS WHY THAT LAW APPLIES, WHETHER OR NOT WE ARE IN COMPETITION OR HAVE OPTED INTO DEREGULATION ON THE RETAIL LEVEL. SO — SO IT ALLOWS MANY THINGS TO BE — TO REMAIN COMPETITIVELY, YOU KNOW, UNDISCLOSED IF IT'S A EXECUTIVIVELY SENSITIVE MATTER NOT TO DISCLOSE IT.

CAN YOU PLEASE SPEAK TO THE ISSUE OF COMMON CARRIER?

GOODMAN: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYOR PRO TEM. STOP THE CLOCK, PLEASE. BACK FOR FOUR SECONDS.

GOODMAN: I THINK THAT MR. CONN COULD HELP OUT BECAUSE THE LAW ITSELF THAT HE REFERS TO IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT, SO MAYBE YOU CAN EXPLAIN THE CRITERIA FOR WHAT IS PROPER PRIOR TERRI AND THE PREMISE — PROPRIETARY AND THE PREMISE THAT THAT'S BASED ON.

THE BASIC PREMISE OF THE LAW IS THAT EITHER IN THE WHOLESALE MARKET OR SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE, THE DEREGULATED RETAIL MARKET, THAT WE MAY BE COMPETING WITH OTHER INVESTOR OWNED UTILITIES, WHAT'S CALLED RETAIL ELECTRIC PROVIDERS, THAT CAN DO THEIR BUSINESS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS AND NOT IN THE PUBLIC. THE LEGISLATIVE — LEGISLATURE BELIEVES IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO BE PLAYING ON A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD AS WE ARE PLANNING STRATEGIES, IMPLEMENTING BUSINESS PLANS, SETTLING LAWSUITS. SO THEY PASSED A LAW THAT ALLOWED US TOO — TO PROTECT INFORMATION THAT WE BELIEVE IF REVEALED PUBLICLY WOULD PUT US AS A COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE.

GOODMAN: CAN YOU RELATE THAT TO THE METER SITUATION? WHY WE WOULD NOT WANT OUR COMPETITORS OR FUTURE POTENTIAL COMPETITORS TO KNOW THE DETAILS OF — OF WHAT?

THERE'S A POSSIBILITY THAT SOME DAY THAT COULD BE A COMPETITIVE SERVICE. AND — IN OUR SERVICE AREA.

GOODMAN: OKAY. I THOUGHT —

THERE ARE PROBABLY OTHER REASONS, BUT I THINK THOSE OTHER REASONS I WOULD PREFER TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. >GARZA: MAYOR, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS PRINCIPAL TO ALL OF THIS, MR. ROBBINS IS EXACTLY RIGHT. WE HAVE OPTED NOT TO BE IN THAT DEREGULATED MARKET. BUT WHAT COULD HAPPEN IN SUBSEQUENT LEGISLATIVE SESSIONS, SHOULD THINGS GO THE WAY THEY GO, THE WAY THINGS HAPPEN TO HAPPEN UP AT THE STATE CAPITOL IS THAT THE EXEMPTIONS TO MUNICIPALLY OWNED UTILITIES COULD AT SOME POINT BE LIFTED. WHICH MEANS THAT THE $800 MILLION PLUS BUSINESS THAT WE OWN AND OPERATE AND ALL OF THE INFORMATION WITHIN IT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO SOME KIND OF COMPETITIVE FORCES THAT RIGHT NOW WE ARE NOT SUBJECT TO AND THAT INFORMATION, ANY INFORMATION WITH RESPECT TO ITS OPERATION COULD BE USED AGAINST US OR AT OUR DISADVANTAGE IN A — IN AN OPEN DEREGULATED MARKET. I THINK THAT'S WHAT — WHAT WE ARE CONCERNED WITH.

SO IN — IN THE 19 SECONDS, I GUESS YOU CAN START THE CLOCK AGAIN. UM ... THE CITIZENS OF AUSTIN REALLY SHOULD KNOW THIS. I CANNOT FORESEE A SITUATION WHERE YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE FIVE METERS ON A HOUSE. THE — THE EXPLANATION I WAS GIVEN [BUZZER SOUNDING] IS RIDICULOUS. THANK YOU, COUNCIL.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MR. ROBBINS. THAT'S ALL THE SPEAKERS THAT WE HAVE. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM. MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, IS THERE A SECOND? SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF ITEM NO. 17, PLEASE INDICATE BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

OPPOSED NO? MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF 7 TO 0. LET'S SEE WHERE WE ARE. 18 STILL NEEDS SOME DISCUSSION. BEFORE WE GO ON. 21, 22 DISCUSSION. 30 AND 56. 30 AND 56. THOSE ITEMS WILL BE DISCUSSED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. WE WILL BE BACK AROUND 4:00 FOR OUR TIME CERTAIN. WELL, LET ME SEE. WHERE IS MS. GLASGO? I THINK ALL OF THEM ARE DISCUSSION ITEMS?

GARZA: ARE THEY ALL DISCUSSION, JOE?

MAYOR GARCIA: THEY ARE ALL DISCUSSION, BUT I ONLY HAVE THREE SPEAKERS. >GARZA: MAYBE IT'S SHORT DISCUSSIONS. ALICE, ARE THEY ALL DISCUSSION ITEMS? ARE THEY QUICK DISCUSSION ITEMS OR LONG DISCUSSION ITEMS?

MAYOR GARCIA: I ONLY HAVE THREE SPEAKERS SIGNED UP.

GLASGO: FOR ALL OF THE CASES THAT WE HAVE?

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT'S RIGHT.

GLASGO: OKAY. WELL, —

MAYOR GARCIA: THERE MAY BE OTHER PEOPLE SIGNING UP LATER.

GLASGO: THEY WILL PROBABLY SHOW UP LATER AS THE 4:00 HOUR APPROACHES, BUT WE HAVE THEM ALL UP FOR DISCUSSION. THEY SHOULD BE SHORT DISCUSSIONS BECAUSE —

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. DO YOU THINK ALL OF THE FOUR ITEMS THAT WE HAVE CAN BE TAKEN UP IN ABOUT AN HOUR?

GLASGO: YES. I WOULD CERTAINLY HOPE SO.

MAYOR GARCIA: THEN WHAT WE WILL DO IS THE 4:00 TIME CERTAIN ITEMS WE WILL — WILL BE — WE WILL BE STARTING AT 4:30. THAT WILL GIVE YOU AN HOUR BEFORE WE HAVE THE 5:30 FOR LIVE MUSIC.

GLASGO: OKAY.

MAYOR GARCIA: AND PROCLAMATIONS.

GLASGO: OKAY.

MAYOR GARCIA: THEN WHEN WE FINISH THAT, WE WILL GO TO THE — TO THE — TO THE — UM ... TO THE PUBLIC HEARINGS AT 6:00. I DON'T THINK THOSE — WELL, YOU HAVE ONE OF THOSE, I THINK, ONE OF YOUR STAFF MEMBERS HAS THE ONE ON SAMMY HOUSE.

GLASGO: THAT'S CORRECT. YES.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. THE COUNCIL WILL GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AS PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TO DISCUSS THE ITEMS THAT ARE PREVIOUSLY — THAT PREVIOUSLY WERE READ INTO THE RECORD. TEST TEST TEST TEST TEST TEST TEST TEST TEST TEST TEST TEST TEST TEST TEST TEST TEST TEST TEST TEST TEST TEST TEST TEST APRIL THE 25TH.

MAYOR GARCIA: AND WE'RE GOING TO PICK UP ON ITEM NUMBER 16, WHICH IS AN ACTION ITEM THAT WE HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR IN EXECUTIVE — AN EXECUTIVE SESSION BRIEFING. ITEM 16 IS — ITEM 18, I'M SORRY, APPROVE A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ALL DOCUMENTS ACQUIRING APPROXIMATELY 84 ACRES IN HAYS COUNTY ALONG THE LITTLE BEAR CREEK THROUGH A LONG-TERM LEASE DONATION PURSUANT TO THE CITY'S LEASE AGREEMENT WITH HILL COUNTRY CONSERVANCY. WITH THE OPEN BONDS SPACE FUNDS FROM THE PROPOSITION 2 OF NOVEMBER 2000. HILL COUNTRY CON SERVE AND SI WILL ACQUIRE THE LAND IN THE CITY'S RIGHTS. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THAT ITEM.

GRIFFITH: I MOVE APPROVAL.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH. IS THERE A SECOND? SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS. DOES THE COUNCIL WANT A LITTLE BRIEFING ON THAT? COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ — COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

SLUSHER: MAYOR, I THINK THIS IS AN IMPORTANT PURCHASE FOR THE CITY. THE STAFF'S DONE A REALLY GOOD JOB OF PICKING OUT A CRITICAL TRACT THAT NEEDS TO BE PURCHASED. IT'S GOING TO A MULTIPLE BENEFITS TO THE EDWARD'S AQUIFER. SO I WOULD LIKE FOR MS. PLUMMER TO DO A PRESENTATION ON THIS?

MAYOR GARCIA: MS. PLUMBER?

ITEM 18 IS TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE DOCUMENTS TO PURCHASE APPROXIMATELY 84 ACRES IN HAYS COUNTY ALONG LITTLE BEAR CREEK THROUGH A LONG-TERM LEASE DONATION PURSUANT TO A CITY'S AGREEMENT WITH HILL COUNTRY CON SERVE ANTSY TO BE PURCHASED AS PART OF OPEN SPACE FUNDS. THE SELLER TO THE HILL COUNTRY CON SERVE ANTSY IS HILL AND IONA WIND SELL. OUR PURCHASE IS $507,840.

MAYOR GARCIA: THERE'S A MOTION ON THAT ITEM AND A SECOND QUESTION FOR MS. PLUMBER?

SLUSHER: MAYOR, I'VE GOT SOME QUESTIONS. MS. PLUMBER? THERE'S ALSO SOME WELLS ON THIS PROPERTY?

THERE ARE TWO WELLS, A 10-INCH AND A SICK-INCH WELL. THE 84 ACRES, ABOUT HALF OF THIS PARTICULAR SITE IS IN FACT A NON-ACTIVE GRAVEL PIT THAT WE WOULD LOOK AT RECHARGE RECLAMATION PROJECT.

SLUSHER: AND THESE ARE PRETTY BIG WELLS, RIGHT?

YES, SIR, THEY ARE.

SLUSHER: SO ONE OF THE BENEFITS OF THIS PURCHASE IS THAT THESE WELLS WILL GO INTO PUBLIC HANDS, WHEREAS IF THEY REMAINED IN PRIVATE HANDS OR WERE SOLD TO SOMEBODY OTHER THAN THE CURRENT OWNER IN PRIVATE HANDS, THEN THEY COULD BE USED UNDER THE RULE OF CAPTURE IN THE STATE OF TEXAS TO SELL WATER TO DEVELOPMENT AND DEPLETE THE AQUIFER.

THAT'S CORRECT. WE UNDERSTAND OTHERS HAVE LOOKED SPECIFICALLY AT THE TRACT FOR THE WELLS ALONE.

SLUSHER: SO THIS PROTECTS BOTH WATER QUALITY AND WATER QUANTITY?

THAT'S CORRECT. SLUSH I JUST WANT TO CONGRATULATE YOU ON DOING A GOOD JOB AND MR. JOHN AS WELL AND THE WHOLE STAFF BECAUSE IT'S A VERY IMPORTANT TRACT THAT THE CITY IS PURCHASING. THEY WORKED ON SEVERAL LEVELS TO PROTECT THE EDWARD'S AQUIFER. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WE DO BELIEVE IT'S A UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO MOVING FORWARD ON IT.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED NO? MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF SEVEN TO ZERO. WITH ALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT. MS. GLASGO?

GOOD AFTERNOON MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS. I'M ALICE GLASGO, DIRECTOR OF NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT. OUR ZONING CASES FOR TODAY ARE AS FOLLOWS: ACTUALLY, ITEM 1K-2 HAD BEEN A DISCUSSION ITEM. Z-2 OR ONLY CONSENT CASE TODAY, CASE C-14-0 IT-4. THIS CASE IS LOCATED AT 6301FM ROAD 969. THE ZONING AND PLATTEDING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT WLO WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY. AND OTHER CONDITIONS. AND THIS CASE IS READY FOR FIRST READING. IF YOU COULD ACT ON THAT ITEM, WE'LL COME BACK TO THE OTHER ITEMS UNDER DISCUSSION.

MAYOR GARCIA: ARE THERE QUESTIONS FOR MS. GLASGO ON ITEM Z-2, WHICH IS A CONSENT FOR FIRST READING. OKAY. IF NOT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE ITEM FOR CONSENT ON FIRST READING. MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH. I'LL SECOND THAT ONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED NO? MOTION CARRIES. MISS GLASGO?

THANK YOU, MAYOR. THE FIRST DISCUSSION ITEM IS ITEM NUMBER Z-1, CASE C-14-01-1004. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 5530 U.S. HIGHWAY TWO EAST. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED DR, WHICH STANDS FOR DEVELOPMENT RESERVE. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A CHANGE TO CS, WHICH STANDS FOR GENERAL COMMERCIAL SERVICES. THE ZONING AND PLATTEDING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION WAS TO GRANT CS WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY. THE APPLICANT IS IN AGREEMENT TO THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION WITH ALL THE PROHIBITED USES WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ONE USE, NAMELY INDOOR ENTERTAINMENT. AND HAVING SAID THAT I WILL PAUSE HERE AND LET THE APPLICANT MAKE HIS PRESENTATION AND INTERESTED PARTIES AND I'LL BE ABLE TO RESPOND TO QUESTIONS THEREAFTER. IF YOU DO APPROVE THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION, THIS CASE WOULD BE READY FOR FIRST READING ONLY TODAY.

MAYOR GARCIA: ARE THE APPLICANTS HERE? YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO MAKE YOUR PRESENTATION.

GOOD EVENING MAYOR PRO TEM, COUNCILMEMBERS. I REPRESENT — MY NAME IS MARCO CASTELLANO, THE AGENT FOR MS. SWAUREZ. AS SHE SAID, WE'RE ZONING FROM DR TO CS, AGREEING TO THE COAFERLZ, EXCEPT FOR THE INDOOR ENTERTAINMENT. THE OWNER IS PROPOSING TO BUILD A BANQUET RECEPTION HALL, MAINLY TO RENT OUT FOR WEDDINGS AND RECEPTIONS AND GATHERINGS SUCH AS THAT. WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF SOME SORT OF INDOOR ENTERTAINMENT AS LIKE A LIVE BAND DURING RECEPTIONS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. IF WE DO NOT GET INDOOR ENTERTAINMENT WE'RE WILLING TO SEE WHAT ELSE WE CAN DO WITH THAT PROPERTY, BUT THAT IS OUR MAIN GOAL IS GETTING ALLOWED TO HAVE INDOOR ENTERTAINMENT. WE WOULD NOT BE SELLING FOOD OR ALCOHOL. EVERYTHING WOULD BE THIRD-PARTY CATERED. IT WOULD BE JUST RENTING SPACE, AND THAT'S BASICALLY OUR MAIN GOAL.

MAYOR GARCIA: QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES AT THE END FOR REBUTTAL. TREK ENGLISH? AND FOLLOWING MR. ENGLISH IS JOYCE STAP, CHRISTINA BRUBAKE.

WELCOME. GOOD EVENING AFTERNOON. I'M THE PRESIDENT OF THE NORTHEAST ACTION GROUP. WE HAD SPOKEN WITH THE GENTLEMAN ABOUT OUR RESERVATION WITH WHAT HE WAS PROPOSING. AT FIRST WHAT HE TOLD US HE WAS PROPOSING WAS A PARKING FOR VENDING TRUCKS WHERE THEY WOULD GO IN AND MAKE SANDWICHES ON PREMISES WITH A REFRIGERATED TYPE OF UNIT, TAKE THE SANDWICHES INTO THE VENDING TRUCKS AND TAKE THEM OUT TO CONSTRUCTION SITES AND RETURN AT NIGHT. WELL, THERE'S NO PROBLEM WITH THAT. WE WERE IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT PROPOSAL. HIS SECOND PROPOSAL WAS TO HAVE A DANCE HALL. THE ONLY REASON — AND I REALLY LOVE DANCING, SO IT'S NOT THE DANCE HALL, PER SE, THAT WE'RE OPPOSED TO. OUR PROBLEM IS ACCESS TO THIS PROPERTY ON 290 IS EXTREMELY, EXTREMELY DANGEROUS. YOU HAVE THE FUEL TANKERS COMING OFF OF JOHNNY MORRIS ROAD, MAKING A LEFT AT 290, AND WILL BE JUST A FEW MINUTES FROM THE ENTRANCE TO THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY. I HAVE WITH ME SOME STATISTICS THAT WERE GIVEN TO US BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, AND YOU WILL SEE WHERE WE HAVE AN ENORMOUS — ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF ACCIDENTS BETWEEN DECKER AND CUSS NY ON HIGHWAY 290. ANY CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL, WHETHER BROUGHT IN OR SOLD ON THE PREMISES, WOULD ONLY INCREASE TO THE AMOUNT OF ACCIDENTS THAT ARE TAKING PLACE EVERY WEEKEND ON HIGHWAY 290 FROM THE FLEA MARKET. THERE'S ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION AT THE FLEA MARKET AND UNFORTUNATELY, THE PEOPLE WHICH GO TO THE DANCE HALL RIGHT AFTER THAT AND YOU WOULD HAVE A LOT OF DRINKING PROBLEMS ON — DRINKING — ALCOHOL-RELATED ACCIDENTS ON THAT PROPERTY. AND I BELIEVE THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION AGREED WITH US, AND THIS IS WHY WE WERE ASKING FOR NO INDOOR ENTERTAINMENT. THAT'S IT. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MS. ENGLISH. JOYCE BEST? WELCOME, MS. BEST.

THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. I LIVE IN THE HARRIS BRANCH SUBDIVISION, WHICH IS ADJACENT TO THE AREA THAT WE ARE DISCUSSING. AND OUR NEIGHBORHOOD HAS PROBLEMS WITH ACCESS ON THE WEEKENDS BECAUSE OF THE PROXIMITY TO THE FLEA MARKET, AND THIS PROPERTY IS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT. A FEW WEEKS AGO I WAS RETURNING TO MY HOME FROM DOWNTOWN ON A SUNDAY AFTERNOON ABOUT 3:00 O'CLOCK. WHEN I GOT TO THE AREA JUST EAST OF SPRING DALE ROAD, IT TOOK ME 16 MINUTES TO TRAVEL A MILE AND A HALF BECAUSE OF ALL THE TRAFFIC FROM THE FLEA MARKET. AND I HAVE PHOTOS HERE, AND IT'S JUST CARS AND TRUCKS AS FAR AS THE EYE CAN SEE. IN FACT, WHILE I WAS WAITING TO GO DOWN 290, TWO POLICE CARS CAME ALONG TRYING TO GET TO A SITUATION AT THE FLEA MARKET, AND THEY HAD TO GO TO THE SHOULDER OF THE ROAD IN ORDER TO GET AROUND ALL OF THE TRAFFIC AND GO THERE. THIS IS NOT THE IDEAL SITUATION TO PUT A DANCE HALL WHERE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE CONGREGATING AND AND COMING AND GOING AND ADDING FURTHER TOUR TRAFFIC SITUATION. AS MS. ENGLISH INDICATED, WE HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE ORIGINAL STATED USE OF THE PROPERTY, BUT WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF HAVING A DANCE HALL WHERE ALCOHOL WILL BE AVAILABLE AND THERE WILL BE LARGE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE. IT'S ALREADY ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE FOR US TO GET IN AND OUT OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ON TO 290 ON THE WEEKENDS BECAUSE OF THE FLEA MARKET. AND WE DO NOT NEED THIS ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC AND HAZARDOUS SITUATION. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MS. BEST. CHRISTINA KUBECK?

HELLO. MY NAME IS CHRISTINA. I'M A SECRETARY OF THE WALNUT HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. AND I'M HERE TODAY TO VOICE MY OPINIONS OF MY NEIGHBORHOOD. AND WE STRONGLY OBJECT TO ANY TYPE OF BUSINESS ADDED TO 290 WHERE ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION, YOU KNOW, WILL OCCUR. WE ALREADY HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE FLEA MARKET. AND THE TRAFFIC THAT COMES FROM THE EXPO CENTER EVERY TIME THERE'S AN ICE BATS GAME, THERE'S THE ROADIO, 290 IS JUST PACKED, YOU KNOW. AND WE HAVE — THERE'S NO ROOM FOR THIS TYPE OF BUSINESS, THERE'S REALLY NOT. AND I DON'T KNOW IF ANY OF Y'ALL HAVE HAD THE MISFORTUNE OF BEING IN A DRUNK DRIVING ACCIDENT, BUT I HAVE. I'VE BEEN IN ONE WHERE I WAS 10 YEARS OLD WITH MY MOTHER. YOU NEVER FORGET IT. IT'S VIVID AS IT WAS YESTERDAY. AND IT WAS A HEAD-ON COLLISION. AND WE WERE IN A STATION WAGON, ONE OF THOSE BIG ONES WITH — IT HAS THE HUGE, LONG STATION WAGON. AND THE HOOD OF THE STATION WAGON CRUMPLED UNTIL IT WAS ALL THE WAY INTO THE WINDSHIELD. AND MY MOTHER SMASHED HER FACE ON THE STEERING WHEEL AND BROKE HER NOSE. THEN SHE WAS SCARED — SHE WAS STILL CONSCIOUS, SCARED THERE WOULD BE A FIRE. AND SHE SAID GET OUT, GET OUT. AND WE GOT OUT AND ACROSS THE STREET SHE PASSED OUT ON THE SIDEWALK. THAT'S ONE INSTANCE. AND I'VE NEVER FORGOTTEN THAT. WE LIVE — BECAUSE WE WERE IN A — WE LIVED BECAUSE WE WERE IN A CAR THAT WAS BIG AND STRONG ENOUGH TO TAKE THE IMPACT. WELL, CARS TODAY, YOU KNOW, WOULD NEVER HAVE TAKEN THAT KIND OF IMPACT AND I'D BE DEAD. I DON'T WANT TO SEE THAT, YOU KNOW, TYPE OF THING HAPPEN MORE OFTEN IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD AND TO MY FAMILY. WE REALLY DON'T NEED ANY MORE DRUNK DRIVERS ANYWHERE IN AUSTIN. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MA'AM. JOHN HUTCHISON? WELCOME, SIR.

GOOD AFTERNOON, EVENING. MY NAME IS JOHN HITCH SON, I'M THE PRESIDENT OF WALL NUS PLACE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. WE ARE THE VERY FIRST STREET THAT YOU WOULD COME TO IF YOU WOULD TURN AND GO EAST ON — EXCUSE ME, WEST ON 290. SO IF THE PEOPLE LEAVING THAT PROPERTY WERE GOING TO TRY TO SNAKE BACKWARDS THROUGH RESIDENTIAL TO AVOID POLICE AT EITHER 290, I-35 AND ALCOHOL CHECKPOINTS, WE WOULD BE THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WOULD BE THE ROUTE. I WANT TO POINT OUT IN THE FLYER THAT MS. ENGLISH GAVE YOU A FEW MINUTES AGO THE MOST ACCIDENTS THAT OCCUR ON 290 WAS AT THE ADDRESS OF THIS SITE. IN OTHER WORDS, THE 290 FLEA MARKET AREA IS THE MOST ACCIDENT PRONE PART OF 290. AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW, THE APPLICANT HAS ORIGINALLY STATED THAT HE WAS GOING TO RUN A BALLROOM THERE. WELL, NOW HE'S CHANGED IT TO A QUOTE, ONE QUOTE, WEDDING TYPE CENTER. I DON'T APPRECIATE HIM CHANGING THE THING TO MAKE IT SOUND A LITTLE BIT MORE PALATABLE TO OTHER PEOPLE. THE FACT IS THAT IF HE DOES HAVE BYOB OR CATERED ALCOHOL, TABC HAS ABSOLUTELY NO CONTROL OTHER THAN TO CITE THEM FOR PUBLIC INTOXICATION. THIS WOULD BE VERY DETRIMENTAL TO US. IF HE WANTS TO RUN A COCKTAIL LOUNGE, LET HIM RUN ONE AND BE CONTROLLED BY TABC. BUT AS HIS SITE PLAN IS HERE, HE DOESN'T HAVE PARKING FOR WHAT HE'S PROPOSING. I DON'T SEE HOW WE COULD POSSIBLY GIVE HIM A ZONING CHANGE WITH HIS INTENDED USE WHEN THERE'S NO PLACE TO PARK ANY CARS. ONE HALF OF THE PROPERTY IS GOING TO BE ENTIRELY TAKEN UP WITH THE VENDING BUSINESS. I HAVE NO ARGUMENT WITH THE VENDING BUSINESS. I BOUGHT OFF OF AT A CO-TRUCKS FOR — TA CO-TRUCKS FOR 20 SOMETHING YEARS SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE. IT SCARES ME TO DEATH HAVING NEARLY LOST MY WIFE TO A DRUNK DRIVER THAT SOMEBODY ELSE LIBRARY MOOEUB ABLE TO COME THROUGH BY NEIGHBORHOOD D.W.I. AND TRY FOR A SECOND SHOT AT HER. WE'VE ALREADY HAD INCIDENTS OF PEOPLE COMING OUT OF THE FLEA MARKET AND DRIVING DRUNK. WE DO NOT NEED ANY MORE OF THAT. PLEASE RESTRICT THE INDOOR ENTERTAINMENT. WE REALLY NEED THAT IN THE CO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MR. HUTCHISON. THOSE ARE ALL THE SPEAKERS THAT WE HAVE. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

SLUSHER: SO MOVE.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. IS THERE A SECOND? SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS.

THE APPLICANT DID NOT DO A REBUTTAL.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT'S RIGHT. REBUTTAL?

THANK YOU. IN RESPONSE TO THOSE CONCERNS THAT THEY TOLD US, ONE WAS THAT WE DON'T AGREE WITH PATRONS OF THE FLEA MARKET JUST WALKING OVER TO THE BANQUET HALL TO GO DRINK. THAT'S NOT THE PURPOSE OF THE BANQUET HALL BEING THERE. AND ON TOP OF THAT, THE BUSINESS HOURS THAT THE BANQUET HALL WOULD BE IN BUSINESS WOULD BE MAINLY IN THE EVENING HOURS AND MOSTLY ON THE WEEKENDS. THE FLEA MARKET CLOSES AT 6:00 O'CLOCK ON THE WEEKENDS, WHICH IS REALLY THE OFF-PEAK HOURS THAT OUR BUSINESS WOULD EVEN BE OPEN. SO WE DON'T FEEL THAT THERE WOULD BE A WHOLE LOT OF CROSS-TRAFFIC BETWEEN TRAFFIC FROM OUR BUSINESS AND TRAFFIC FROM THE FLEA MARKET. AS WELL 290 HAS 15 TO 20-FOOT WIDE SHOULDERS THAT ARE READILY USED AS ACCELERATION AND DECELERATION LANES COMING IN AND OUT OF EITHER ONE OF THOSE SITES. AND I HAVE DRIVEN IN AND OUT OF THAT SITE MYSELF MANY TIMES AND HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH MERGING INTO TRAFFIC VERY SAFELY. AND AS A LAST RESORT, WE ARE WILLING TO AS PART OF CO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF PATRONS ON OUR PROPERTY, IF THAT WOULD HELP.

SLUSHER: I'VE GOT A QUESTION, MAYOR. COULD YOU EXPLAIN WHAT THE GENTLEMAN SAID ABOUT IT STARTED OUT AS BALLROOM AND NOW YOU'RE A RENTAL — WEDDING FACILITY?

IN THE BEGINNING THEY HAD MENTIONED THAT THEY WERE PROPOSING ACTUALLY A MOBILE VENDOR SERVICE STATION, WHICH AS HE EXPLAINED WOULD BE HEADQUARTERS FOR VENDOR TRUCKS TO BE STORED OVERNIGHT AND TO BE STOCKED IN THE MORNING TO GO ABOUT THEIR BUSINESS. THAT WILL BE ONE USE ON THE PROPERTY. ACTUALLY, BASICALLY ON HALF OF THE LOT AND THE OTHER HALF IS WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING AS OUR BANQUET HALL. WHEN WE WERE THROWING AROUND THE IDEA, BALLROOMS WAS THE FIRST DESCRIPTION WE CAME UP WITH WHEN WE STARTED DISCUSSIONS WITH THE NORTHEAST ACTION GROUP. AND WE BASICALLY WENT OUT AND COMPARED OUR BUSINESS TO WHAT TYPE OF BUSINESSES THAT ARE OUT THERE THAT WE WANTED TO BE AND WE FELT A BANQUET FACILITY WAS THE BEST DESCRIPTION WE COULD THINK OF OR THAT WE FOUND. THE BALLROOM IS A LITTLE MISLEADING. BANQUET FACILITY WE FEEL IS A LITTLE BIT BETTER DESCRIPTION, BUT ALL THINGS CONSIDERED, I DON'T SEE A WHOLE LOT OF DIFFERENCE IN THAT IT WOULD STILL HAVE — BE RENTED SPACE WITH THIRD-PARTY CATERING.

SLUSHER: AND IT WOULD BE RENTED SPACE, SO THEN IF SOMEONE WAS GOING TO COME FROM THE FLEA MARKET OR NEARBY LOCATION, I MEAN, THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE COMING TO SOME SPECIFIC EVENT FOR WHICH THIS WAS RENTED?

CORRECT.

SLUSHER: OKAY. THANKS. MS. GLASGO, LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION.

YES?

SLUSHER: I UNDERSTAND IT HAS THE PROHIBITION ON INDOOR ENTERTAINMENT AND WHAT THE SCAP PASSED, — THE ZAP PASSED, RIGHT?

THAT'S RIGHT. THEY LISTED SEVERAL PROHIBITED USES AND THAT LIST INCLUDES A PROHIBITION OF INDOOR ENTERTAINMENT.

SLUSHER: THAT WAS THE STAFF'S VIEW GOING INTO — YOU DIDN'T HAVE THAT GOING INTO THE ZAP?

THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION DIDN'T INCLUDE ANY PROHIBITION.

SLUSHER: NOW, DO YOU AGREE WITH THE STATEMENT HE MADE, THE ANSWER HE GAVE THAT THIS WOULDN'T — IT WOULDN'T BE A SITUATION WHERE SOMEONE COULD JUST, SAY, WALK IN AND GET A DRINK BECAUSE IT WOULD ONLY BE OPEN WHEN THERE WAS A AN EVENT FOR WHICH SOMEONE OR SOME GROUP HAS RENTED THE FACILITY?

THAT SHOULD BE THE WAY IT SHOULD OPERATE. THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS SEEKING CS ZONING. WITH CS ZONING YOU CANNOT HAVE 100% OF ALCOHOLIC SALES. YOU NEED TO HAVE CS-1 ZONING TO HAVE — TO SERVE ON-SITE WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. SO THE CS ZONING THAT THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING WOULD ALLOW — WOULD ALLOW SERVING OF ALCOHOL AS AN ACCESSORY TO A PRINCIPAL USE, FOR EXAMPLE, A WEDDING CEREMONY OR ANY OTHER USE THAT IS ALLOWED UNDER THE ORDINANCE, BUT YOU COULD NOT JUST WALK IN AND GET A GLASS OF AN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE.

SLUSHER: NOW, WOULD THEY BE SELLING THE ALCOHOL OR WOULD IT BE WHOEVER RENTS IT IS ABLE TO BRING IN ALCOHOL?

IT WOULD BE PART OF THE CATERING, MY UNDERSTANDING IS.

SLUSHER: BY THE FACILITY.

CORRECT. THEY WOULD NOT HAVE THE PROPER ZONING TO SELL THE ALCOHOL. IT WOULD BE A BEVERAGE THAT IS SERVED WATER AND WASTEWATER PART OF A CATERING BUSINESS. AN EVENT.

SLUSHER: DID THE STAFF STUDY THE CONCERNS ABOUT DRINKING AND DRIVING AS PART OF MAKING THE ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION?

NO, WE DO NOT AND WE DON'T TYPICALLY ADDRESS THAT BECAUSE THE ZONING CHANGE HERE IS TO CS, NOT TO CS-1 WHERE YOU HAVE PREDOMINANTLY A COCKTAIL LOUNGE WITH A BAR BUSINESS GOING OR ANY FACILITY LIKE THAT BECAUSE IN THAT EVENT THEN YOU WOULD HAVE TWO HURDLES TO CROSS. YOU WOULD HAVE TO GET THE CS-1 ZONING AND SECONDLY YOU WOULD HAVE TO GET THE TABC INVOLVED IN ANYTHING THAT RELATED TO THAT TYPE OF EVENT. AND THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ADDRESS ALL THOSE CONCERNS.

SLUSHER: U.T. THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR NOW, MAYOR. > MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR MS. GLASGO? LET ME CLOSE THE — I CAN CLOSE IT NOW, RIGHT? MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ?

ALVAREZ: YES. DID YOU ASK ABOUT PARKING, COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER? BECAUSE THAT WAS AN ISSUE OF CONCERN ABOUT THERE'S NOT ENOUGH PARKING THERE. FOR A BUSINESSLIKE THIS HOW WOULD WE DETERMINE THAT?

WE DON'T HAVE — BECAUSE AT TIME OF ZONING APPLICANTS DON'T GO THROUGH THE EXPENSE OF SHOWING OR COLLECTING DATA FOR SITE PLAN. THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE DEMONSTRATED AT THE TIME OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMITTING.

ALVAREZ: AND THEN IN TERMS OF — YOU MENTIONED LIMITING IN TERMS OF NUMBER OF PATRONS. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT CAN BE DONE OR IS THAT ACTUALLY —

THAT WOULD BE — THAT IS AN ENFORCEMENTSSUE. SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TO BE STANDING THERE AND COUNTING THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE GOING IN AND OUT OVER TIME. SO THAT WOULD BE THE DIFFICULTY.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER QUESTIONS?

WYNN: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN.

WYNN: MS. GLASGO, THE TERM OF THE RESTRICTION PUT ON BY ZONING AND PLATTING, THE INDOOR ENTERTAINMENT, IS THAT — WHAT DOES THAT MEAN AND IS THAT THE SAME AS BANQUET?

YES. THAT IS THE BROAD CATEGORY THAT WOULD ALLOW DANCE HALLS, MEETING HALLS AND BUSINESSES OF THAT NATURE, A WEDDING CEREMONY OR BANQUET LIKE THAT.

WYNN: THANK YOU.

YOU'RE WELCOME.

MAYOR GARCIA: IS THERE A MOTION ON THIS ITEM?

THOMAS: MAYOR, COULD I ASK ONE QUESTION TO THE APPLICANT?

MAYOR GARCIA: SURE. IF THE APPLICANT COULD COME FORWARD. COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS HAS A QUESTION FOR YOU.

THOMAS: THE QUESTION WAS COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ WAS ASKING YOU ABOUT THE PARKING. WHAT'S THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THIS SPACE THAT YOU PLAN TO DEVELOP?

AS FAR AS THE BUILDING ITSELF, WE HAVE NOT DETERMINED HOW BIG THE BUILDING WILL NEED TO BE. THAT ALSO WILL DETERMINE HOW BIG THE PARKING WILL NEED TO BE. THE LOT ITSELF IS 1.44 ACRES. AND IT'S A RELATIVELY LARGE LOT TO ACCOMMODATE A MOBILE VENDOR SERVICE STATION AND A BANQUET FACILITY. AS I MENTIONED, WE HAVE NOT SUBMITTED ANY SITE PLAN TO THE CITY, BUT AT THAT TIME WE WILL DETERMINE THE SIZE OF BUILDING, THE REQUIRED PARKING THAT WE NEED TO GO INTO, LANDSCAPING, DRAINAGE ENGINEERING THAT WOULD NEED TO GO INTO IT.

THOMAS: THANK YOU.

ALVAREZ: MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ?

ALVAREZ: I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD — IS THIS FOR FIRST READING?

YES. IT WOULD BE FIRST READING ONLY.

ALVAREZ: FIRST READING? I'M GOING TO MOVE APPROVAL I THINK OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION REMOVING THE PROBATION ON INDOOR ENTERTAINMENT. AND I'LL EXPLAIN WHY IF I GET A SECOND.

MAYOR GARCIA: IS THERE A SECOND?

SLUSHER: I'LL SECOND IT. I WANT TO SPEAK TO THAT AFTER HE'S DONE.

ALVAREZ: I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED AND I'M TRYING TO LOOK AT WHERE IT IS, WHERE THE SITE IS AND THE CONCERNS RAISED. OBVIOUSLY IT'S ON A MAJOR ARTERIAL, IT'S NOT IN THE MIDDLE OF A NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH IS SOMETIMES THE IRN THAT WE FACE — THE ISSUE THAT WE FACE WITH THESE KIND OF USES. AND IN TERMS OF IMPACT ON TRAFFIC, I THINK THE PROHIBITION ON VEHICLE TRIPS PER DAY AND I THINK COMPARED TO SOME OF THESE OTHER USES OUT THERE, THIS IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE MINIMAL. AND FINALLY, I THINK THAT ONE OF THE SPEAKERS AGAINST SAID IT MIGHT BE BETTER TO HAVE A LOUNGE, A COCKTAIL LOUNGE INSTEAD OF THIS BUSINESS, BUT I THINK THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE WORSE IN TERMS OF THE ISSUES THAT WAS — THE CONCERN THAT WAS ADDRESSED IN TERMS THAT THERE MIGHT BE MORE FOLKS OUT THERE WHO MAY BE DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE. IF YOU HAVE A LOUNGE AS OPPOSED TO KIND OF A USE THAT'S SPECIFIC TO AN EVENT AND THAT IS MORE FAMILY ORIENTED AND IT'S MAINLY ON THE EVENINGS AND WEEKENDS. SO THOSE ARE ALL THE KIND OF ISSUES I WAS TRYING TO LOOK AT TO SEE IF INDEED THIS WAS NOT A GOOD PLACE FOR THAT SPECIFIC KIND OF USE.

SLUSHER: MAYOR, THAT WAS SIMILAR TO WHAT I WAS THINKING. WHAT I'M GOING TO DO IS BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND READING TALK TO OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT AND SEE IF THEY HAVE THE KIND OF CONCERNS THAT THE NEIGHBORS WHO AT THIS LOCATION, AND THAT WOULD WEIGH HEAVILY INTO MY DECISION. BUT I'M ALSO CONCERNED WITH THE WAY THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION DID IT WE MIGHT BE ARBITRARILY SAYING, WELL, OKAY, NO ALCOHOL THERE, AND THAT MIGHT NOT BE — THAT MIGHT BE UNFAIR TO THE — TO THIS PARTICULAR APPLICANT. SO I WILL ASK THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO COMMENT TO ME ON SPECIFICS. AND IF THEY HAVE THE SAME CONCERNS BEFORE WE GET TO A FINAL READ.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH?

GRIFFITH: MS. GLASGO, IF THIS ZONING GOES FORWARD, WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE THAT IF THE OWNERS DECIDED TO HAVE THE TRADITIONAL DANCE HALL, THAT THEY COULD DO IT UNDER THIS ZONING BY JUST CHANGING THEIR BUSINESS APPROACH?

WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY TRADITIONAL DANCE HALL?

GRIFFITH: OKAY. INDOOR BAND, OPEN BAR, BIG PARKING LOT, STAY OPEN UNTIL 2:00 O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING, THAT KIND OF THING. WOULD THAT BE POSSIBLE UNDER THIS ZONING?

NO, COUNCILMEMBER. THAT WOULD REQUIRE A DIFFERENT ZONING DISTRICT.

GRIFFITH: OKAY. SO HOW FAR TOWARDS THAT WOULD THIS ZONING ALLOW MOVING?

THIS ZONING WOULD ALLOW — IF YOU WERE TO ALLOW INDOOR ENTERTAINMENT, YOU WOULD HAVE THE ENTERTAINMENT, BUT IT'S NOT A PLACE WHERE — IT'S NOT LIKE A BAR WHERE YOU DANCE AND PURCHASE A DRINK BECAUSE THE PREDOMINANT USE THERE IS OBVIOUSLY THE BAR. IT'S CALLED A COCKTAIL LOUNGE, DANCE HALL WHERE YOU'RE SIMPLY PURCHASING DRINKS AND HAVING TO — WITHOUT A PRIMARY USE. SO THAT WOULD REQUIRE CS-1 ZONING WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. AND WHAT YOU HAVE HERE IS YOU HAVE A WEDDING CEREMONY OR A DANCE WHERE SOMETHING IS CATERED AND THE DRINKS WOULD BE INCIDENTAL TO AND NOT PRINCIPAL TO IT.

GRIFFITH: IF IT CHANGED TO A MUSIC VENUE WITH ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES SEVERAL NIGHTS A WEEK, IT WOULD TAKE A NEW ZONING?

IT WOULD REQUIRE A NEW ZONING CHANGE AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT.

GRIFFITH: THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO CHECK ON. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? I LIVE IN THIS AREA, AND I CAN UNDERSTAND THE COMMENTS AND THE ISSUES BROUGHT UP BY THE NEIGHBORS BECAUSE 290 IS A VERY BUSY ROAD AND GETTING BUSIER EVERYDAY. AND THAT AREA WHERE THE FLEA MARKET IS IS VERY CONGESTED AND, YOU KNOW, QUITE DANGEROUS. I'M THINKING THAT WE PERHAPS NEED MORE INFORMATION FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AS TO HOW PEOPLE WILL GET IN AND OUT OF THAT PLACE, AND PARTICULARLY LATE AT NIGHT, BECAUSE IT IS A DANGEROUS ROAD AND ESPECIALLY AT CERTAIN PARTS OF THE DAY. SO THERE'S A MOTION FOR FIRST AND SECOND READING?

FIRST ONLY.

MAYOR GARCIA: FIRST ONLY. OKAY. I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND VOTE FOR IT, BUT BEFORE WE TAKE SECOND AND THIRD, I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO KNOW MUCH MORE ABOUT HOW THIS IS GOING TO OPERATE BECAUSE, LIKE I SAID, I KNOW THIS AREA WELL AND IT'S ALREADY CONGESTED AND MORE TRAFFIC ON THAT STREET CAN CAUSE MORE TRAFFIC COLLISIONS AS EVIDENCED BY THE SHEET GIVEN TO US BY ONE OF THE PEOPLE THAT TESTIFIED. FURTHER QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS?

THOMAS: I WOULD LIKE TO SAY ONE THING. YOU DID SAY THE FLEA MARKETS AT 6:00. AND THE TRAFFIC CONGESTION WOULD BE BAD THEN. IT WOULD AFFECT YOUR BUSINESS IF PEOPLE WANTED TO COME IN FOR THE EVENT, SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I WOULD LIKE TO CHECK OUT TOO. BUT I WOULD VOTE FOR THE FIRST READING ONLY.

MAYOR GARCIA: ACTUALLY, THE CONGESTION IS MORE THAN JUST AT 6:00. PEOPLE ARE GOING IN AND OUT OF THERE ALL AFTERNOON. OKAY. THIS IS FOR FIRST READING ONLY. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I CAN TELL THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS TO WORK WITH MS. GLASGO'S OFFICE AND TRY TO GET THE INFORMATION TO HER TO FIX THE PROBLEMS THAT WE'LL NEED TO EVALUATE THIS APPLICATION PROPERLY.

WE'LL DO THAT.

MAYOR GARCIA: ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED NO? MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF SEVEN TO ZERO. AND WE'LL HAVE THAT SECOND AND THIRD READING LATER ON IN MAY, I GUESS.

WE'LL BRING IT IN AS SOON AS WE'RE ABLE TO GET THIS ORDINANCE PREPARED.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY.

OUR NEXT DISCUSSION ITEM IS ITEM NUMBER 1-3 —

SLUSHER: MS. GLASS COARKS LET ME INTERRUPT YOU. MAYOR, I'M GOING TO BE OFF THE DIAS. I HAVE TO ABSTAIN ON THIS ITEM. IT'S NEAR MY HOME.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY.

ITEM NUMBER Z-1. I'M PAUSING TO GIVE COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXIT. ITEM NUMBER Z-3, CASE C-14-02-5. THIS CASE IS LOCATED 1100 WEST STASSNEY LANE. THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY HAS A VARIETY OF ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS, WHICH INCLUDE LR, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONING, MULTI-FAMILY 2 ZONING AND MF-3. THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE — AND ALSO GR, COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL ZONING. THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO ELIMINATE ALL THOSE VARIOUS ZONINGNi DISTRICTS AND INSTEAD HAVE SINGLE-FAMILY 6 ZONING, WHICH STANDS FOR TOWNHOUSE AND CONDOMINIUM RESIDENCE ZONING. THIS WOULD ALLOW A TAL OF 44 UNITS ON THIS SITE. THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO YOU WAS TO GRANT SINGLE-FAMILY 6 WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY, AND ALL RESIDENTIAL USES THAT ARE ALLOW INNED THE SINGLE-FAMILY PLANNING DISTRICT. THEY ALSO ASK THAT FUTURE DETENTION DESIGN BE DESIGNED IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT WOULD BE DESIGNED WITH A THOUGHT THAT IT WOULD CAPTURE AND RELEASE WATER SIZING FOR THE IMPERVIOUS COVER THAT EXISTS TODAY. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, FOR THE PROPERTY THAT HAS LR, IT'S LIMITED TO 80% IMPERVIOUS COVER, ETCETERA, ETCETERA, SO THE DEN TENSION PONDS WOULD BE OVER — AT THE DENGS PONDS WOULD BE OVERSIZED REGARDLESS OF A SINGLE-FAMILY OR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TO CAPTURE WATER THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN AS A RESULT OF A HIGHER DENSITY. THE APPLICANT HAS CONCERNS WITH THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSIONS REPRESENTATION AND WOULD — RECOMMENDATIONS AND WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THAT. I'LL PAUSE HERE AND RESPOND TO QUESTIONS IN ANY ARISE. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: ALL THE PEOPLE, INCLUDING THE APPLICANT, IS LEDG REGISTERED IN FAVOR OF.

I THINK THEY'RE IN FAVOR OF DIFFERENT ASPECTS TO THE SF-OF, SO YOU NEED TO HEAR FROM ALL THEM, UNFORTUNATELY. THEY SHOULD BE BRIEF. I ASKED THOAM KEEP THEIR BREVITY.

MAYOR GARCIA: MR. BENNETT, MR. DAVID YOUNG AND MR. MARK CALISA. BOTH MR. YOUNG AND MR. CALISA INDICATED THEY WANTED TO SPEAK, BUT THEY ALSO WANTED TO DONATE THE TIME TO YOU, MR. BENNETT, SO AM I SEEING DOUBLE OR WHAT'S GOING ON HERE?

MAYOR, I DON'T BELIEVE THEY WISH TO SPEAK. THEY MAY WANT TO DONATE TIME TO ME, BUT I PROBABLY WON'T NEED IT.

MAYOR GARCIA: I'M GOING TO PUT NINE MINUTES ON THE CLOCK FOR YOU. GO AHEAD.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL, I'M JIM BENNETT AND I'M HERE TODAY TO REPRESENT YOU ON THIS ZONING CHANGES. MISS GLOW HAD INDICATED TO YOU THE PROPERTY IS ZONED GR CURRENTLY. WE HAVE ABOUT TWO ACRES ZONED MF-3. AND ABOUT AN ACRE ZONED MF-2. THE PROPOSAL THAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS TO ROLL IT BACK TO SF-6 ZONING AND TO CONSTRUCT NO MORE THAN 44 INDIVIDUAL SINGLE-FAMILY STRUCTURE BUILDINGS ON THE SITE. WE ARE WILLING TO LIMIT OUR IMPERVIOUS COVER TO 48%. IF YOU LOOK AT THE DENSITY THAT'S PROPOSED HERE, IT'S VERY CLOSE TO THE SF-3 REQUIREMENTS WHERE YOU GET ABOUT FIVE UNITS TO THE ACRE. WITH THE SF-6 ZONING THAT WE'RE PROPOSING AND THE REDUCED IMPERVIOUS COVER TO 48, THE ORDINANCE WOULD ALLOW US 55, THEN WE THINK THE CONDOMINIUM ZONING WOULD ALLOW MORE GREEN BASE SPACE THAN IT WOULD BE IF WE BENT WENT IN WITH A TRADITIONAL SINGLE-FAMILY 3 SUBDIVISION. THE WAY THE CON ZIP ACTUAL PLAN IS — CONCEPTUAL PLAN IS DESIGNED IS FOR HALF THE UNITS TO ENTER FROM RANDOM CIRCLE AND THE OTHER HALF TO EXIT AND ENTER THE SITE FROM EMERALD FOREST. THAT WAY WE'RE NOT OVERBURDENING ANY PARTICULAR STREET. EMERALD FOREST IS A CONTROLLED ENTRY POINT. IT HAS SIGNALIZATION AT THAT POINT. THE CENTER OF THE SITE CONTAINS A TRANSMISSION LINE, ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION LINE. WE ARE PROPOSING TO LANDSCAPE THAT, AND ONE SIDE OF THE PROJECT WILL BE CALLED CENTRAL PARK EAST AND CENTRAL PARK WEST, WITH THE LANDSCAPING IN A PARK SITTING FOR THE TENANTS WHO LIVE IN THERE. WE THINK WITH THE INCREASE OF IMPERVIOUS COVER THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS IMPOSED, THE 70%, THAT THAT JUST MAKES IT UNECONOMICAL FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. AND ONCE AGAIN, WE THINK WITH THIS PLAN YOU GET MORE GREEN SPACE THAN YOU WOULD AND REDUCE IMPERVIOUS COVER THAN YOU WOULD IF YOU WERE TO GO WITH THE SF-3 AND SRNL IF YOU DEVELOPED IT IN THE EXISTING ZONING. THE 44 UNITS AT 48% IMPERVIOUS COVER IS WELL BELOW WHAT THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES. I WILL BE AVAILABLE SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

MAYOR GARCIA: IS IT WHAT THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES OR WHAT THE ORDINANCE ALLOWS?

WHAT THE ORDINANCE ALLOWS. THE ORDINANCE LAWS IN THE SF-6 TO 55%. WE'RE WILLING TO HOLD OUR PROJECT TO 48%. THE ZONING ORDINANCE ON THE CURRENT TRACTS WOULD ALLOW 70 IN THE GR, I BELIEVE, AS MS. GLOW GLASGO HAD INDICATE INDICATED TO YOU, AND 60 IN THE MF AND THE LR ZONING. SO THE ROM BACK ZONING WOULD CERTAINLY BE IDEALLY MUCH BETTER THAN WHAT IS EXISTING ON THE SITE.

MAYOR GARCIA: QUESTIONS FOR MR. BENNETT? YOU WILL HAVE TIME FOR REBUTTAL AT THE END. ALBERTO GARCIA. AND YOU HAVE SIX MINUTES BECAUSE BLANCA HAS GIVEN YOU THREE.

GOOD AFTERNOON. I RESIDE AT 5504 EMERALD FOREST, WHICH IS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. WE DON'T HAVE TOO MUCH — WE DON'T HAVE ANY CONCERN WITH THE SF-6 ZONING; HOWEVER, AT YOUR MEETINGS WITH THE DEVELOPER AND THE OWNER, THEY HAD REPRESENTED THAT THEY WOULD AGREE TO A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY OF RESTRICTING THIS PROPERTY STRICTLY TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES. AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION THEY BACKED OUT OF THIS AND THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'VE HEARD MR. BENNETT COMMIT TO A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY OF STRICTLY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES. WHAT THEY HAD WANTED AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS STRICTLY AN SF-6, WHICH WOULD MEAN THAT THEY COULD TOMORROW CHANGE THEIR PLANS AND BUILD APARTMENTS AND DUPLEXES, WHICH WE DON'T HAVE ANY APARTMENTS WITH APARTMENTS OR DUPLEXES EXCEPT THAT'S NOT THE COMMITMENT AND THE PLANNING THAT WE HAVE DONE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. AND I MAY ADD THAT I'M HERE REPRESENTING THE SALEM WALLS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, EXISTING OF OVER 200 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTS THAT LIVE IN THAT AREA. ALSO APARTMENTS AND DUPLEXES THAT ARE LOCATED. WE HAVE ALSO TURNED IN A PETITION OPPOSING THE PLAN WITHOUT ANY CONDITIONAL OVERLAY WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION. AND AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION WE HAD A LARGE NUMBER OF RESIDENTS SHOWING UP THEY WERE ABLE TO GO IN THE EEFNTIONZ WHEN MOST OF THEM WERE WORKING AT THIS HOUR. OUR CONCERNS ABOUT THIS PROJECT IS — AND IF I MAY REFER TO THE —

MAYOR GARCIA: THERE'S A MIC OVER HERE. OKAY.

HINK I CAN. THE EN —

THE ENTIRE AREA HERE GOES DOWNHILL INTO A CREEK THAT FLOWS IMMEDIATELY TO THE NORTHBOUND DRI AND IT'S IN FACT THE NORTHBOUND DRI OF THE SITE PLAN. OUR HOME IS LOCATED IMMEDIATELY IN THIS CORNER HERE, IMMEDIATELY BEHIND ME OR BEHIND OUR HOME IS A CREEK THAT GOES UNDER A ROAD OF WHICH IS AN OPENING OF ABOUT EIGHT BY FOUR, EIGHT FEET BY FOUR FOOT OPENING. ALL OF THE WATER FROM THIS SITE WILL FLOW INTO THIS CREEK, INCLUDING THE WATER THAT WILL BE COMING ALSO FROM ACROSS THE STREET THAT GOES UNDERNEATH A CULVERT AND WILL THEN — RIGHT NOW IT'S FLOWING INTO THIS AREA. THE CREDIT UNION OPEN IN THIS CORNER, WHICH ALSO FEEDS INTO THIS CREEK, AND WHICH, MAY I POINT OUT, HAS CONTRIBUTED GREATLY TO FLOODING OF THE HOMES THAT ARE LOCATED BEHIND THE CREDIT UNION. AND THAT IS OUR FEAR OF THIS PROJECT. THE CREDIT UNION HAS TOTALLY DAMAGED AND MADE ALMOST UNINHABIT TABLE HOMESED BEHIND THE CREDIT UNION. AND THE CITY'S SUPPOSE AND MR. BENNETT'S RESPONSE IS THAT THE CREDIT UNION WAS BUILT ACCORDING TO CITY PLANNING REQUIREMENTS. AND THAT'S THE ONLY ANSWER WE CAN GET. WHEN WE WERE ASKING THE DEVELOPER, WELL, WHAT ASSURANCES DO WE HAVE THAT WHEN YOU HAVE BUILT 44 HOMES IN THIS AREA THAT THERE WILL NOT BE FLOODING AS CURRENTLY EXISTS RIGHT NOW? BECAUSE ALL OF THE HOMES — NOT ALL, BUT THERE IS SOME FLOODING OCCURRING IN THE HOMES THAT ARE LOCATED NORTH OF THIS TRACT. THEIR RESPONSE IS WE WILL MAKE THE RETENTION PONDS ACCORDING TO CITY CODE. AND THAT'S IT, NO MORE RESPONSIBILITY. AND SO WE HAVE SOME CONCERNS, AND WE TOOK OUR CONCERNS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THEY AGREED WITH US. THAT IS, THAT THERE IS A POTENTIAL FOR ALL OF THOSE HOMES TO BE FLOODED, AS IS PRESENTLY OCCURRING. AND DOWNSTREAM ON WILLIAMSON CREEK, I'M SURE ALL OF YOU ARE AWARE THAT THERE HAS BEEN EXTENSIVE FLOODING AND MANY HOMES — THE CITY I UNDERSTAND IS LOOKING AT BUYING SOME OF THOSE PROPERTIES BECAUSE THEY'RE FLOODED TOTALLY. A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO WITH THE MAJOR FLOODING THAT OCCURS, SEVERAL OF THOSE HOMES WERE COMPLETELY FLOODED TO THE POINT THAT THEY WERE GUTTED OUT AND HAD TO BE COMPLETELY REFURBISHED. SO THAT IS OUR CONCERN. WE LOVE THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN OF HOMES RATHER THAN APARTMENTS NEXT TO US OR RATHER THAN A GAS STATION OBVIOUSLY, BUT WE WOULD LIKE — WE LIKE WHAT THE CITY — THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID, SAYING YOU MUST PROTECT THE CITIZENS THAT LIVE NEXT TO YOU SO THAT THEIR HOMES DO NOT BECOME UNINHABITABLE. SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO PAY TAXES AFTER THAT BECAUSE THE REYESS, WHO ARE LOCATED IMMEDIATELY BEHIND THE CREDIT UNION HAVE NOW HAD THEIR TAX BILL REDUCED CONSIDERABLY BECAUSE THEIR HOME IS UNINHABITABLE BECAUSE OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CREDIT UNION. WE DON'T TRUST THE DEVELOPER WHEN THEY COME AND TELL US AT OUR MEETINGS, YES, WE WILL AGREE TO A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY WHEN THEY GO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS WE WANT SF-6 TOTALLY. SO WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY THAT WILL LIMIT IT TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES, AND THE REST OF THE CONDITIONS WE DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID. WE THINK THAT THEY TOOK THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS IN MIND. WE HAVE SOME REAL CONCERNS IF THEY ARE APARTMENTS AND DUPLEXES BUILT BECAUSE OF THE TRAFFIC THAT IT WOULD CREATE. I DON'T KNOW IF — I KNOW THAT SOME OF YOU LIVE CLOSE TO THAT AREA AND I KNOW THAT YOU'RE AWARE THAT EMERALD FOREST HAS NOW BECOME A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE. [ BUZZER SOUNDS ] GOING NORTH TO SOUTH FROM WILLIAM CANNON TO ST. ELMO. JUST IN OUR BLOCK WE'VE HAD FIVE MAJOR COLLISIONS OCCURRING WITHIN THE LAST TWO YEARS. MOST OF THOSE INVOLVING OUR HOME, THAT IS, CARS GOING OVER AND INTO OUR HOME. AND SO WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC. WE FEEL THAT THE PLAN CONCEPTUALLY AS PRESENTED HERE, WE DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH, BUT WE WOULD IF YOU HAD A MAJOR APARTMENT BEING BUILT. AND WE ALREADY HAVE THAT ACROSS THE STREET. AND I THINK THAT MEANS THAT I'M DONE?

MAYOR GARCIA: SURE. THANK YOU. MR. BENNETT, REBUTTAL? YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES.

COUNCIL, THE BROCHURE THAT YOU WERE GIVEN EARLIER IS A PROJECT THAT CURRENTLY IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION ON EMERALD FOREST. AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THAT, THE DESIGN OF THOSE ARE INDIVIDUAL BUILDINGS NOT CONNECTED WITH GREEN SPACES IN BETWEEN. THAT IS THE TYPE PROJECT THAT WE ARE BUILDING. I'M NOT SURE WHERE I MISSED MR. GARCIA, BUT WE ARE PROPOSING TO BUILD 44 SINGLE-FAMILY, INDEPENDENT RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS ON THIS 8.195 ACRE TRACT. AND THAT'S ALL WE INTEND TO BUILD ON IT. RELATIVE TO THE DRAINAGE TO REQUIRE US TO CAPTURE AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION WAS WAY EXCEEDING THE ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS, IN FACT, 15% MORE THAN THE ORDINANCE WOULD REQUIRE, WE THINK WITH OUR REDUCTION TO 48% IMPERVIOUS COVER TOTALLY ON THE TRACT, ON THE EIGHT-ACRE TRACT, THAT THAT IN EXCHANGE INSTEAD OF DOING THE 70%, SHOULD MAKE THE PROJECT A VIABLE PROJECT AND COMPATIBLE PROJECT. WE ARE PROTECTING THE SITE AND WILL BE REQUIRED TO PROTECT IT AS PER YOUR CITY CODE AS FAR AS RUNOFF, DETENTION AND WATER QUALITY. THAT WILL BE DESIGNED BY OUR ENGINEER. AND WITH THAT REDUCED AGREED IMPERVIOUS COVER OF 48%, THAT EVEN MAKES THE SITUATION BETTER THAN IT WOULD BE TO BUILD THE 70% POND, WHICH HAS TO BE RELEASE UNDERSTAND A 48-HOUR PERIOD BY CODE. SO THIS REDUCTION AND AGREED 48% IS CERTAINLY A VERY GOOD POSITION TO BE IN. THAT IS ALL WE'RE INTENDING TO BUILD IS THE SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS. AND I WILL BE AVAILABLE SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS.

MAYOR GARCIA: ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. BENNETT? THANK YOU, SIR. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH. SECONDED BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED NO? MOTION CARRIES. QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF OR MS. GLASGO? IS MR. HEINZ OR ANYBODY FROM WATERSHED PROTECTION HERE? LET'S HAVE SOMEBODY TO SPEAK TO THE ISSUE THAT MR. GARCIA BROUGHT UP.

ON DRAINAGE? WE HAVE A REPORT THAT THE WATERSHED DEPARTMENT STAFF WERE OUT THERE ON MARCH OF THIS YEAR, 2002, TO DISCUSS DPLOOD FLOODING ISSUES AND ALSO THAT THEY WERE WORKING ON A FEASIBILITY STUDY WHICH IS CURRENTLY 40% COMPLETE AND AN ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE OF 2005. THE WATERSHED DEPARTMENT IS LOOKING AT IS A CONCLUSION OF THIS REPORT THAT WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED IN 2005 THAT THERE MIGHT BE STRUCTURAL SOLUTIONS THAT WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED FOR THE FOLLOWING YEARS. THE PURPOSE OF THE MEETING WAS TO SEEK RESIDENTS' INPUT AND ALSO TO IDENTIFY FLOOD RISK STRUCTURES WITHIN THE MAIN BRANCH OF WILLIAMSON CREEK. I'D ALSO LIKE TO ADD THAT DAIJNAGE ISSUES USUALLY — DRAINAGE ISSUES USUALLY ADDRESSED AT THE TIME OF SITE PLAN, BUT IF THE DEVELOPER IS NOT REQUIRING A SITE PLAN BECAUSE THEER OOES NOT DISWIEGD THE LOT, THEN THAT SITE PLAN IS REQUIRED TO HAVE A DRAINAGE REQUIREMENT WHERE A POND IS REQUIRED TO CAPTURE AND RELEASE THE WATER AND WASTE WHERE IT DOES NOT FLOW ANY FASTER THAN THE WATER IS TODAY UNDER UNDEVELOPED CIRCUMSTANCES. SO THAT'S REALLY WHERE THE WATERSHED DEPARTMENT IS REGARDING DRAINAGE AND FUTURE PLANS. MAYOR, DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION?

MAYOR GARCIA: QUESTIONS FOR MR. GLASGO?

GOODMAN: YES, MAYOR. IT DOES NOT ANSWER MINE.

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYOR PRO TEM.

GOODMAN: ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY WAS A VERY CONTROVERSIAL ONE BACK WHEN THE PARTICULAR ZONING THAT EXISTS NOW WAS APPROVED, OVER A GREAT DEAL OF OPPOSITION FROM SEVERAL NEIGHBORHOODS IN THIS AREA. SO WHAT I'M WANTING TO KNOW TOO IS WHETHER THERE IS ANY MECHANISM FOR US TO HAVE MORE THAN — EVEN MORE THAN THE 15% HIGHER THAN CURRENT WATERSHED PROTECTION FOR FLOODING IMPACT AS PART OF ANYTHING THAT WE APPROVE HERE. EVEN BEFORE DEVELOPMENT THERE IS RUNOFF AND THERE IS FLOODING AND THERE IS EXACERBATION FROM THE TOP AGRICULTURE RAFFY — TOPOGRAPHY OF THIS PARTICULAR TIGHT SOOEUT. AND I WOULD SAY AS AN UNLEARNED PERSON LOOKING AT THE SITE, THAT YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DEVELOP THIS UP TO 70% IMPERVIOUS COVER BECAUSE OF THE SLOPE, UNLESS YOU WANTED TO BULLDOZE A WHOLE LOT OF IT AND BUILD UP A WHOLE LOT OF IT. SO I'M WONDERING ABOUT THAT AS WELL, WHETHER IN FACT THERE IS ANY REGIONAL DETENTION IN THE AREA TO TAKE SOME OF THE BURDEN THAT EXIST NOW, JUST A LITTLE BIT FURTHER NORTH OF THIS SITE IS WHERE NEW AND SIGNIFICANT FLOODING BY WILLIAMSON CREEK HAS CAUSED SOME FOLKS TO BE FLOODED OUT OF THEIR HOME AND FOR US TO HELP PURCHASE THOSE HOMES BECAUSE THEY'RE NO LONGER ABLE TO BE LIVED IN. AND THAT IS BECAUSE OF THE AACCUMULATED VOLUME AND VELOCITY OF WATER WHEN WE HAVE A GOOD RAIN IN WILLIAMSON. WILLIAMSON CREEK IS, I'M SURE EVERYBODY KNOWS, HAD LITTLE PROTECTION IN IT. IT WAS SORT OF THE WRITTEN OFF CREEK. MANY YEARS AGO WHEN WE WERE FIRST DEVELOPING WATERSHED ORDINANCES FOR PROTECTION OF WATER QUALITY AND WATER QUANTITY AND FLOODING. SO EVEN THOUGH 44 RESIDENTIAL UNITS CERTAINLY SOUNDS BETTER THAN THE APPROVED ZONING, I'M NOT SURE THAT THE APPROVED ZONING COULD ACTUALLY BE BUILT TO THE ASSUMPTIONS THAT SOMEONE MIGHT MAKE FOR IT, SO FOR MYSELF I REALLY WANT ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENGINEERING INPUT FOR ANY DECISION THAT WE MAKE HERE.

WELL, WE WOULD HAVE TO GET ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM WATERSHED STAFF, IF THEY HAVE ENOUGH DATA FROM THE APPLICANT TO ASSESS THE IMPACT. SO WE DON'T HAVE THAT TODAY OTHER THAN JUST VERY GENERALLY WHAT THE MAXIMUMS MIGHT BE.

GOODMAN: WELL, THERE WAS ONE MORE ISSUE, JUST FOR ANYBODY WHO DOESN'T REMEMBER IT BACK WHEN THIS FIRST CAME THROUGH. I THINK IT WAS THE FIRST TIME IT CAME THROUGH. AND THAT WAS THE PLAN AT THAT TIME TURNED OUT TO BE NOT LEGITIMATE IN THE ASSUMPTION OF VELOCITY AND VOLUME OF WATER IN THE RUNOFF PLAN THAT WAS PROPOSED FOR THOSE IEWSESACK THEN. IN FACT, I THINK IT WAS THE FIRST TIME THAT A TECHNICAL APPROVAL WAS EVER APPEALED IN ONE BECAUSE THOSE NUMBERS WERE SO OFF KILTER. AND IN THIS PARTICULAR PLACE FLOODING WAS AN ISSUE EVEN BACK THEN. SO FOR MYSELF, POSSIBLY I — HI, MAYOR, BOTH MAYORS. FOR MYSELF, I POSSIBLY COULD DO A YES VOTE ON FIRST READING ONLY, WITH NO PROMISES FOR ANYTHING BECAUSE THIS SITE WAS VIRTUALLY UNBUILDABLE TO ME.

MAYOR GARCIA: BEFORE WE GO TO MOTIONS, I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE YOU TO JACOB PORTER. HE'S A FIFTH GRADER AT BARTON HILLS ELEMENTARY AND HE'S THE HONORARY MAYOR FOR THE DAY. [ONE MOMENT, PLEASE, WHILE CAPTIONERSNO CARRIERRINGCONNECT 1200? BY MR. GARCIA, THAT WAS DAMAGED IN THAT FLOODING.

WE WILL GET WHATEVER INFORMATION TO INCLUDE IN THE —

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM. IS THERE A SECOND?

YES, I WOULD SECOND IT, BUT WITH A COMMENT. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE STORY ABOUT THE CREDIT UNION. AND WHAT HAPPENED TO THE HOMES AFTER THAT PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT HAPPENED. AND I'M HOPING WE CAN GET ENGINEERING INFORMATION THAT — THAT THE MAYOR PRO TEM HAS ASKED FOR AND DRAINAGE INFORMATION, BECAUSE WE — WE HAVE THAT EXPERIENCE AS AN ACTUAL. SO LET'S — LET'S BE SURE THAT IF WE APPROVE THIS OR ANYTHING ON THIS LAND, THAT — THAT WE DON'T HAVE THE CREDIT UNION EXPERIENCE AGAIN.

WE WILL GET THAT INFORMATION TO YOU, TOO.

GRIFFITH: OKAY. GOOD.

MAYOR GARCIA: THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND. FOR FIRST READING. FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

OPPOSED NO. MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF 7-0 —6-0-1 WITH COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER TEMPORARILY OFF THE DAIS BECAUSE OF A POTENTIAL CONFLICT. THEN WE WILL GO TO Z-4.

GLASGO: Z-4 IS C14-02-22 LOCATED ON EAST RIVERSIDE DRIVE CURRENTLY ZONED L.R. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONING. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A CHANGE TO L.R. BY ADDING A MIXED USE COMPONENT WHICH WOULD ALLOW FOR — FOR 40 — 40 RESIDENTIAL UNITS. I — I'M GETTING MY NUMBERS CONFUSED WITH THE PREVIOUS CASE. I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU A BRIEF HISTORY. I'M GOING TO MOVE OVER TO THE MIC VERY QUICKLY. MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS, THIS CASE IS WEST OF SOUTH PLEASANT VALLEY ROAD, NORTH OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE. THIS WAS PROPERTY THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY OWNED INITIALLY IN — A LONG, LONG TIME AGO, MANY YEARS AGO, BY ROBERTA CRENSHAW AND IT WAS A SOMEWHAT MASSER PLANNED COMMUNITY, IF YOU WILL, WITH SPECIFIC LAND USES THAT WERE DESIGNATED FOR THIS — FOR THIS PROPERTY THAT WAS APPROXIMATELY 500 ACRES. THE — THE MASTER PLAN IS ATTACHED TO A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, WHICH HAS SPECIFIC LAND USES AND DENSITY DESIGNATIONS FOR THOSE TRACTS THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN RESIDENTIAL. GIVEN THE HISTORY OF WHAT WAS LAID OUT AS A COMMUNITY THAT WOULD BE — SURROUNDED BY MULTI-FAMILY AND ALSO WITH SOME RETAIL USES, STAFF DID NOT RECOMMEND THE CHANGE IN ZONING SIMPLY BECAUSE WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS CONCEPTUAL PLAN THAT WAS CREATED SEVERAL YEARS AGO, IT WAS TO CREATE A BALANCE OF LAND USES, A BALANCE SO THAT THOSE RESIDENTIAL UNITS THAT WILL BE BUILT IN THE AREAS THAT WERE DESIGNATED WITH A DENSITY LIMITATION, THAT THEY WOULD HAVE SOME RETAIL SPACES TO WHICH THEY COULD WALK OTHER THAN HAVING TO GO ALL THE WAY TO PLEASANT VALLEY ROAD WHERE THEY DO TODAY, WHERE YOU HAVE RETAIL DEVELOPMENT. THE COLORFUL MAP THAT I HAVE HERE, AN AERIAL THAT SHOWS YOU WHERE THAT DEVELOPMENT OCCURRED, THIS IS RIVERSIDE DRIVE, SOUTH PLEASANT VALLEY ROAD. THE TRACT IN QUESTION IS RIGHT HERE, ZONED L.R. THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO CONSTRUCT SOME RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND NOT HAVE ANY RETAIL. THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION HAS RECOMMENDED THE CHANGE IN ZONING TO L.R. WITH AN M.U. COMPONENT. THE COMMISSION ALSO ASKED THAT BEFORE SECOND AND THIRD READINGS, THE APPLICANT AMEND THE EXISTING RESTRICTIVE COVENANT WHICH HAS AN ALLOCATION OF NUMBER OF UNITS FOR SEVERAL TRACTS THAT DO NOT INCLUDE THIS PROPERTY. STAFF ALSO ASKED THAT IF YOU GO WITH THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION OF L.R.-M.U. THAT YOU DO THAT ON FIRST READING ONLY AND THAT THE APPLICANT SUBMIT A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AMENDMENT THAT WOULD THEN MODIFY THE DENSITY ALLOCATIONS SO THAT THERE WOULD NOT BE A REMOVAL OF DENSITY THAT MIGHT BE ACHIEVED ON THE REMAINING TRACTS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN DEVELOPED. SO WE ARE JUST SHOWING YOU THIS APPLICATION THE APPLICANT DISAGREES WITH THE REQUIREMENT TO AMEND THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT. WE JUST WANTED TO SHOW YOU THAT THERE IS A NEED TO AMEND THE COVENANT. OTHERWISE SOMEONE IS GOING TO BE SHORT OF DENSITY AT SOME FUTURE DATE IF THAT ADJUSTMENT IS NOT MADE VIA THE COVENANT WHICH WAS PART OF THE REZONING CASE SEVERAL YEARS AGO. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. I WILL BE GLAD TO RESPOND TO QUESTION.

MAYOR GARCIA: QUESTIONS FOR MS. GLASGO? IF NOT, MS. MEAD IS HERE REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT. REV I DON'T HAVE A CARD FROM YOU, MS. MEAD. I JUST PICKING IT OFF THE AGENDA.

MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS, THANK YOU, I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT SUBMITTING A CARD. I GUESS REALLY I WOULD REALLY JUST WANT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS. WE DO COMPLETELY DISAGREE WITH STAFF AND LEGAL WITH RESPECT TO WHETHER A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AMENDMENT IS REQUIRED. WE DON'T THINK, AS YOU READ THE ORDINANCE, AS A LEGAL DOCUMENT, THAT IT DOES REQUIRE AN AMENDMENT FOR US TO DO RESIDENTIAL ON THIS TRACT. WE DISAGREE WITH MS. GLASGO'S STATEMENT THAT THE COVENANT RESTRICTS US FROM DOING SINGLE FAMILY ON THIS TRACT. IT EXPRESSLY DOES NOT DO THAT. AND NATD ARE IN ADDITION, I DISAGREE THAT THE COMMISSION DIRECTED US TO AMEND THE COVENANT PRIOR TO THIRD READING. WHAT ZONING AND PLATTING DIRECTED WAS THAT THE CASE WOULD NOT GO TO THIRD READING UNTIL IT WAS DETERMINED WHETHER WE WOULD NEED A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AMENDMENT. I REALLY FEEL IT NECESSARY TO MAKE THOSE — THOSE CORRECTIONS ON THE RECORD BECAUSE WE DO DISAGREE THAT A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AMENDMENT IS NECESSARY. HOWEVER, WE UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE COMING TO YOU TO ASK FOR THE ZONING CHANGE AND WE DO UNDERSTAND THAT FROM STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE AND FROM LEGAL'S PERSPECTIVE A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AMENDMENT IS REQUIRED. SO WE HAVE SAID IF — IF THAT IS THE DETERMINATION THAT IS FINALLY MADE, THAT'S THE FIRST THAT I HAVE GOTTEN THAT DETERMINATION WAS TODAY. BUT IF THAT'S THE DETERMINATION THAT'S FINALLY MADE, WE WILL — WE WILL ABIDE BY THAT. WE WILL DO IT. WHAT WE WANT TO DO, ARE 40 RESIDENTIAL UNITS. WE ARE ASKING FOR L.R. THESE WILL BE CONDOMINIUMS, WE ARE ASKING FOR L.R.-M.U. FOR TWO REASONS. THIS IS A VERY SMALL SITE. IT'S 3.25 ACRES. IF THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO DO SOME RETAIL, WE WILL DO SOME RETAIL. HOWEVER, OUR GOAL IS TO DO CONDOMINIUMS ON THE SITE BECAUSE OF THE CHARACTERISTICS ON THE SITE, SOME ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES, POSSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES, AND THE SIZE OF IT, WE REALLY DON'T THINK THERE'S GOING TO BE ANY ROOM FOR ANY RETAIL. WHAT WE WANT — THE MINIMUM THAT WILL WORK FOR US FROM A FINANCIAL PERSPECTIVE IS 36 UNITS AND WE THINK WITH 36 UNITS AND ADEQUATE PARKING TO KEEP PEOPLE OFF THE STREET WE REALLY WON'T HAVE SPACE FOR RETAIL. THE SECOND REASON THAT WE ARE ASKING FOR L.R.-M.U. AS OPPOSED TO M.F.6, FOR SOME REASON OUR DEVELOPMENT SHOULD NOT HAPPEN, WE WANT THE POSSIBILITY FOR RETAIL TO BE THERE FOR THAT SITE. WE DON'T WANT TO TAKE THE L.R. AWAY COMPLETELY BECAUSE, AS YOU KNOW IN THE WORLD OF DEVELOPMENT, SOMETIMES DEVELOPMENTS DON'T HAPPEN. THE L.R. HAS BEEN THERE SINCE '72. THERE HAVE BEEN NO PROPOSES FOR ANY RETAIL ON THAT SITE AT ALL. AND IN OUR DISCUSSIONS WITH THE COMMUNITY, ALTHOUGH THEY DON'T WANT US TO DO 40 UNITS, THEY DON'T WANT RETAIL ON THAT SITE, EITHER. AND THERE'S — THERE'S HEAVY, HEAVY AMOUNT OF RETAIL AT PLEASANT VALLEY. WHICH IS FAIRLY CLOSE TO THIS DEVELOPMENT. THERE'S A HEAVY AMOUNT OF RETAIL DOWN AT MONTOPOLIS ON — GOING THE OTHER DIRECTION AND THERE'S ALSO A RETAIL DEVELOPMENT BEING CONSTRUCTED DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM US. SO I THINK — I THINK THERE IS AN ADEQUATE BALANCE IN THAT — IN THAT COMMUNITY. WE THINK THIS WILL BE POSITIVE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD, PEOPLE WILL OWN THEM, WE THINK THAT IT WILL BE AN ASSET TO THAT BLOCK.

MAYOR GARCIA: QUESTIONS FOR MS. MEAD. MAYOR PRO TEM?

GOODMAN: JUST TO BE CLEAR, ALL THROUGH OUR BACKUP IT SAYS 30 UNITS. YOU HAVE BEEN SAYING MORE LIKE 40, LIKE THAT NUMBER SHOULD BE 40.

THAT ACTUALLY MAYOR PRO TEM WAS AN ERROR ORIGINALLY IN THE — IN THE ORIGINAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION. AND WE CLARIFIED THAT AT ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION SAYING THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE 36 TO 40 UNITS AND THAT — THAT — BECAUSE OF THAT, THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION PUT A — PROPOSED A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY THAT WE WOULD NOT HAVE MORE THAN 40 UNITS.

GOODMAN: OKAY, THANK YOU. REV...

MAYOR GARCIA: I DON'T HAVE ANYBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS PARTICULAR ONE, MS. GLASGO, DO YOU — ANYBODY HERE FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD?

GLASGO: [INAUDIBLE - NO MIC].

MAYOR GARCIA: SO YOU DON'T GET TIME FOR REBUTTAL, MS. MEAD. [ LAUGHTER ]. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

SO MOVE.

MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH, I WILL SECOND THAT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. OPPOSED, NO. MOTION CARRIES. NOW, DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM? THIS IS FOR FIRST READING, MS. GLASGO?

GLASGO: YES.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. AND THE — AGAIN, MS. MEAD, IF I COULD ASK YOU, YOU ARE OKAY WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION?

ABSOLUTELY. WE AGREED TO THE LIMIT OF NO MORE THAN 40 UNITS. THEY PUT AN ADDITIONAL RESTRICTION IF WE DO DEVELOP RETAIL WE WOULD — I'M SORRY RESIDENTIAL ON THIS SITE, WE WOULD NOT DO ANY RESIDENTIAL USES THAT GENERATED MORE THAN 500 TRIPS PER DAY, WE AGREED TO BOTH OF THOSE CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS.

MAYOR GARCIA: I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THIS ITEM.

ALVAREZ: MOVE APPROVAL, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ.

THOMAS: SECOND.

MAYOR GARCIA: SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS. DISCUSSION? MATTER TEE, DO YOU WANT TO SAY — MARTY, DO YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING?

I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE MOTION IS CLEAR, WHAT THE STAFF IS ADVISING YOU, WHAT THE LAW DEPARTMENT IS ADVISING YOU IS THAT THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT NEEDS TO BE AMENDED BEFORE SECOND AND THIRD READING. SO I'M HOPING THAT THE MOTION INCLUDES THAT REQUIREMENT THAT THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT BE AMENDED TO ACCOMMODATE THIS CHANGE AND TO ACCOMMODATE — AND TO INCLUDE THESE — THIS PARTICULAR LOT IN — IN THE TABLE ON LIMITATIONS IN TERMS OF THE DENSITY REQUIREMENTS. REV.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ, DOES THAT MOTION INCLUDE THAT —

ALVAREZ: WELL, I BELIEVE THAT'S INCLUDED IN PLANNING COMMISSION OR ZONING AND PLATTING CHIG'S RECOMMENDATION. — COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION. I GUESS WE CAN HAVE — I GUESS STAFF HAS MADE THEIR DETERMINATION, IS THAT — IS THAT —

YES, WE HAVE MADE OUR DETERMINATION THAT WE BELIEVE THAT THE AMENDMENT IS REQUIRED. I BELIEVE THAT THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION'S INSTRUCTION OR THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION COMING FORWARD IS THAT THAT DETERMINATION BE MADE BEFORE SECOND AND THIRD READING. SO WHAT WE ARE RECOMMENDING IS THAT THAT REQUIREMENT BE IMPOSED. AND WE ARE — IT IS BASED UPON TWO THINGS. IT'S BASED UPON OUR INTERPRETATION, IT IS ALSO BASED UPON OUR BELIEF THAT ALSO THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT IS CHANGED AND AMENDED, YOU WILL HAVE A VERY DIFFICULT TRACKING PROBLEM ON IMPERVIOUS COVER. SO WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT THAT REQUIREMENT BE IMPOSED, THAT IS THAT THE — THAT THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT BE AMENDED.

ALVAREZ: WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY — THE DIFFICULT PROCESS FOR TRACKING IMPERVIOUS COVER?

WELL, YOU HAVE BEEN GIVEN A YELLOW SHEET, A HANDOUT. WHAT YOU WILL SEE THERE IS THERE IS A LISTING OF THE DWELLING UNITS AND THE DENSITY AND THE ACRES AND YOU WILL FIND THAT THE TOTAL OF THE — OF THE LIST IS 400 AND THAT THE — THE TOTAL NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS IS — IS 4,658. THAT CHART DOES NOT INCLUDE THIS PARTICULAR LOT. AND WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS TO AMEND THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT TO INCLUDE THIS — TO INCLUDE THIS DEVELOPMENT SHOULD THE ZONING GO FORWARD AND SHOULD THE ZONING CHANGE. SO THAT WHEN WE GET ON THE GROUND AND WE START TRACKING THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS THROUGHOUT THIS ENTIRE PLANNED TRACK, WE DO NOT EXCEED THAT TOTAL OF 4,658. OR IF YOU — OR IF AN AMENDED RESTRICTIVE COVENANT COMES FORWARD INCREASING THAT TO ACCOMMODATE THIS LOT, WE ARE STILL ABLE TO TRACK THE NUMBER OF TOTAL DWELLING — TOTAL NUMBER OF DWELLINGS FOR THE ENTIRE PARCEL. WE HAVE HAD DIFFICULTIES IN THE PAST WHERE WE — WHERE WE HAVE NOT HAD GOOD TRACKING. WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO IS MAKE SURE THAT THE TRACKING STAYS IN PLACE FOR THIS PLANNED UNIT AS A WHOLE. AND WHAT I WOULD DO AT THIS POINT IS DEFER TO MS. GLASGO TO MAKE SURE THAT I HAVE SAID EVERYTHING CORRECTLY AS FAR AS THE STAFF'S POSITION IS CONCERNED. TO SEE IF SHE WANTS TO ADD ANYTHING ELSE TO WHAT I HAVE TO SAY.

GLASGO: I DON'T NEED TO ADD ANYTHING.

ALVAREZ: WELL, IF YOU COULD, PUT UP THE MAP, WITH THE DIFFERENT TRACTS, BECAUSE IF IT HINGES ON THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS, I BELIEVE SOME OF THOSE TRACTS ARE PART OF THE COLORADO RIVER PARK, AND — WHICH TRACTS ARE THOSE?

GLASGO: THE COLORADO RIVER TRACTS ARE ALREADY — WHEN WE DID THAT, THE AMENDMENT WAS JUSTIFIED TO — ADJUSTED TO ACCOMMODATE THAT — ACCOMMODATE THAT THROUGH THE REZONING. THE TRACTS AND THE — THE APPLICANT HAD MADE OTHER ADJUSTMENTS FOR OTHER — FOR THAT — THIS IS THE COLORADO RIVER TRACTS. THE REMAINING TRACTS THAT STILL — ARE A PART OF THE ALLOCATION, EXCLUDING THAT, THAT THEREFORE — IF COUNCIL OBVIOUSLY ON FIRST READING APPROVES THE AMENDMENT, THE — THE ZONING CHANGE, THAT THE COVENANT WOULD BE AMENDED TO ADJUST TO INCREASE THE NUMBER UPWARDS SO THAT FUTURE DEVELOPMENT WOULD ALL BE ASSIGNED THE ALLOCATION AS INDICATED ON THE CHART. THAT'S WHAT IT WOULD DO TO INCLUDE THIS TRACT TO THE CHART AND THE NEW — THE NEW UNITS THAT YOU ARE ADDING AND THAT WOULD BRING IT UP TO ACCOMMODATE SO THAT EVERYBODY HAS A FAIR SHARE SHOULD THEY DEVELOP, REDEVELOP OR OTHERWISE IN THE FUTURE.

ALVAREZ: OKAY. WELL, I THINK THAT I WOULD LIKE TO KIND OF DISCUSS THAT BETWEEN SECOND AND THIRD READING. BUT I GUESS WE CAN PROCEED AS IS. WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION, WITH THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION. I GUESS THAT'S WHAT I WOULD PROPOSE.

GLASGO: YEAH. THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION INDICATED THAT IF WE DETERMINED THAT THE COVENANT NEEDS TO BE AMENDED, THEN THEY ASKED THAT IT'S DONE BEFORE THIRD READING.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. FURTHER DISCUSSION? FURTHER QUESTIONS? IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED, NO. MOTION CARRIES. THAT'S — THAT'S ALL OF THE ITEMS THAT WE HAVE IN ZONING AND PLATTING — ZONING, I GUESS.

THANK YOU, COUNCIL.

MAYOR GARCIA: AND — AND WE ARE — IT'S NOW TIME TO LISTEN TO SOME MUSIC AND — AND MAYOR JACOB — LET'S SEE, JACOB PORTER IS GOING TO TAKE OVER FROM HERE. DO WE HAVE THE MUSICIANS HERE? DURING THIS BREAK, THE COUNCIL WILL ALSO — WILL GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS ITEMS THAT WE — THAT WE HAVE ANNOUNCED PREVIOUSLY THAT WE WERE NOT ABLE TO CONSIDER IN EXECUTIVE SESSION TO LISTEN TO THE ATTORNEYS TO GET PRIVATE CONSULTATION WITH OUR ATTORNEYS, SO WE WILL BE DOING THAT — ON THE ITEMS THAT I PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED. AND THOSE — AS FAR AS THE — AS FAR AS THE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA ARE ITEMS 21, 22, 30 AND 56. AND AT 6:00 WE WILL HAVE A PUBLIC — PUBLIC HEARINGS, BUT THOSE PROBABLY WILL NOT START PROBABLY UNTIL CLOSER TO 7:00. SO — SO THE MAYOR AND I ARE NOW GOING TO INTRODUCE SOME MUSIC AND — AND GET ON WITH THE — WITH THE SHOW. READY, MAYOR? HE SAYS GUESS SO, HOPE SO. [ONE MOMENT PLEASE FOR CHANGE IN CAPTIONERS]NO CARRIERRINGCONNECT 1200

MAYOR GARCIA: AND WHEREAS JACOB WANTED TO BE MAYOR FOR A DAY BECAUSE HE'S RESPONSIBLE AND WOULD LIKE — WOULD MAKE GOOD, WELL THOUGHT OUT DECISIONS, AND BECAUSE HE MAY LIKE — MAY LIKE TO RUN FOR PUBLIC OFFICE AND HAVING ONE DAY OF EXPERIENCE WOULD BE VERY SIGNIFICANT. I'M HAVING TROUBLE, JACOB. I DON'T KNOW. I'VE BEEN READING ALL AFTERNOON. AND WHEREAS JACOB IS CONCERNED ABOUT PROTECTING THE GREENBELT AND TOWN LAKE AND WOULD LIKE TO MAKE AUSTIN ROADS SAFER. NOW THEREFORE I GUS GARCIA, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS, DO HERE BY PROCLAIM JACOB RYAN PORTER AS MAYOR FOR A DAY IN AUSTIN. AND I PRESENT THIS PROCLAMATION TO YOU, JACOB. [ APPLAUSE ]. NOW, YOU CAN READ THIS.

WHEN YOU THINK OF CHEYENNE, MOST PEOPLE THINK OF THE CAPITAL OF WYOMING IN THE SOUTHWEST PART OF THE STATE, BUT OUR CHEYENNE TODAY IS THE HOTTEST NEW GROUP IN AUSTIN, TEXAS. THEY COMBINE GREAT TALENT AND ENTHUSIASM AND ENTERTAIN ANY CROWD. THEIR MUSIC RANGES FROM OLD COUNTRY TO THE NEWEST POP HITS, SO PLEASE JOIN ME IN WELCOMING CHEYENNE. [ APPLAUSE ].

THIS IS A SONG THAT MARK ASKED ME TO WRITE, SO I DID. IT TURNS OUT WE LIKED IT AND THEY ASKED ME TO SING IT TODAY.

LET YOUR RAY OF SUNSHINE THAT I'M SEEING THROUGH THE TREES. M M IS IT ALL RIGHT TO BE SCARED MAY SOMETIME, LIKE THE DAY THAT YOU LEFT ME. (music) I KNOW THAT HEAVEN SEEMS SO FAR AWAY, BUT IT'S A STRAIGHT SHOT FROM WHERE YOU LEFT ON YOUR LAST DAY (music). SO DON'T STOP WHEN YOU REACH THE PEARLY GATES. DON'T LOOK BACK UNTIL YOU MAKE IT ALL THE WAY (music). (music) YOUR WORDS WILL SURELY MAKE ME CRY. PROMISE ME YOU'LL GO THE DISTANCE (music). SO WILL I. (music) IT'S TOO LATE TO TELL YOU. CAN YOU HEAR ME THROUGH THE CLOUDS? (music) I'LL DO WHAT I CAN NOT TO FAIL YOU. I JUST NEED A BREAK RIGHT NOW. (music) AND I'LL TRY TO BE WHAT WE ALL KNOW I CAN BE (music). SINCE YOU PASSED THE DEVIL SURE HAS BEEN HARD ON ME (music). (music) SO DON'T STOP WHEN YOU REACH THE PEARLY GATES. DON'T LOOK BACK UNTIL YOU MAKE IT ALL THE WAY. (music) YOUR WORLD WOULD SURELY MAKE ME CRY, SO PROMISE ME YOU'LL GO THE DISTANCE, AND SO WILL I. (music) REMEMBER HOW I TRIED TO PROVE YOU WRONG BACK THEN. (music) THROUGH IT ALL, YOU WERE ALWAYS MY BEST FRIEND. (music) SO I WON'T STOP UNTIL I REACH THE PEARLY GATES. I WON'T LOOK BACK UNTIL I MAKE IT ALL THE WAY, YEAH. (music) AND WHEN I'M DONE I WANT TO SEE YOU IN THE SKY. PROMISE ME YOU'LL GO THE DISTANCE, AND SO WILL I (music). OH, I... I'LL GO THE DISTANCE. [ APPLAUSE ]

THANKS FOR HAVING ME. THIS IS OUR SCHEDULE. WE PLAY AT COUPLAND DANCE HALL ON MAY THE 31ST. WE ALSO PLAY OTHER PLACES AROUND TOWN. YOU CAN LOOK AT OUR WEBSITE AT CHEYENNECOUNTRY.COM. AND IF YOU WOULD LIKE, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THAT SONG. MY DAD GAVE ME THAT SONG AFTER HE PASSED AWAY ABOUT THREE OR FOUR MONTHS AGO. AND MY LIFE'S NEVER BEEN THE SAME SINCE. AND SO I WANTED EVERYBODY IN THE CITY HALL AND THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND THEIR FAMILY, THANK YOU FOR EVERYTHING. YOU'RE GREAT PEOPLE TO WORK WITH AND WORK FOR. AND I APPRECIATE YOU, APPRECIATE THE MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBERS, EVERYONE. IT'S VERY NICE TO WORK WITH YOU. SO THIS GUY RIGHT HERE IS A GREAT PERSON TOO. HE WROTE THAT SONG IN ABOUT 10 MINUTES FROM START TO FINISH. IT WAS DIVINELY GUIDED. EVERYBODY GO THE DISTANCE. GOD BLESS. [ APPLAUSE ]

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYOR, THE MAY WE DO THIS IS WE READ THE PROCLAMATION, BUT BEFORE WE DO THAT, WE ASK FOR THE PERSON THAT'S HERE TO RECEIVE THE NATIONAL TOURISM WEEK IF HE COULD JOIN US. THERE YOU GO. OKAY.

BE IT KNOWN THAT WHEREAS AUSTIN FORMALLY WELCOMES MORE THAN 10 MILLION ANNUAL VISITORS TO ENJOY OUR CITY'S HERITAGE, MUSIC AND NATURAL BEAUTY, AND WE APPRECIATE THE SIGNIFICANT IMPACT THEY MAKE ON OUR ECONOMY AND WHEREAS WE ABSOLUTE THE 30,000 PEOPLE EMPLOYED IN AUSTIN FOR THEIR FRIENDLINESS, DEDICATION AND HARD WORK IN MAKING OUR CITY A PREMIERE CITY IN THE NATION AND WHEREAS TOURISM LIKELY — TOURISM LIKEWISE TRIBUTES TO CULTURAL EXCHANGE AND DIVERSIFICATION, CHARACTERISTICS FOR WHICH AUSTIN IS WELL-KNOWN, NOW THEREFORE I, JACOB PORTER, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS, FOR A DAY, HERE BY PROCLAIM MAY 4TH THROUGH 11TH 2002 AS NATIONAL TOURISM WEEK IN AUSTIN. [ APPLAUSE ]

HI, I'M SCOTT OWINGS. I HEAD UP THE TOURISM DEPARTMENT AT THE VISITORS AND CONVENTION BUREAU. AND ON BEHALF OF THEM AND THE ENTIRE HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY OF AUSTIN, WE WANT TO THANK THE MAYOR, THE MAYOR OF THE DAY AND THE COUNCIL FOR ACKNOWLEDGING THE IMPORTANCE OF TOURISM TO OUR CITY BY RECOGNIZING NATIONAL TOURISM WEEK. AUSTIN IS KNOWN AS A CITY WITH AN EXTREMELY FRIENDLY AND CASUAL ATMOSPHERE. SO AS WE CELEBRATE TOURISM WEEK IT'S A TIME TO REMIND ALL OF US THE IMPORTANCE OF ALWAYS CONTINUING THAT TRADITION OF EXTENDING THAT HAND OF GENUINE TEXAS HOSPITALITY TO VISITORS TO OUR CITY. SO THIS WEEKEND WE CAN GET IT STARTED, SO AS WE GO OUT AND ENJOY THE ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICTS, IF WE'RE DOWN ON TOWN LAKE WATCHING THE CHINESE DRAGON BOAT RACES, IF WE'RE WANTING TO STEP BACK INTO THE 60'S AT EYORE'S BIRTHDAY PARTY OR EVEN GOING TO THE TEXAS STATE HISTORY MUSEUM, WHICH BY THE WAY, THEY'RE CELEBRATING THEIR FIRST YEAR ANNIVERSARY AND THEY'VE HAD OVER 770,000 VISITORS COME BY THIS PAST YEERKS SO IT'S EXCITE EXCITING FOR THEM. SO WHATEVER YOU'RE DOING THIS WEEKEND, REMEMBER THAT THE PERSON RIGHT NEXT TO YOU VERY LIKELY COULD BE A VISITOR. SO BE FRIENDLY AND BE READY TO PROVIDE SUGGESTIONS OR TIPS ON WHAT TO DO IN OUR GREAT TOWN. THANK YOU AGAIN FOR RECOGNIZING US THIS WEEK. [ APPLAUSE ]

MAYOR GARCIA: WE'RE GOING TO PRESENT SOME CERTIFICATES TO THE WINNERS OF THE COLORING CONTEST FROM KINDERGARTEN, SECOND GRADE, AND THE ART CONTEST WINNERS NO THE THIRD THROUGH FIFTH GRADE. AND THE MAYOR WILL READ THE CERTIFICATE ITSELF AND I'LL READ THE NAMES.

CITY OF AUSTIN CERTIFICATE OF CONGRATULATIONS. THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT HAVING BEEN SELECTED BY RESIDENTS, ORGANIZATION MEMBERS AND BUSINESS PEOPLE IN HIS NEIGHBORHOOD AS A WINNER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF THE FUTURE COLORING CONTEST FOR KINDERGARTEN THROUGH SECOND GRADE IS RICKY FLORES, BROOK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.

MAYOR GARCIA: AND IT SAYS THAT RICKY FLORES FROM BROOK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IS DESERVING OF PUBLIC ACLAIM AND RECOGNITION AND THIS CERTIFICATE — WE ARE DOING A TAG TEAM HERE, OKAY, GUYS. THIS CERTIFICATE IS PRESENTED IN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF HIS ACHIEVEMENTS ON THIS 25TH DAY OF APRIL IN THE YEAR 2002, AND I'VE SIGNED THIS AS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN. WHERE'S RICKY? [ APPLAUSE ] CAN WE HAVE A CERTIFICATE ALSO FOR TYLER MONTGOMERY FROM SMITH ELEMENTARY? [ APPLAUSE ]. HELLO? WHERE IS THE CERTIFICATE FOR TYLER? OKAY. HERE WE GO. TYLER, CONGRATULATIONS. [ APPLAUSE ]. AND THIS ONE IS FOR SUS SAN IN A — SUSANA SANCHEZ. [ APPLAUSE ] AND MARISSA TORRES FROM SMITH ELEMENTARY. [ APPLAUSE ]. AND THEN THE ART CONTEST WINNERS, THIRD TO FIFTH GRADE, ABELCANEZ. ASHLEY CANALES FROM BROOK ELEMENTARY. [ APPLAUSE ]. BRENDA DIAZ FROM NORMAN ELEMENTARY. [ APPLAUSE ]. AND SANDRA PENA FROM SIMMS ELEMENTARY. [ APPLAUSE ]. AND WE HAVE SOMEBODY HERE FROM NEIGHBORHOOD SHOAS HOUSING WHO IS — HOUSING WHO IS GOING TO SPEAK FOR ALL OF THAT.

ON BEHALF OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT I WANTED TO CONGRATULATE ALL OUR WINNERS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD COLORING CONTEST. THEY DID A GREAT JOB DEMONSTRATING THE IMPORTANCE OF THINKING ABOUT THE FUTURE OF AUSTIN'S NEIGHBORHOODS. WE ALSO WANTED TO THANK OUR CORPORATE SPONSORS, THE AUSTIN MUSEUM OF ART, AMY'S ICE CREAM, GRANDE COMMUNICATIONS, AUSTIN ENERGY AND CAPITAL METRO BUSES. WE ALSO WANTED TO THANK MARK FOR HIS ARTWORK AND THE TEACHERS AND SCHOOL EMPLOYEES WHO HELPED US WITH THIS CONTEST. NAOMI WEBB. ROSELLE AT PECAN SPRINGS ELEMENTARY. AMANDA STEIN AT NORMAN ELEMENTARY. LILLIAN FROM BROOK ELEMENTARY. SARAH CHURCH FROM ALLEN ELEMENTARY AND MARIA BURN HEART FROM OAK SPRINGS ELEMENTARY. I ALSO WANT TO — LET'S GIVE THEM A ROUND OF APPLAUSE. [ APPLAUSE ]. I ALSO WANTED TO ANNOUNCE THAT STARTING TODAY THE CHILDREN'S ARTWORK WILL BE SHOWN, AS YOU CAN SEE BEHIND THEIR HEADS, THERE'S AN AD WITH ALL OF THE KIDS'S HEART WORK THAT WILL OBJECT THE CAPITAL METRO BUSES THROUGHOUT THE CITY. [ APPLAUSE ].

MAYOR GARCIA: IS MARCO VISENIOR AND MR. HERNANDEZ WOULD JOIN US PLEASE. CERTIFICATES OF APPRECIATION ARE PRESENTED TO THEM FOR THEIR ASSISTANCE IN TRAINING MEDICAL PERSONNEL IN OUR SISTER CITY OF SALTILLO IN THE USE OF DID HEILLATORS. THE CITY SENT SOME THAT WE NO LONGER NEEDED TO OUR SISTER CITY OF SALTILLO. AND WE HAD TO SEND SOMEONE DOWN THERE TO TEACH THE MEDICAL PERSONNEL IN THOSE CITIES TO USE THEM. AND MARCO FROM THE AUSTIN TRAVIS COUNTY E.M.S. IS DESERVING OF PUBLIC ANAME CLAEUM AND RECOGNITION. THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED IN APPRECIATION OF HIS EFFORTS ON BEHALF OF THE AUSTIN-SALTILLO SISTER CITY RELATIONSHIP AND IT'S PRESENTED THIS 25TH DAY OF APRIL OF THE YEAR 2002. [ APPLAUSE ]. I'M GOIT KNOT GOING TO READ — I'M NOT GOING TO READ THE WHOLE THING FOR YOU, BUT SUFFICE IS TO SAY THAT IT'S PRESENTED TO RAUL HERNANDEZ. AND HE'S THE BEST AMBASSADOR. EVERYBODY FELL IN LOVE WITH HIM. FROM THE AUSTIN TRAVIS COUNTY E.M.S., RAUL HERNANDEZ. [ APPLAUSE ].

YES, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. [ APPLAUSE ]

THANK Y'ALL VERY MUCH.

MAYOR GARCIA: THE DELL GRAITION FROM HE HE — SELLGATION FROM SALTILLO IS GOING TO BE HERE THIS COMING WEEK, AND I THINK ON SATURDAY, MAY THE FOURTH THERE'S GOING TO BE AN EXPO AT PLAZA SALTILLO IN EAST AUSTIN AT THE CORNER OF FOURTH — FIFTH AND COMAL. THEY'RE GOING TO BRING MANY OF THEIR PRODUCTS, SO WE ENCOURAGE EVERYBODY TO JOIN US TO WELCOME OUR FRIENDS FROM SALTILLO. SOME YEARS BACK I HAD A VISIT FROM A YOUNG MAN THAT HAD BEEN IN CORPUS CHRISTI AS THE DEPUTY CITY MANAGER. AND HE WAS RECRUITED BY THE TEXAS WATER COMMISSION AT THAT TIME, NOW KNOWN AS THE TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION COMMISSION. THEY RECRUITED HIM TO COME BE THEIR DIRECTOR. AND WHEN HE GOT THERE HE GOT A LITTLE HOME SICK FOR CITY SERVICES, SO HE AND I VISITED AND HE TALKED ABOUT THE FACT THAT HE WANTED TO APPLY FOR THE JOB OF ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER, WHICH HE DID, HE APPLIED. HE WAS APPOINTED TO THAT POSITION BY CITY MANAGER CA MEAL BARNETT. AND THEN LATER WHEN DR. BARNETT LEFT HE ASSUMED THE POSITION OF CITY MANAGER. FOR THE PAST 20 YEARS HE HAS BEEN IN PUBLIC SERVICE. AND IN DOING SO IN A VERY DISTINGUISHED WAY. SO TODAY, CITY MANAGER, I'M PRESENTING TO YOU THIS CERTIFICATE, THIS DISTINGUISHED SERVICE AWARD FOR 20 YEARS OF EXTRAORDINARY SERVICE TO THE PEOPLE OF AUSTIN AS A DEDICATED CITY EMPLOYEE AND, I MIGHT SAY LEADER, BECAUSE AS A CITY MANAGER YOU HAD TO LEAD A STAFF OF OVER 10,000 PEOPLE. JESUS GARZA IS DESERVING OF PUBLIC CLAIM AND RECOGNITION. HE HAS GUIDED THE CITY IN A WAY THAT HAS MADE IT MORE ACCOUNTABLE TO THOSE WHO CALL AUSTIN HOME. HE HAS LED WITH INTEGRITY AND A SINCERE IN LIVING UP TO THE CITY'S VISION OF MAKING AUSTIN THE MOST LIVEABLE COMMUNITY IN THE COUNTRY. AND I MAY SAY IN DOING SO HE WAS SELECTED AS THE PUBLIC OFFICIAL OF THE YEAR BY A NATIONAL ORGANIZATION. HE HAS TRULY EPITOMIZED THE TITLE PUBLIC SERVANT AND HAS LEFT A LEGACY OF HARD WORK, HONESTY AND ADD HEERNGS TO THE — ADHERENCE TO THE UNCOMPROMISING PRINCIPLE THAT CITY GOVERNMENT SHOULD DO WHAT IS RIGHT, NOT ALWAYS EASY. WE CONGRATULATE HIM FOR HIS ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN MAKING THE CITY WHAT IT IS TODAY AND WHAT IT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE. AND THIS IS PRESENTED TO YOU THIS 25TH DAY OF APRIL IN THE YEAR 2002, THE CITY COUNCIL OF AUSTIN AND IT HAS MY SIGNATURE AND THE NAMES OF ALL THE COUNCILMEMBERS. AND WE PRESENT IT TO YOU WITH GREAT PRIDE. [ APPLAUSE ].

ISN'T HE ANXIOUS TO GET HERE TO THE MICROPHONE? [ LAUGHTER ] ACTUALLY, THE WHOLE STAFF HERE IS HAVING A BET TO WHETHER I CAN MAKE IT THROUGH THIS PRESENTATION BECAUSE THE LAST TWO TIMES I'VE TRIED IT, I GET CHOKED UP AT PART OF IT. THIS IS A VERY, VERY SPECIAL MAN TO ME PERSONALLY. ABSOLUTELY A FRIEND AND A MENTOR AND A TEACHER. SOMEONE VERY IMPORTANT TO ME PERSONALLY IN MY LIFE AND MY PROFESSIONAL LIFE. AND SOMETIMES I WONDER IF THE CITY RECOGNIZES EXACTLY WHAT THEY'VE HAD IN CITY MANAGER JESUS GARZA. THE TYPE OF STABILITY FOR NINE YEARS OF CITY MANAGEMENT. THE EMPLOYEE ADVOCACY AND SUPPORT FROM THIS CITY MANAGER, THE KIND OF LEGACIES HE'S LEFT, THE FORETHOUGHT OF SECURING THE FUTURE WATER SUPPLY FOR THIS COMMUNITY OR THE MASSIVE AMOUNT OF GREEN SPACE THAT YEARS FROM NOW AS GROWTH COMES TO THIS CITY WILL ALWAYS STAY GREEN AND AVAILABLE FOR THE COMMUNITY. A VERY, VERY SPECIAL MAN. IT'S A SAD DAY FOR US TO BE LOSING CITY MANAGER JESUS GARZA. SO JESUS, FROM OUR EXECUTIVE TEAM — SEE, I'M DOING OKAY WITH THIS TODAY. IT TAKES THREE TIMES TO GET IT RIGHT. LAST NIGHT SOMEONE HAD THE COURAGE TO CALL JESUS WATER BOY FOR GOING TO LCRA. [ LAUGHTER ] AND THIS IS A LITTLE WATERFALL JUST IN CASE. BUT IT SAYS, JESUS GARZA, CITY MANAGER 1994 TO 2002, WITH SINCERE APPRECIATION FOR YOUR DEDICATION TO THE CITY OF AUSTIN, ITS EMPLOYEES AND THIS COMMUNITY. YOU HAVE BEEN A TRUE LEADER, A MENTOR AND A FRIEND — SEE, HERE IT GOES. WE WILL SINCERELY MISS YOUR AYE ET EXCELLENCE — QUIET EXCELLENCE. THANK YOU, YOUR EXECUTIVE TEAM. [ APPLAUSE ].

MAYOR AND COUNCIL, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THE PROCLAMATION AND THE RECOGNITION THAT I RECEIVED AND ALL THE NICE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN SAID OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS. I THINK, THOUGH, THAT I WOULD — IT WOULD BE WRONG FOR ME TO ACCEPT THE CREDIT FOR A LOT OF THE THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED WITHOUT REALLY GIVING CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE. SEE, IN OUR PROFESSION IT STARTS WITH THE MAYOR AND THE COUNCIL. AND IT IS THEY WHO HAVE TO MAKE THE DECISIONS. IT IS THEY THE ONES WHO HAVE TO TAKE THE HEAT FOR THOSE DECISIONS, AND THIS IS THOSE PUBLIC — TRUE PUBLIC SERVANTS IN TERMS OF HAVING TO DECIDE AND WEIGH ALL THE WEIGHTY ISSUES THAT WE HAVE TO DO AS A CITY GOVERNMENT. AND OVER THE LAST EIGHT YEARS I'VE HAD THE GOOD FORTUNE OF WORKING FOR SOME GREAT MAYORS AND GREAT COUNCILMEMBERS WHO HAVE REALLY GIVEN A LOT TO THIS CITY. AND WHILE I'VE NOT ALWAYS AGREED WITH THE DECISIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE, OR SOME OF THE DECISIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE, THERE WAS NEVER ANY DOUBT IN MY MIND THAT THE DECISIONS THEY DID MAKE THEY ALWAYS THOUGHT WERE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THIS CITY AND THE BEST INTEREST OF THIS ORGANIZATION. PART AND PARCEL OF THAT, HOWEVER, IS THE ROLE THAT THE PROFESSIONAL STAFF PLAYS. AND WHAT HAS BEEN CLEAR IS THAT I HAVE — IT'S BEEN CLEAR THAT THE PROFESSIONAL STAFF PLAYS A CRITICAL ROLE IN THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT FOR THE ISSUES THAT ARE BEING CONSIDERED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. AND I KNOW MANY HAVE THOUGHT THAT THE PROFESSIONAL STAFF PLAY A PASSIVE ROLE, AND THAT IS THE APPROPRIATE ROLE FOR THEM TO PLAY, BUT NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH, BECAUSE WE HAVE THE FINEST GROUP OF PROFESSIONALS IN THIS ORGANIZATION OF ANY CITY. THESE ARE JUST SOME GREAT FOLKS, FROM PLANNERS TO ENGINEERS TO LAWYERS TO ACCOUNTANTS, SOME GREAT PROFESSIONALS. AND IT IS THEIR JOB TO PROVIDE THE BEST PROFESSIONAL RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE VARIOUS ISSUES THAT THEY HAVE TO DECIDE AND DO IT WITH THE RIGHT TONE, WITH THE RIGHT FRAME OF MIND AND ENSURING THAT THE COUNCIL HAS THE FACTS THAT THEY NEED AND THE MAYOR HAS THE FACTS THAT THEY NEED TO MAKE THE DECISION. I'VE BEEN BLESSED TO WORK WITH JUST SOME GREAT PEOPLE AND I'VE HAD THE GOOD FORTUNE TO HAVE THEM AROUND ME. BUT THE THIRD LEG OF THE STOOL IN CITY GOVERNMENT IS THE RANK AND FILE. AND I HAVE A SPECIAL AFFINITY WITH THE RANK AND FILE. I WENT FROM DAN DAVIDSON'S OFFICE TO WORK IN SOLID WASTE SERVICES WHERE I RAN THAT DIVISION FOR ALMOST TWO YEARS. AND IT IS A TRUE WONDERMENT TO ME THAT THE FOLKS WHO WORKDAY IN AND DAY OUT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE GARBAGE GETS COLLECTED, THE WATER SYSTEM WORKS, THAT YOUR LIGHTS WORK, THAT THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE CLINGING TO LIFE ARE CRADLED IN THE ARMS OF SOME OF THE FINEST E.M.S. AND FIREFIGHTER PROFESSIONALS IN THE COUNTRY. THAT OUR PROPERTY IS SECURE. ALL THOSE THINGS THAT WE TAKE FOR FRONTED. IT'S THESE — GRANT. IT'S THESE INDIVIDUALS TO COME PUT THEIR LIVES ON THE LINE AND WORK LONG HOURS TO MAKE SURE THINGS WORK IN THE CITY. AND WE OWE THEM A DEBT OF GRATITUDE. [ APPLAUSE ]. LET ME SAY A FEW THINGS ABOUT TOBY FUTRELL. AS SHE ZOOMS FULL CONTROL OF THIS ORGANIZATION — ASSUMES FULL CONTROL OF THIS ORGANIZATION, I OBVIOUSLY WISH HER WELL BECAUSE THIS IS A HARD, HARD JOB. AND I WISH HER WELL. AND SHE DESERVES THE SUPPORT OF THE ENTIRE WORKFORCE, THE SUPPORT OF THE COUNCIL AND THE COMMUNITY AS SHE TAKES THE FULL REIGNS OF THIS ORGANIZATION. I KNOW SHE WILL MAKE US PROUD. SHE WILL DO A GREAT JOB. I KNOW SHE'S READY. SHE'S TRAINED FOR THIS AND I THINK THAT SHE WILL BE ON — TOBYLY, YOU WILL BE A GREAT CITY MANAGER. FINALLY, LET ME SAY TO MY IMMEDIATE CMO TEAM, TO JOE CANALES,, SO MICHELLE, TO LISA, MIKE, ROSIE, TO NOOEL, MARY ANNE, SANDRA, HOW MUCH I WILL MISS ALL OF YOU. YOU GUYS DO A GREAT JOB FOR THIS CITY. YOU REALLY DO THIS WITH — YOU COME TO WORK AND YOU GET YOUR WORK DONE AND YOU DO IT VERY QUIETLY. AND SOMETIMES WE TAKE THAT FOR GRANTED, BUT THAT'S WHAT MAKES THAT OFFICE WORK SO WELL IS THE WORK THAT YOU DO. FINALLY TO MY GOOD FRIEND, GUS GARCIA, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR ALL YOU'VE DONE FOR OUR COMMUNITY. I'VE HAD THE GOOD FORTUNE OF KNOWING YOU NOW FOR ALMOST 25 YEARS, 1978. AND YOU — THE SERVICE THAT YOU'VE PROVIDED THIS COMMUNITY AND ALL OF THE DIFFERENT FACETS OF YOUR PUBLIC SERVICE, WE AS A COMMUNITY ARE GRATEFUL FOR THE WORK YOU'VE DONE. YOU'RE A GREAT LEADER AND I KNOW THAT YOU KNOW THIS, BUT I'LL SAY IT AGAIN, IF YOU NEED MY HELP, I'M JUST A PHONE CALL AWAY AND I'LL BE GLAD TO HELP IN ANY WAY YOU NEED. FOR THE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, DARRYL, WILL WYNN, RAUL ALVAREZ, BEVERLY GRIFFITH, TOMZ, AND MAYOR PRO TEM JACKIE GOODMAN. I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR ALL YOU GUYS HAVE DONE. I'VE KNOWN MANY OF YOU FOR MANY, MANY YEARS. FOR EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOUR OFFICES, I'M AVAILABLE TO HELP IN ANY WAY I CAN. IT'S BEEN A GREAT RIDE, THANK YOU, MAYOR, THANK YOU COUNCIL, THANK YOU, STAFF. [ APPLAUSE ].

ALVAREZ: THANK YOU, JESUS, FOR THOSE WONDERFUL WORDS AND FOR YOUR SERVICE TO THE GREAT CITY OF AUSTIN. AND I DO HAVE ONE MORE PRESENTATION TO MAKE. AND IT'S, AGAIN, JUST ONE MORE SIGN OF OUR APPRECIATION FOR EVERYTHING YOU'VE DONE FOR THE CITY. IT'S BEEN AN HONOR TO WORK WITH YOU. I THINK YOU'VE BEEN AN EXCELLENT CITY MANAGER AND REALLY KEPT US HONEST. AND MADE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW — AGAIN, WE WERE WELL INFORMED. IT'S A VERY DIFFICULT JOB THAT THE CITY MANAGER HAS BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE ONE BOSS, BUT YOU HAVE SEVEN BOSSES AND YOU'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO — I GUESS HOW TO RECONCILE ALL THAT WHEN THERE'S A DIFFERING OR DISSENTING POINTS OF VIEW. SO WE'RE HERE FOR ANOTHER GOOD-BYE FOR OUR GOOD FRIEND CHUY. AND I MADE A JOKE YESTERDAY ABOUT HOW MANY FAREWELL EVENTS WE HAD FOR GUS, AND I JOKED THAT IT WAS ABOUT 10, BUT I DON'T THINK IT WAS THAT MANY. AND THEN WHEN HE SO-CALLED RETIRED AND NOW IT APPEARS JESUS IS RETIRING, SO IF HE FOLLOWS IN GUS' FOOTSTEPS, MAYBE HE'LL MAKE IT BACK OVER HERE TO CITY HALL. BUT REALLY I I THINK ONE MORE — I THINK AGAIN, YOU KNOW, AS I'VE SAID HOW IMPORTANT YOU ARE TO THIS OUTFIT AND WE'RE VERY SORRY TO SEE YOU GO. I DID WANT TO LEAVE SOMETHING, GIVE YOU SOMETHING BEFORE — TO SEE YOU ON YOUR WAY. AND SOMETHING THAT YOU WILL ENJOY, SOMETHING HOPEFULLY THAT YOU CAN GET BETWEEN MAYBE YOUR SERVICE HERE AND THERE CAN ENJOY. BUT — AND WE TRIED TO GET CREATIVE ON — IN TERMS OF WHAT WE'RE GOING TO PROVIDE. WE KNOW YOU'RE AN AINDIVIDUAL GOLFER. WE KNOW YOU LIKE TO GOLF. SO WE WANTED TO SEE IF WE COULDN'T GIVE YOU A LIFETIME PASS TO GOLF IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN. WE TRIED TO DO THAT. [ LAUGHTER ]

[ INAUDIBLE ]

MAYOR GARCIA: BUT WE COULDN'T WAIVE THE FEES BECAUSE OF THE BUDGET CRUNCH. [ LAUGHTER ]. NOW, JUST KIDDING, JUST KIDDING. NO, I THINK THERE WAS SOME LEGAL I AM PEDESTRIANARENTLY. AND I WAS GOING TO REQUEST AN EXECUTIVE SESSION ON THE MATTER, BUT I WASN'T SURE HOW LONG THAT WOULD TAKE. [ LAUGHTER ] BUT ANYWAY, WE DID WANT TO LEAVE YOU WITH SOMETHING THAT COULD HELP YOU BEST UTILIZE THE — I GUESS THE VERY WONDERFUL GIFT I THINK YOU GOT YESTERDAY, A NICE SET OF GOLF CLUBS, SO ALTHOUGH WE COULDN'T GIVE YOU A LIFETIME PASS TO GOLF IN OUR GOLF COURSES, I THINK WE'RE FLIRTING WITH THE IDEA OF DEBT LETTING YOU DO IT WHEN YOU TURN 80 YEARS OLD. [ LAUGHTER ] BECAUSE WE DO THAT AT BARTON SPRINGS AND WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, WELL, MAYBE IF WE WAIT UNTIL HE TURNS 80. SO THAT'S STILL A POSSIBILITY, BUT WE'RE STILL — WE'RE CHECKING WITH THE LAW DEPARTMENT ON THAT. [ LAUGHTER ] BUT IN LIEU OF THAT WE DID GO AHEAD AND BUY YOU — SEVERAL OF US GOT TOGETHER AND BOUGHT YOU A GIFT CERTIFICATE TO GOLF AT YOUR FAVORITE OF THE CITY GOLF COURSES, THE ROY KAISER GOLF COURSE, INCLUDING GREEN FEES AND CART. [ LAUGHTER ] SO ANYWAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ALL YOU'VE DONE FOR US. THE BEST OF LUCK TO YOU. [ APPLAUSE ].

THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: ANYBODY ELSE? ANYBODY WANT TO SAY ANYTHING? COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

SLUSHER: WELL, I DON'T WANT TO TAKE THE MEETING ON TOO LONG, BUT I DO WANT TO SAY JUST A FEW WORDS ABOUT JESUS. I'VE WORKED WITH HIM FOR SIX YEARS, AND I KNEW HIM BEFORE THAT. ALLEGE R. AND ONE THING ABOUT HIM THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT IS THAT HE CAME UP THROUGH THE RANKS OF THE CITY. SO HE KNEW WHAT IT WAS LIKE AT EVERY LEVEL OF CITY GOVERNMENT. AND HE NEVER FORGOT THAT AND HE REALLY CARES DEEPLY ABOUT THE EMPLOYEES AND DEFENDS THE EMPLOYEES WHEN THEY NEED DEFENDING. HE ALSO DEMANDS A LOT FROM THE CITY EMPLOYEES AND HE KEEPS — HE HIRES GOOD PEOPLE TO BE AROUND HIM. HE'S NOT AFRAID OF HAVING REALLY STRONG PEOPLE AROUND HIM. AND YOU CAN SEE THAT FROM HIS, QUOTE — ALL OF HIS STAFF REALLY, BUT IN PARTICULAR WITH TOBY FUTRELL, WHO IS GOING TO TAKE OVER. AND IT'S GOING TO BE A SEAMLESS TRANSITION. IT ALREADY HAS BEEN, I THINK. SO I'LL JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT AND SAY JESUS, WE'VE BECOME FRIENDS AND WORKERS TOGETHER, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO KNOWING YOU FOR MANY MORE YEARS. [ APPLAUSE ].

MAYOR GARCIA: MR. CITY MANAGER, I THINK I SPEAK FOR ALL THE COUNCILMEMBERS, SO I THINK, MAYOR PRO TEM — ARE YOU COMING? I SPEAK FOR ALL OF THEM WHEN I SAY THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH FOR THE GREAT LEADERSHIP TO YOU PROVIDED TO THIS CITY. YOU MADE IT A BETTER CITY AND WE ALL APPRECIATE IT, ALL OF AUSTIN APPRECIATES THAT VERY MUCH. THANK YOU SO MUCH. [ APPLAUSE ] THE MAYOR AND I ARE GOING TO GO GET A LITTLE NOURISHMENT AND WE'LL BE BACK IN A FEW MINUTES TO START OUR 6:00 O'CLOCK PUBLIC HEARINGS. SALMONELLA, SALMONELLA, SAMMY'S HOUSE, OWED DEM, OWED DEM, OWED DEM, TEST TEST TEST TEST TEST THIS IS A TEST OF THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL CAPTIONING SYSTEM. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ?? TEST TEST TEST THIS IS A TEST OF THE CITY COUNCIL CAPTIONING SYSTEM, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, THIS IS A TEST OF THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL CAPTIONING SYSTEM, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,.

MAYOR GARCIA: GOOD EVENING, EVERYBODY. THANK YOU FOR WAITING FOR US. I'M GOING TO CALL THE MEETING BACK TO ORDER BECAUSE I'M GETTING FOUR COUNCILMEMBERS, FIVE COUNCILMEMBERS. WE HAVE TWO VERY QUICK DECISIONS THAT WE WILL NEED TO MAKE. SO THAT THE PEOPLE THAT ARE INVOLVED CAN GO HOME. THEN WE WILL GO INTO THE PUBLIC HEARINGS. OKAY? THAT SHOULDN'T TAKE MORE THAN 10 MINUTES OR SO. I'M CALLING THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL BACK ON ORDER. AND I'M GOING TO CALL UP ITEM NO. 21 — NO, ITEMS NUMBER 21 AND 22. AND THE COUNCIL HAS RECEIVED LEGAL ADVICE ON THESE ISSUES. THIS IS — THIS IS ITEM 21 IS TO AMEND AN ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE 265,274 LOAN FROM THE ELECTRIC UTILITY TO NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING. THE OTHER ONE, 22 IS TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE NEGOTIATION, EXECUTION OF A COST REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE AUSTIN REVITALIZATION AUTHORITY FOR THE SAME AMOUNT. THIS IS FOR A PROJECT ON EAST 11TH, WHERE WE — WHAT WE KNOW AS THE AUSTIN REVITALIZATION AUTHORITY. I RECOGNIZE COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS FOR A MOTION.

THOMAS: SO MOVE.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS. TO APPROVE ITEM NO. 21 AND 22, I'M GOING TO SECOND THAT. I'M GOING TO RECOGNIZE COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER.

SLUSHER: THANK YOU, MAYOR. I'M GOING TO VOTE FOR THIS BECAUSE I THINK THIS PROJECT IS SO IMPORTANT. WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS THE REVITALIZATION OF EAST 11TH STREET. AND THE RELOCATION OF THE UTILITIES BOTH THE CITY UTILITIES AND THE PRIVATE UTILITIES INTO WHERE THEY CAN GO INTO ONE AREA. THAT'S — THAT'S REALLY LESS EXPENSIVE FOR EVERYONE INVOLVED AND IF YOU CAN GET THEM ALL INTO ONE AREA, THEN ANOTHER UTILITY DOESN'T HAVE TO COME IN, LIKE WE SEE SOMETIMES, AND LIKE WE HAVE SEEN MANY TIMES, AND DIG UP THE STREET. AND PROBABLY NOT REPAIR IT BACK TO LIKE IT WAS. AND SO WE WOULD LIKE TO KEEP THAT FROM HAPPENING HERE ON EAST 11TH STREET. BUT EVEN MORE IMPORTANTLY, IS THE — THE — THE HISTORICAL IMPORTANCE OF THIS PROJECT, THE REVITALIZATION OF EAST 11TH, EAST 12TH CORRIDORS. AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT — THAT HAS BEEN ATTEMPTED NOW FOR 30 YEARS AT LEAST. IT'S FINALLY STARTING TO HAPPEN. AND IT IS GOING TO HAPPEN. AND WE ARE HAVING DIFFICULTY GETTING ONE COMPANY, SOUTHWESTERN BELL, TO AGREE TO COOPERATE AND PUT THEIR LINES IN WITH EVERYONE ELSE. SO NOW THE CITY IS HAVING TO PAY FOR IT. AND WE ARE GOING TO DO EVERYTHING THAT WE CAN, I'M GOING TO DO EVERYTHING WE CAN, I THINK THE WHOLE COUNCIL WILL, TO RECOUP THIS COST FOR THE TAXPAYERS BECAUSE THEY RIGHTLY UNDER LAW SHOULD BE PAID BY SOUTHWESTERN BELL. BUT WE HAVE A DISPUTE OVER THAT. THEY DISPUTE THAT. AND ARE RELYING ON A — A PART OF THE STATE LAW THAT THEY SAID THAT THEY THINK HOLDS SWAY HERE WHICH SAYS A MUNICIPALITY MAY REQUIRE A CERTIFIED TELECOMMUNICATION UTILITY TO RELOCATE THE UTILITY'S FACILITY AT THE UTILITY'S EXPENSE TO PERMIT THE WIDENING AND STRAIGHTENING OF A STREET. SO IN SOUTHWESTERN BELL'S MIND, IT APPEARS, THAT IT'S OKAY, THEY WOULD PAY FOR IT IF WE WERE WIDENING OR STRAIGHTENING EAST 11TH STREET. BUT IF WE ARE BRINGING IN UTILITIES IN ORDER TO REVITALIZE AN AREA THAT IS NEED — THAT HAS NEEDED REVITALIZING FOR 30 YEARS, THAT'S NOT AN EXPERIENCE THAT THAT CORPORATION IS WILLING TO PAY. I DON'T THINK THAT AMOUNTS TO GOOD CORPORATE CITIZEN SHIP, I THINK THEY WILL RETHINK THIS OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS AND WE WON'T HAVE TO CONTINUE TO DISPUTE THIS MATTER. IN THE MEANTIME THE CITY IS GOING TO MOVE FORWARD AND PAY FOR THIS AND CONTINUE THIS HISTORIC REVITALIZATION OF EAST 11TH AND EAST 12TH STREET.

MAYOR GARCIA: THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND ON ITEMS 21 AND 22. FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

OPPOSED NO. MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF 7 TO 0. NOW WE BRING UP ITEM NO. 30. AND THIS ITEM LET ME READ IT INTO THE RECORD. APPROVE A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ... FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CENTRAL AUSTIN POLICE SUBSTATION AND FORENSIC FACILITY FOR A TOTAL CONTRACT OF $14,676,470. AND — AND WE HAVE TWO PEOPLE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, MR. SERGIO HERNANDEZ, NOT WISHING TO SPEAK BUT IN FAVOR OF. AND THEN MS. CAROL HADNOT, SIGNED UP TO SPEAK AND PUT A NOTE THAT — THAT SHE WAS FOR IT, IF — IF ASD WAS INCLUDED IN THE CONTRACT AND THAT'S — THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT WE ARE CONSIDERING AT THIS POINT. OKAY. IF STAFF CAN — IF CITY MANAGER IF YOU COULD GIVE US JUST A BRIEF, VERY BRIEF PRESENTATION ON THAT, THEN WE WILL GET READY TO DO THE — TO DO THE ITEM. CITY MANAGER DESIGNEE. WE HEARD IN EXECUTIVE SESSION ALL OF THE LEGAL ISSUES. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU WANT TO ADD? I THINK WE GOT EVERYTHING, RIGHT.

FUTRELL: I THINK THAT YOU HAVE WHAT YOU NEED, YES.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. THE FIRST ITEM THAT WE HAVE TO DO IS WE HAVE TO — TO TAKE A MOTION AND SECOND AND APPROVE A — A MOTION TO REJECT ALL OF THE BIDS. THERE HAVE BEEN SOME ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP DURING THE PROCESS, SO THE RECOMMENDATION THAT — THAT HAS COME FROM OUR LEGAL STAFF IS TO REJECT ALL OF THE BIDS. AND I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO DO THAT. COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ MOVES AND —

WYNN: SECOND.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER WYNN SECONDS. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION COUNCILMEMBER? IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED, NO. NOW, WE HAVE A SECOND ACTION, I'M GOING TO READ INTO THE RECORD THE FOLLOWING: DUE TO THE IMMINENT THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CENTRAL AUSTIN POLICE STATION AND FORENSIC FACILITY IS NOT BEGUN IMMEDIATELY, THE CITY COUNCIL WILL CONSIDER APPROVING A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH SMALL GLASS CONTRACTORS, INC., AUSTIN, TEXAS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE CENTRAL AUSTIN POLICE SUBSTATION AND FORENSICS FACILITY LOCATED AT 812 SPRINGDALE ROAD IN THE AMOUNT OF $14,249,000, PLUS $427,470 CONTINUOUSLY FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $14,676,— 14,, 676,470. I WILL RECOGNIZE COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS FOR A MOTION.

THOMAS: SO MOVE.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION TO APPROVE THE ACTION. IS THERE A SECOND?

SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ. DISCUSSION? COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ?

ALVAREZ: I — I HAD A QUESTION FOR — FOR SPAW GLASS.

MAYOR GARCIA: IS THERE A REPRESENTATIVE FROM SPAW GLASS HERE.

IF YOU COULD GIVE US YOUR NAME.

JOEL STONE, SPAW GLASS CONTRACTORS.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ HAS A QUICK QUESTION FOR YOU.

ALVAREZ: IN AWARDING THIS CONTRACT ON THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY EXCEPTION TO THE STATE BIDDING REQUIREMENTS, TO SPAW GLASS I GUESS AS IS BEING CONSIDERED, I GUESS WHAT I WANT TO KNOW IS WHETHER SPAW GLASS WOULD COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF THE PREVIOUS OFFERS MADE TO THE CITY, THE MOST RECENT PROCESS, SPECIALLY WITH REGARD TO SUBCONTRACTING AND M.B.E. PARTICIPATION?

YES. WE COULD COMPLY.

ALVAREZ: OKAY, THAT'S ALL THAT I HAVE.

MAYOR GARCIA: SO THAT EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS, THE CITY COUNCIL IS CONSIDERING AN ACTION THAT INVOLVES IMMINENT THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY BECAUSE WE NEED THAT POLICE SUBSTATION AND WE HAVE — WE ARE A LITTLE BIT LATE WITH IT. WE HOPE THAT YOU GUYS CAN COMPLETE IT IN TIME FOR THE CHIEF TO — TO GET LOWER BLOOD PRESSURE READINGS WHEN HE REPORTS TO THE COUNCIL.

WE WILL DO EVERYTHING WE CAN.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND. FURTHER DISCUSSION?

THOMAS: YEAH, LET ME CLARIFY, MAKE SURE THAT SPAW GLASS UNDERSTANDS. DID YOU GET THE RECENT BID THAT HAS ALL OF THE — OF THE M/W.B.E. PARTICIPATIONS. THE LAST ONE IS 2:26 P.M.

I DON'T KNOW IF I HAVE THAT PARTICULAR ONE.

THOMAS: OKAY. WE WILL NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT HE'S AWARE OF ALL OF THE ONES THAT PARS — THAT ARE PARTICIPATING UNDER THE — UNDER —

COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS, WE WILL MAKE SURE THAT INFORMATION IS PROVIDED, THE INITIAL AWARD.

THOMAS: . AS LONG AS WE MAKE SURE IT'S THE ONE THAT'S ON THE 2:26 P.M.

IT DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE A PROBLEM.

OKAY.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER QUESTIONS? IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED, NO. MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF 7 TO 0. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, EVERYBODY.

THANK YOU. WE ARE ONLY AN HOUR AND 50 MINUTE LATE. I GUESS FIRST THING THAT I NEED TO DO IS APOLOGIZE TO EVERYBODY THAT'S BEEN HERE WAITING FOR US SO PATIENTLY. THE FIRST PUBLIC HEARING THAT WE HAVE IS TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER FOR POSSIBLE ACTION AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 16-5-22 AND 16-5-98 OF THE CITY CODE RELATED TO PARKING IN FRONT OF A SIDE YARD OF A RESIDENTIAL — IN FRONT OR SIDE YARD OF A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. WE HAVE A FEW SPEAKERS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. IS THERE A NEED FOR ANY MORE PRESENTATION BY STAFF? MR. THOMAS?

THOMAS: ARE YOU TALKING — ARE YOU TALKING TO THE ATTORNEY, I'M SORRY, MAYOR, IF YOU DON'T MIND [ LAUGHTER ]

MAYOR GARCIA: SORRY ABOUT THAT, COUNCILMEMBER.

THOMAS: WE WANT TO DO A POWER POINT PRESENTATION ON CERTAIN AREAS TO CLARIFY SOME THINGS THAT NEED TO BE CLARIFIED.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY.

MRS. DEBORAH THOMAS IS GOING TO DO THAT. MRS. ALICE GLASGO HAS SOMETHING TO ADD TO IT I THINK.

THANK YOU, DEBORAH THOMAS WITH THE STAY WITH US LAW DEPARTMENT. THERE WERE SOME CHANGES TO THE ORDINANCE THE ONE THAT YOU HAVE NOW AND THE ONE THAT YOU HAD LAST WEEK, I WOULD LIKE TO GO OVER THOSE BRIEFLY AND THEN GO TO THE POWER POINT PRESENTATION. SO IF I COULD HAVE THE LIGHTS SO I CAN SEE. [ LAUGHTER ]. THANK YOU. JUST VERY BRIEFLY, IF YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE CURRENT VERSION OF THE ORDINANCE, WHICH IS DATED TODAY, APRIL 25TH, THE FIRST MAJOR CHANGE OCCURS IN SECTION 16-5-22B, THE DEFINITION OF DRIVEWAY. THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION LAST WEEK ABOUT WHAT A DRIVEWAY WAS AND WASN'T AND SO WE DID CLARIFY THAT. SO THAT NOW IT'S CLEAR THAT A DRIVEWAY IS ANY AREA THAT'S ADJACENT TO THE CURB CUT THAT PROVIDES ACCESS BETWEEN THE STREET AND THE PARKING AREA. THE MAIN CHANGE HERE IS THAT THE REQUIREMENT FOR HARD SURFACING OF GRAVEL HAS BEEN REMOVED SO THAT A DRIVEWAY THAT IS GRAVEL OR GRASS OR DIRT, BUT IS CLEARLY THE DRIVEWAY, DOES QUALIFY UNDER THIS ORDINANCE. THE — THE SECOND MAJOR CHANGE, I DID WANT TO NOTE WAS THAT IN SECTION D, A PRESIDENT OF A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION CAN SUBMIT AN APPLICATION FOR INCLUSION OR EXCLUSION, PREVIOUSLY IT WAS JUST THE OWNER IN THE AREA. SO NOW IT ALSO A PRESIDENT OF A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. CAN ALSO DO THAT. WE ALSO CLARIFIED THAT IT WOULD BE THE APPLICANT WHO PAYS THE COST FOR MAILING ANY NOTICE THAT'S REQUIRED UNDER THIS ORDINANCE. WE WERE CONCERNED THERE MIGHT BE A CONFUSION ABOUT THAT. SO WE DID CLAIRE....... CLARIFY THAT. WE DID NOTE THAT COUNCIL BEFORE IT HAD SAID THAT THE COUNCIL WOULD CONSIDER THE ORDINANCES ONCE A YEAR AT A TIME DESIGNATED BY COUNCIL, BUT WE DID CLARIFY THAT IT WOULD BE IN APRIL. WE JUST PICKED A MONTH, THAT YOU COULD SUBMIT THE APPLICATIONS IN FEBRUARY AND THE COUNCIL WOULD CONSIDER THEM IN APRIL MUCH FINALLY IN PART 4 WE DID CLARIFY THAT THE POLICE ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES WOULD BE POSTED AS A RULE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 1-2 OF THE CITY CODE. AND ANY CHANGES TO THAT ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURE WOULD ALSO BE POSTED AS A RULE WITH A COMMENT PERIOD. FOR THE PUBLIC. AND IF THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS, I WILL JUST GO THROUGH —

MAYOR GARCIA: LET ME SEE IF THERE'S SOME QUESTIONS, MS. THOMAS. ANY QUESTIONS FOR MS. THOMAS. THANK YOU. THERE'S GOING TO BE A POWER POINT?

YES.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY.

IF WE COULD LOWER THE LIGHTS NOW. THANK YOU. IN THIS FIRST, — IN THE FIRST SLIDE WE WANTED TO SHOW WHAT WAS NOT — WHAT THE — WHAT THE ORDINANCE DID NOT APPLY TO. AND IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE'S NO CURB CUT. SO THE ORDINANCE WOULD NOT APPLY TO THIS PROPERTY. IN THIS SECOND CASE, THIS IS ALSO ANOTHER OF THE SITUATIONS THAT ARE — THAT THE ORDINANCE DOES NOT APPLY TO. AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, THERE IS LESS THAN 20 FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE, SO THE ORDINANCE DOES NOT APPLY IN THIS CASE. HERE WE HAVE A GRAVEL DRIVEWAY. AND THIS DOES NOT VIOLATE THE ORDINANCE. THIS COULD — THIS COULD ALSO BE GRASS. IT — BUT IT DOESN'T VIOLATE THE ORDINANCE.

ALVAREZ: I HAVE A QUESTION. SO IS THAT THE CHANGES THAT YOU MADE TO THE ORDINANCE?

THESE —

IS WHAT DECIDES THIS OR —

NO, ACTUALLY THIS IS WHAT WAS — THIS APPLIES — THIS IS THE SAME THING THAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED IN THE ORDINANCE FROM LAST WEEK, BUT THE WAY THE ORDINANCE WAS DRAFTED, IT WAS — THERE WAS A PROVISION AT THE VERY LAST PART OF THE — PART OF THE DEFINITION OF DRIVEWAY THAT SAID OR A CURB CUT OR AN AREA ADJACENT TO A CURB CONSULT. ONCE THAT PROVISION WAS — CURB CUT. ONCE THAT PROVISION WAS ADDED, I BELIEVE THAT WAS ADDED AFTER THE POLICE HAD THE MEETINGS WITH THE — WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION MEMBERS, AND ONCE THAT WAS ADDED, WHAT THAT MEANT WAS THERE REALLY WAS NO LONGER A REQUIREMENT FOR A SPECIFIC SURFACING AND — AND I THINK I HAD JUST BETTER CLARIFY THAT, BUT THERE WAS OBVIOUSLY SOME CONFUSION FROM LAST WEEK'S DISCUSSIONS.

ALVAREZ: OKAY.

HERE WE HAVE A DIRT DRIVE AND THAT WOULD NOT VIOLATE THE ORDINANCE. AS LONG AS THERE IS, YOU KNOW, A CURB CUT AND IT IS CLEARLY THE — THE ACCESS FROM THE STREET TO THE PARKING AREA. AND I WOULD NOTE THAT — THAT I SAY THAT THIS DOESN'T VIOLATE — OF COURSE THERE IS A REQUIREMENT THAT — NO. JUST — I WILL EXPLAIN THAT LATER. GO AHEAD. HERE WE HAVE A — A CONCRETE AREA THAT WAS ADDED TO THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY AND THAT DOESN'T VIOLATE THE ORDINANCE AS LONG AS THE ADDITION HERE, THE DRIVEWAY PLUS THE ADDITION DOESN'T EQUAL MORE THAN 50% OF THE — OF THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH ESTABLISHED BY THE ZONING WHICH IN MOST CASES FOR S.F. 3 PROPERTIES AND S.F. 2 PROPERTIES WOULD BE 50. SO THE — SO THE — SO THE COMBINED WIDTHS HERE COULD NOT BE MORE THAN 25 FEET. THIS JUST ALSO SHOWS ANOTHER GRAVEL ADDITION NEXT TO A DRIVEWAY AND AS LONG AS THAT — AS LONG AS THE TWO OF THOSE DON'T EQUAL MORE THAN 25 FEET OR WHATEVER HALF THE WIDTHS OF THE LOT IS, THEN THAT WOULD BE OKAY. THE AREA ADJACENT TO THE DRIVEWAY HAS TO BE ADJACENT TO THE DRIVEWAY. SO WITH THIS CAR ALL THE WAY ACROSS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE LOT, THAT WOULD VIOLATE THE ORDINANCE. THIS HAS MULTIPLE PROBLEMS. BUT MAINLY HERE, THE CARS ARE NOT ADJACENT TO THE DRIVEWAY. THIS CAR WOULD PROBABLY BE NOT — WILL PROBABLY VIOLATE IT, THIS MAY NOT. THIS ONE MAY BE OKAY. WELL, I REALLY WASN'T SURE HOW HE GOT THROUGH THE TREES [ LAUGHTER ] BUT — BUT THAT WOULD VIOLATE THE ORDINANCE. [ONE MOMENT PLEASE FOR CHANGE IN CAPTIONERS]NO CARRIERRINGCONNECT 1200

AND THE CHECKS OR PLAYED AREAS ARE THE POLICE SECTOR AREAS. THIS MAP MAINLY SHOWS THAT SO FAR THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS THAT HAVE REQUESTED TO BE INCLUDED IN THE ORDINANCE. THESE ARE NOT — THE LOWER ONES HERE ARE NOT WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AREAS. THE ONES AROUND THE NORTH AND DOWN THE WEST, THEREFORE SEVERAL OF THOSE THAT ARE NOT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AREAS. WE HAD NEVER SUPERIMPOSED THE SECTOR AREAS ON TOP OF THAT BEFORE. WE THOUGHT THAT MADE JUST AN INTERESTING COMPARISON, JUST TO SEE THE SHAPES OF THE SKTER AREAS AS THEY RELATED TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AREAS AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AREAS. THAT'S ALL THE SLIDES WE HAVE. IF I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS...

MAYOR GARCIA: QUESTIONS FOR MS. THOMAS?

GOODMAN: I DO HAVE ONE. DEBRA, ON A COUPLE OF THESE PICTURES IT WAS HARD FOR ME TO SEE — IT WAS TOO DARK IN HERE TO LOOK AT THE PICTURES THAT I HAD IN MY HAND, SO LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT TWO OF THE PICTURES THAT — THEY'RE NOT NUMBERED, ARE THEY?

NO. IF YOU COUNT BACK AND TELL ME WHICH ONES.

GOODMAN: I'VE ALREADY TOOK MINE OUT OF ORDER. SO LET ME — IN THE DARK I PUT THEM TOGETHER. THERE WAS ONE WHERE YOU SAID IT WAS A VIOLATION WHERE IT WAS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE LOT. AND WE HAD — NONE OF MY PICTURES LOOK THE SAME IN THE LIGHT. WELL, THERE WERE TWO. THE OTHER ONE, THE ONE I CAN FIND, HAS FOUR VEHICLES PARKED STRAIGHT, AND THEN IT LOOKS LIKE THREE MORE CATTY-CORNERED.

YES.

GOODMAN: OKAY. THAT IS ADJACENT, BUT THERE'S A SIDEWALK IN BETWEEN.

YES.

GOODMAN: SO IS THAT WHAT —

THAT IS NOT ADJACENT.

GOODMAN: OKAY. AND THEN THE OTHER ONES, WHICH I'M SORRY I CAN'T FIND THAT ONE, IT WAS ALSO PARKED ON THE OTHER SIDE.

WHERE THERE'S A WHITE CAR PARKED ON THE OTHER SIDE AND A RED CAR. SO IF THEY HAD A DIRT DRIVEWAY, WOULD THAT BE A VIOLATION OR NOT? THEY HAD THEIR REGULAR DRIVEWAY AND THEN LIKE AN ADJUNCT DRIVEWAY THE OTHER WAY, WHAT WOULD THAT —

IF THE — IF YOU HAD A DIRT DRIVEWAY AND AN ADJACENT PIECE, AND THE TWO PIECES TOGETHER DID NOT EQUAL MORE THAN 50% OF THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH, THEN THAT WOULD BE OKAY. BUT AT THE POINT THAT IT GOES TO GREATER THAN 50%, THAT PORTION IS NO LONGER UNDER — WOULD THEN VIOLATE THE ORDINANCE.

GOODMAN: I'M NOT SURE HOW YOU WOULD MEASURE THAT IF THEY WERE TO DO IT THAT WAY. WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT IS A VARIATION ON SOME IMPROVEMENTS I'VE SEEN WHERE YOU DO A HALF CIRCLE, AND IT'S IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE, SO TECHNICALLY THAT WOULD SPAN THE FRONTAGE OF THE LOT, BUT IT WOULD NOT COVER —

IT'S HORIZONTAL, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?

GOODMAN: YEAH.

STILL, IT'S ADJACENT TO THE DRIVEWAY. AND IF YOU COUNT FROM THE EDGE OF THE DRIVEWAY — LET'S ASSUME THAT 25 SPEET FEAT IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, 25% OF THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH. IT WAS A 50 FOOT LOT. SO IF YOU COUNT FROM THE EDGE OF THE DRIVEWAY AND YOU COUNT 25 FEET, THAT IS THE AREA IN WHICH YOU ARE ALLOWED TO PARK. ALTHOUGH IF IT'S A CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY, A CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY IS INCLUDED AS A DRIVEWAY. IF WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS THAT.

GOODMAN: I'M SAYING IF YOU HAVE A REGULAR DRIVEWAY, YOU IMPROVE YOUR LOT BY COMPACTING DIRT OR GRAVEL OR WHAT HAVE YOU OR JUST A WELL WORN PATH SO THAT IT'S CLEARLY A DRIVE, BUT IT LEADS TO AN ADDITIONAL PARKING — IF IT HAD AN ADDITIONAL SORT OF Y DRIVEWAY, WOULD THAT COMPLY OR VIOLATE?

[ INAUDIBLE ]

GOODMAN: BECAUSE I THINK ON SOME STANDARDS OF LOTS IT'S THE TYPICAL WAY TO CHANGE A DRIVEWAY.

THAT PROBABLY WOULD BE OKAY BECAUSE IT WOULD STILL QUALIFY AS A — AS THE AREA BETWEEN THE STREET AND A PARKING AREA THAT'S ADJACENT TO A CURB CUT. SO BY DEFINITION THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE OKAY. I'D HAVE TO SEE IT, YOU BUT FROM WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE OKAY.

GOODMAN: AND THE OTHER THING I WAS GOING TO ASK, MAYOR, IS RELATIVE TO THE ORDINANCE LANGUAGE ITSELF. WHEN WE GET TO THE POINT OF PASSING AN ORDINANCE ITSELF, THERE IS AT THIS MOMENT — WELL, I SAY I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS ABOUT LANGUAGE. BUT THERE IS AN EXHIBIT A THAT SAYS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AREAS SUCH TO THE PARKING IN THE YARD ORDINANCE, WHICH AS FAR AS I KNOW HAVE NOT COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ORDINANCE. SO IS IT PROPOSED THAT WE'RE GOING — WE'RE BEING ASKED TO ADD ALL OF THESE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS AS PART OF THE ORDINANCE ITSELF AND ADD ON AS OTHERS ADD ON WITHOUT THESE PARTICULAR AREAS ALL HAVING COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ORDINANCE?

THESE ARE THE INITIAL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS THAT WOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THE ORDINANCE, YES. AND THERE WAS A CHANGE TO THE ORDINANCE THAT STATES THAT THE PRESIDENT — ON PAGE 2 THAT THE PRESIDENT OF A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION MAY SUBMIT AN APPLICATION REQUESTING THE COUNCIL TO AMEND THE APPLICABILITY OF THE ORDINANCE, SO THAT PROCESS IS THE SAME PROCESS THAT YOU WOULD BE USING HERE.

GOODMAN: WELL, BUT THAT'S DIFFERENT. THE OWNER — OR AN APPLICATION TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE IS NOT THE SAME AS COMING UP WITH ALL THE SIGNATURES AND SO WE WOULD HAVE A COUNCIL HEARING IN HERE AND EVERYTHING.

THAT'S TRUE, ALTHOUGH IN THE ORDINANCE THE PRESIDENT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WOULD NOT HAVE THAT SAME 10% PETITION REQUIREMENT.

GOODMAN: OKAY. I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING. YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD PRESIDENT ASKS FOR THAT NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AREA TO BE INCLUDED IN THE ORDINANCE —

AND IT COMES TO COUNCIL. FOR HEARING. UNDER THE ORDINANCE.

GOODMAN: AND THEY DON'T HAVE TO HAVE THE PERCENTAGE OF PROPERTY OWNERS?

THEY DO NOT.

GOODMAN: THEY DO NOT?

THEY DO NOT. NOT THE PRESIDENT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.

GOODMAN: SO WE WOULD OR A COUNCIL WOULD AMEND THE ORDINANCE —

WOULD CONSIDER.

GOODMAN: BUT WITHOUT THE INPUT OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS OFFICIALLY?

AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. THAT WOULD GET THEM TO THE COUNCIL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING.

GOODMAN: OKAY. I THOUGHT THERE WERE —

THAT PART IS NEW. THAT WAS NOT THERE LAST WEEK.

GOODMAN: OKAY. AND THERE'S ALSO AT LEAST ONE UMBRELLA ORGANIZATION INCLUDED HERE, SO DO WE HAVE — AND I KNOW ALL THE NEIGHBORHOODS IN THAT ONE HAVEN'T VOTED. SO DO WE HAVE THE DOCUMENTATION FROM ALL OF THESE NEIGHBORHOODS?

YOU HAVE — COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS' OFFICE HAD LETTERS FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE ASSOCIATIONS REQUESTING — STATING SUPPORT FOR THE ORDINANCE AND REQUESTING INCLUSION.

GOODMAN: WELL, REQUESTING INCLUSION ACCORDING TO THIS ORDINANCE IS NOT THE SAME AS BEING INCLUDED AT THIS MOMENT. I MEAN, THERE'S A PROCESS LAID OUT IN HERE WHICH NEIGHBORHOODS HAVE NOT —

THAT'S TRUE. THERE IS A PROCESS POST-INITIAL ADOPTION. THAT'S TRUE. THERE'S A SEPARATE PROCESS. AFTER THE ORDINANCE IS ADOPTED THERE IS A PROCESS FOR INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION. THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS THAT ARE ON THIS MAP, EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT THERE IS A PROVISION ABOUT THE PRESIDENT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION REQUESTING INCLUSION. TO THAT EXTENT THEY'RE THE SAME, BUT THERE IS A MORE EXTENDED PROCESS. YOU HAVE TO GO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, YOU HAVE TO GET PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS, THEN YOU COME TO COUNCIL. THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS ON THIS MAP HAVE NOT GONE THROUGH THAT PROCESS.

GOODMAN: THEN WHY DO WE HAVE THEM AS PART OF THIS?

WELL, I'LL HAVE TO —

GOODMAN: WITHOUT OFFICIAL DOCUMENTATION THIS IS KIND OF LAYING OUT THOSE WHO WANT TO BE INCLUDED, BUT I DON'T SEE HOW WE CAN LEGALLY INCLUDE THEM IN THE ORDINANCE. WHEN THEY HAVEN'T FOLLOWED THE VERY PROCESS THAT THE ORDINANCE LAYS OUT.

HELLO MAYOR PRO TEM, MY NAME IS LINDA DAILY, I AM THE ASSISTANT TO COUNCILMEMBER DANNY THOMAS. WHAT WE HAD HOPED TO DO — AND AS A NOTE, THEY ACTUALLY HAVE SORT OF GONE THROUGH THE SAME PROCESS BECAUSE THE PLANNING COMMISSION SAW THIS MAP AND THE COUNCIL HAS SEEN IT NOW THREE TIMES. SO THIS IS THE SAME PROCESS THAT WOULD HAPPEN ON NEXT YEAR. IT WOULD GO BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION FIRST AND THEN IT WOULD COME BEFORE THE COUNCIL. THERE WILL BE PUBLIC HEARINGS ATTACHED TO BOTH OF THOSE ENTITIES. WHAT WE HAD HOPED TO DO THIS YEAR WAS TO GET AS MANY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS AS POSSIBLE ON A MAP THAT ACCOMPANIES THE ORDINANCE SO THAT WE'RE NOT DOING IT ONE BY ONE, BECAUSE THERE ARE OVER 400 NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS. AFTERWARDS THERE WAS A STIPULATION THAT ONLY ONE TIME OF YEAR WOULD COUNCIL TAKE A LOOK AT THIS AS WELL AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION. AND THOSE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS WHO HAVE NOT OPTED IN AT THIS POINT WOULD SUBMIT AN APPLICATION TO THE CITY MANAGER BY FEBRUARY FOR THE COUNCIL AGENDA IN APRIL, AND THAT WOULD ONLY OCCUR ONE TIME A YEAR. SO THE GOAL WAS TO GET AS MANY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS THAT WANTED TO OPT IN AND WHICH WE HAVE AROUND 57 OR SO, THAT WANTED TO OPT IN IN, AND THEN FOLLOWING THAT ANNUALLY ANY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS THAT CHOSE TO OPT IN AT THAT POINT WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO ANNUALLY. AND THAT WAS THE REASONING BEHIND HAVING A MAP ATTACHED TO THE ORDINANCE INITIALLY SO THAT WE CAN CAPTURE AS MANIES THOSE ASSOCIATIONS GOING INTO THE PROCESS.

GOODMAN: OKAY. I THOUGHT PART OF THE OPT IN — THE REASON THAT THE OPT IN WAS CONSIDERED IN THE FIRST PLACE WAS SO THAT PEOPLE WOULD KNOW WHEN THEIR AREAS WERE BEING INCLUDED. AND SOME OF THESE NEIGHBORHOODS I KNOW HAVE HAD MEETINGS AND THEY PROBABLY HAVE PRETTY GOOD TURNOUT, SO I HAVE A GOOD FEELING ABOUT THE FOLKS IN THOSE BOUNDARIES BEING AWARE AND VOTING TO SAY YES, INCLUDE US. SOME OF THE AREAS, THOUGH, I KNOW HAVE NOT. AND TO INCLUDE THEM AT ODDS WITH THE PROCESS THAT WE'RE SAYING YOU MUST FOLLOW MAKES NECESSITY VERY UNCOMFORTABLE, SO I'M WONDERING WHY WE'RE TAKING THE TROUBLE TO LAY OUT THAT PROCESS IN THE ORDINANCE, BUT WE'RE INCLUDING SOME NEIGHBORHOODS IN SOME AREAS IN THIS LIST WHO DON'T KNOW THEY'RE BEING INCLUDED.

WHAT WE'VE DONE, WHAT WE'VE TRIED TO DO TO MAKE SURE THAT THE WORD WAS OUT THERE REGARDING WHAT WAS TAKING PLACE, WE HELD A SERIES OF MEETINGS THROUGH THE AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOODS COUNCIL. THE SERIES OF MEETINGS THROUGH THE COMMANDER'S FORUMS, AND THOSE ARE HELD IN EVERY SECTION OF THE CITY. AND THERE'S SEVEN SECTORS. AND IN EACH ONE OF THOSE SECTORS THERE WAS A MEETING REGARDING THE VERY THING. AND WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE EXHAUSTED THIS PUBLIC PROCESS SO THAT PEOPLE WERE AWARE THAT THIS IS WHAT WAS BEING PROPOSED. SO THE LAST THING WE DID LAST WEEK IS WE REQUESTED THAT THIS MAP BE PLACED ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE SO THAT ANYONE WITH ANY QUESTION AS TO WHAT NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION THEY BELONGED TO OR IF THIS MAP WOULD APPLY TO THEM, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE ACCESS EITHER THROUGH THE MAP THAT WAS ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE OR BY CALLING COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS' OFFICE. AND WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE MAP MAKER TO FIND THE PLACE OWE CORDING — SOME PEOPLE DON'T KNOW WHAT NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION THEY'RE EVEN IN. SO WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAD WHATEVER ASSISTANCE THAT THEY NEEDED TO HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY WERE AWARE THAT THIS COMPLY TO THEIR AREA. SO THERE WAS A LOT OF PUBLIC OUTREACH THAT DID OCCUR.

GOODMAN: OKAY. AND OF COURSE WE KNOW THAT NO MATTER HOW HARD WE TRY, WE'RE NEVER GOING TO GET TO EVERYBODY AND SOMEBODY WILL ALWAYS SAY, YOU NEVER TOLD ME. AND IN THAT CONTEXT THEY'RE A LITTLE BROADER. A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO DON'T INCLUDE EVERYBODY, OF COURSE, WITHIN BOUNDARIES, AND A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE GONE ON THE ASSUMPTION, HAVING HEARD A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THIS THAT THEY WILL BE INCLUDED OR NOT INCLUDED WHEN SOMEBODY SPECIFICALLY ASKS THEM AND THEY AS THE PROPERTY OWNERS SAY AYE OR NAY FOR SOME TYPE OF VOTE. AND THAT'S NOT HAPPENING. THAT'S NOT HAPPENING HERE. SO THE DOCUMENTATION I WOULD THINK THAT WE WOULD NEED TO INCLUDE IN THE ORDINANCE, IF WE'RE GOING TO INCLUDE ALL THESE NEIGHBORHOODS, WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT RESEMBLES THE PROCESS THAT WE'RE SAYING EVERYBODY IS GOING TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH AFTERWARDS. AND THAT WOULD BE LIKE COPIES OF THE LETTERS FROM FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS REPRESENTED HERE AND THEIR ASSURANCE THAT THERE WAS A VOTE.

WE HAVE THAT. WE HAVE THE COPIES OF THE — FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD REPRESENTATIVES.

GOODMAN: LET ME JUMP IN AT SAY AT LEAST ONE OF THESE, REMEMBER, IS AN UMBRELLA GROUP. AND WITHIN THAT GROUP I DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW MANY NEIGHBORHOODS ARE WITHIN THOSE BOUNDARIES, BUT THEIR NAMES ARE NOT HERE. AND THAT ONE UMBRELLA GROUP CANNOT SPEAK FOR THEM.

YOU THINK YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT — I THINK YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SOUTHWEST? AND I'M SOMEWHAT FAMILIAR WITH I BELIEVE THE CASES YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. AND ANOTHER UMBRELLA GROUP THAT I'M FAMILIAR WITH IS ONE CALLED METSA WHO TOLD US VERBALLY THAT THEY WANTED TO BE INCLUDED, BUT HAVE NOT PROVIDED ANYTHING IN WRITING, SO THEREFORE THEY WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THIS AREA ON THIS MAP.

GOODMAN: I'LL SHOW YOU THE ONE THAT I MEAN, THAT I KNOW ABOUT.

WHAT WE DID IS BEFORE WE EVEN PLACED THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS ON THE MAP, THEY HAD TO BE ESTABLISHED AT THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE AS A VIABLE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. AND THEN THEY HAD TO HOLD THEIR MEETING AND TAKE A VOTE, AND THEN AFTER THAT SEND US SOMETHING IN WRITING STATING THAT THIS WAS A PROCESS THAT WE'VE DONE, OUR NEIGHBORHOOD VOTED TO OPT IN, AND THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DO.

GOODMAN: I THINK WE SHOULD ATTACH THAT TO THE ORDINANCE. THANKS, MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER QUESTIONS? FURTHER QUESTIONS? WE HAVE A FEW SPEAKERS, AND I'M GOING TO START RECOGNIZING THEM HERE AS SOON AS WE FINISH WITH THE QUESTIONS. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY. MR. PAUL TIDY — THIEDE, DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK, HE'S REGISTERED IN FAVOR OF. MR. MARK BOWDEN DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK, IS REGISTERED IN FAVOR OF. AND THEN IT SAYS GIVE HOMEOWNERS 30 TO 90 DAYS TO OPT IN NOW. KAMILLE PERRY DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK, IS REGISTERED AGAINST. WITH MORE VEHICLES PARKED OUT IN THE STREET, THE RESULTS OF THIS PROPOSAL WOULD BE WORSE THAN THE PRESENT SITUATION. JOHN SCHAEFER? MR. SCHAEFER, YOU HAVE BEEN GIVEN ADDITIONAL TIME BY INA SHACK HE WILL FORD, SO YOU HAVE SIX MINUTES. MR. SCHAEFER? AND FOLLOWING MR. SCHAEFER IS MR. DOUG HYTE. WELCOME, SIR.

THANK YOU, SIR, MAYOR. I ALSO THINK THERE WAS ONE OTHER PERSON THAT DONATED SOME TIME TO ME, BILL SIMMS.

MAYOR GARCIA: BILL WHAT?

BILL SIMMONS.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. SO GIVE HIM NINE MINUTES. THERE YOU ARE.

AND I'D LIKE TO PRESENT YOU SOME —

MAYOR GARCIA: GIVE THEM TO COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS AND WE'LL GO FROM THERE.

GOOD EVENING COUNCILMEMBERS, MY NAME IS JOHN SCHAEFER. I'M 59 YEARS OLD, HOMEGROWN. I AM AGAINST THIS ORDINANCE. WHAT YOU HAVE IN HAND THERE, I HAVE AN UPDATE OF A REVISION OF DOCUMENTS THAT ARE PRESENTED TO THE COUNCILMEMBERS ON MARCH 11TH, 2002. CASE NUMBERS I HAVE BEEN ISSUED. TOURISM ON MECA DRIVE PER MAC MEMBER. I LIVE IN THE QUAIL CREEK SUBDIVISION. AS THE WEEKS HAVE PASSED ON THIS ISSUE I HAVE BECOME AWARE JUST HOW LITTLE SOME PEOPLE CARE OF OTHERS SO LONG AS THEY GET THEIR WAY. I HAVE TRIED TO GIVE MY DOCUMENTS TO THE OPPOSING SIDE TO LET THEM KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE TO LIVE ON THE STREET I LIVE ON IN AUSTIN, TEXAS. NOT A SINGLE MEMBER OF THIS ORDINANCE WILL TAKE A COPY OF MY DOCUMENT. APRIL 11TH, 2002, ARRIVED HOME AFTER CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO SEE A CAR BEING REPAIRED IN THE STREET, FLOOD LIGHTS INCLUDED. SEE DOCUMENT. APRIL 24, 2002, WEDNESDAY, 9:19 A.M., SO MANY VEHICLES PARKED IN THE STREET, HAD TO STOP IN FRONT OF A DRIVE IN ORDER TO LET THE GARBAGE TRUCK GET BY. FOR THE FARR'S TALK OF ADDING PARKING SPACE USING ROAD BASE. CAN THIS NEW ORDINANCE BE GRANDFATHERED? WHEN BUYING MY PROPERTY I WAS GOING TO PLACE CINDER BLOCKS TO HAVE A GREENBELT PARKING FOR MY GUESTS. NOT WANTING TO BE TURNED BY THE CITY, I WAS JUST GOING TO DO THE JOB. AFTER SEEING WHAT THE STREET WAS REALLY LIKE, I DECIDED NOT TO PUT MORE MONEY INTO THIS PROPERTY. EVEN THOUGH I AM YEARS AHEAD OF THE IDEAS PASSED OUT HOW TO BUILD MORE PARKING, THIS HAS NOT GOTTEN PAST THE CITY CODE. IN THE PAST I HAVE PERSONALLY HANDED THE DOCUMENTS TO THE FORMER MAYOR, POLICE CHIEF, ASSISTANT POLICE CHIEF, ETCETERA. A POLICEMAN RESPONDING TO A CALL ON THE STREET WOULD NOT TAKE THE DOCUMENTS FOR RECORDS, KEPT HIS HANDS TO HIS SIDES. TRYING GET SOME INFORMATION MARCH THIRD, 2002, I SENT A LETTER TO A CITY DEPARTMENT HEAD. APRIL 19TH, 2002 THEY SENT A COPY, THIS TIME CERTIFIED. SEE DOCUMENT. AS OF TODAY, NO RESPONSE. SURELY THIS IS NOT GOING TO REQUIRE AN ATTORNEY, ALTHOUGH ONE HAS OFFERED. IT SEEMS LIKE NO ONE WITH THE CIT WANTS TO DO WHAT'S RIGHT. THE CITY IN ITSELF HAS CODES CAUSING THE PARKING PROBLEMS. ONE TO ALLOW FOUR-PLUS VEHICLES. THIS MEANS AT A DUPLEX SUCH AS I OWN WITH MY MOTHER. SHE LIVES IN ONE SIDE, I LIVE IN THE OTHER SIDE, EIGHT VEHICLES PLUS ONE PER LICENSED DRIVER CAN BE ALLOWED, IF I AM UNDERSTANDING THIS CODE. AND ANOTHER CODE ALLOWED ONLY ONE VEHICLE PER SIDE TO BE LEGALLY PARKED IN THE SIDE. ONE CODE CONFLICTS WITH ANOTHER. MY EXPERIENCE WITH INSPECTORS AND CODE, BEING TOLD BY AN INSPECTOR, I HAD A JOB FOR APPROVED PLANS, I WAS ASKED ANY CHANGE OF PLANS WHO WOULD IT COST? MY REPLY, ANY CHANGE OF PLANS THE COST GOES TO THE CUSTOMER. THE RELY FROM THE INSPECTOR, HERE ARE THE CHANGES I WANT TO MAKE. ANOTHER DIGGING 10-FOOT TRENCHES FOR A GAS LINE, BREAKING A NEW, NON-WORKING 10-INCH WATER MAIN, THE INSPECTOR WAS CALLED TO THE JOB SITE. EVEN THOUGH THE PLATS FURNISHED BY THIS DEPARTMENT DID NOT SHOW THIS PIPE WAS IN PLACE, I WAS TOLD THEOULD HAVE TO REPLACE A NEW 20 FOOT PIPE AT MY EXPENSE. THE INSPECTOR DID NOT WANT A SPLICE. THAT WOULD REQUIRE DIGGING UNDER THREE FOOT STORM DRAINS AND UNDER THE ROAD. I WOULD NOT PUT THE PERSONNEL UNDER HAZARDS SUCH AS THIS. I TOLD THE INSPECTOR HAD HAD TO BE SPLICED. AFTER A NOSE TO NOSE DISCUSSION I SENT HIM TO GET AN ENGINEER TO TELL ME I COULD NOT DO A SPLICE AFTER HAVING A JOB SHUT DOWN FOR FOUR AND A HALF HOURS, THE INSPECTOR RETURNED WITH THE APPROVAL — RETURNED WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER. IN THESE MEETINGS I'VE HEARD TALK OF WHY CONTRACTOR'S COSTS ARE SO HIGH, TAKE A GUESS. THE CITY SENDS OUT A NOTICE TO CLEAN UP THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT THE TRASH STAYS AT THE CURB MONTHS. WHAT AN EYESORE. AND I'VE HEARD THE FARR'S TALK ABOUT DEVALUATION OF PROPERTY. I SEE SO-CALLED LEGAL VEHICLES THAT CAN'T RUN FILLING UP DRIVES. THE ONES THAT RUN PARKED IN THE STREET. COUNCILMEMBERS, THIS CITY IS IN COMPLETE DENIAL OF JUST HOW SERIOUS THINGS ARE GETTING OUT OF HAND BY NOT ENFORCING LAWS WE NOW WHY. THEY ARE MUCH MORE SERIOUS THAN PARKING IN YARDS. CLEAN UP THE STREETS OF CRIME, TRASH AND PROVIDE PARKING SO WE CAN FEEL SAFE TO PARK OUR VEHICLES ON THE STREET. HAVING A DIFFERENT LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, A COUNTY SHERIFF AND A COUNTY JUDGE, I COULD GET INTO A REAL MESS OF WHAT A MESS OUR LAWMAKERS ARE GETTING US INTO. I HAVE STATED IN THE PAST, I DO NOT LIKE HAVING TO PARK IN THE YARD OF PROPERTY I OWN. ON MY STREET IT'S A NECESSITY. IF I AM PUSHED INTO THE STREET AND I HAVE PROPERTY DAMAGE, TO WHOM DO I PRESUME TO BILL? I WILL ALSO BE DEMANDING LOST WAGES. THANKS FOR THIS TIME.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MR. SCHAEFER. MR. DOUG HITE? AND FOLLOWING MR. HITE IS WAYNE TOBIAS. WELCOME, SIR.

THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. I CONCUR WITH THOSE WHO HAVE ALREADY SPOKEN IN FAVOR OF THIS ISSUE. MY THANKS TO CITY LEGAL FOR THEIR SUPPORT AND HARD EFFORT IN THIS — IN THIS ISSUE, WHICH IS CITYWIDE. WE HAVE SEEN SUPPORT FROM ALL SECTORS OF THE CITY, NORTH, SOUTH, EAST AND WEST. I HAVE SPENT MY TIME MEETING WITH ANC MEMBERS, WITH NEIGHBORS, WITH COUNCILMEMBERS IN SUPPORT OF THIS ORDINANCE. I AM THE BALCONES WOODS REPRESENTATIVE FOR THIS ISSUE. WE HAVE VOTED, WE HAVE SPOKEN IN FAVOR OF THIS. WE ARE NORTH. WE WILL NOT BE A PART OF A NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN FOR QUITE SOME TIME BASED ON THE CURRENT MAP. EACH NEIGHBORHOOD IS IN FAVOR OF SELF-DETERMINATION, BUT THIS COMES WITH A PRICE,. AS HAS BEEN NOTED, THE DETERMINING OF WHO VOTES FOR AND WHO VOTES AGAINST IS EXPENSIVE. THE APPROACH TO REDUCING THE COST WOULD BE TO MAKE THIS ORDINANCE CITYWIDE AS WE SPEAK, BUT THAT HAS RAISED LOTS OF OPPOSITION. I AM IN FAVOR OF THE DRAFT AS PRESENTED AND WANT TO BE — AND WANT TO BE INCLUDED AS A PART OF THIS. I FEEL THAT THIS IS A QUALITY OF LIFE ISSUE, AND IT IS IMPORTANT TO ME. PLEASE SUPPORT THIS ORDINANCE AND VOTE FOR IT AS PRESENTED. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU. MR. WAYNE TOBIAS. AND FOLLOWING HIM IS ALEX RUSAN, WHO IS REGISTERED NOT WISHING TO SPEAK, BUT IN FAVOR OF. AND HE SAYS HE SUPPORTS DOING SOMETHING ABOUT YARD PARKING. IT IS A REAL PROBLEM AND WE NEED A TOOL TO HELP US. AND THEN AFTER THAT IS MAYORAL LIST BROWN — MARY ALICE BROWN.

MAYOR GARCIA, COUNCILMEMBERS, I'M WAYNE FROM THE WALNUT CREEK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. I DON'T NEED THIS ORDINANCE. IT DOESN'T MATTER TO ME THAT THERE ARE CARS PARKED IN THE FRONT LAWNS BECAUSE THEY'RE UP THE STREET, THEY'RE FOUR BLOCKS AWAY FROM ME. I DON'T NEED THIS ORDINANCE. IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT ONCE GREEN LAWNS ARE NOW DEVOID OF GREEN. IT DOESN'T AFFECT ME. I CAN'T SEE IT. I DON'T NEED THIS ORDINANCE. IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT WHEN IT RAINS THE MUD FROM THE EXPOSED SOIL RUNS OUT ON TO THE STREETS AND STOPS WATER FLOW INTO THE GUTTERS AND CREATES PUDDLES AND SLICK SPOTS IN THE ROAD. I DON'T DRIVE IN THE RAIN. IT DOESN'T MATTER TO ME THAT JOHNNIE RIDES DOWN ON HIS BIKE AND SOLID ON THE LOOSE DIRT IN THE ROAD. HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN WATCHING WHERE HE WAS GOING. IT'S NOT MY KID. IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT GARY SMITH TWO DOORS DOWN FROM THAT LOT IS NOW RENTING HIS HOUSE BECAUSE HE COULDN'T GET IT FOR THE VALUE THAT IT WAS WORTH. SO WE WANT TO LOOK AT A LOT WITH CARS AND DIRT IN THE FRONT YARD. MY NEIGHBORS HAVE NICE YARDS. I DON'T CARE. I HOPE YOU CAN SEE WHERE I'M GOING. BY ALLOWING CARS TO PARK ON THE LAWNS, WE HAVE AFFECTED THE ENVIRONMENT. WHEN THE GRASS IS NO LONGER THERE TO STOP THE WATER. WE HAVE SAFETY ISSUES WHEN THE RUNOFF END UP IN THE STREETS. WE HAVE PROPERTY VALUE ISSUES. I HOPE — THIS KIND OF REVERSES THE GRASS IS ON THE OTHER SIDE STORY. AT THIS POINT IN TIME MY NEIGHBORHOOD DOES NOT HAVE A BIG PROBLEM WITH CARS PARKING IN THE LAWNS. I HAVE SEEN PICTURES OF THOSE THAT DO. IF WE LET THIS GO, I BELIEVE LIKE BREEDS LIKE. IF ONE PERSON PARKS ON HIS LAWN, IT WON'T BE LONG BEFORE ANOTHER AND THEN ANOTHER. UNTIL THOSE WHO ENJOY THE BEAUTY OF THE YARD THAT THEY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY FOR NO LONGER HAVE SOMETHING TO LOOK AT. WE NEED THIS ORDINANCE. WE AS A NEIGHBORHOOD NEED THIS ORDINANCE. TO ALLOW THOSE WHO HAVE PURCHASED A HOME WITH PROPERTY TO CONTINUE TO ENJOY THE ASSET OF THE PROPERTY AND ENJOY THE NEIGHBORHOOD BEAUTY AS WELL. BY HAVING SOME WAY TO PROTECT OUR ASSETS SUCH AS THIS ORDINANCE, WE CAN CONTINUE. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU. MARY ALICE BROWN? AND FOLLOWING MS. BROWN IS JOE BETH WARDEN. MS. BROWN, WELCOME.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MAYOR GARCIA AND COUNCILMEMBERS. MY NAME IS MARY ALICE BROWN WITH THE UNIVERSITY HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. AT THE ASSOCIATION MEETING IN FEBRUARY MEMBERS VOTED TO SUPPORT THIS ORDINANCE, AND ITS THEN PRESIDENT SENT A LETTER CONFIRMING THE SUPPORT TO COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS. I'LL SPEAK JUST BRIEFLY NOW AS A UNIVERSITY HILLS HOMEOWNER. ALL OF THE EFFECTS OF PARKING ON LAWNS ARE NEGATIVE. PARKING ON LAWNS DETRACTS FROM THE BEAUTY OF ANY NEIGHBORHOOD, REDUCES PROPERTY VALUES BECAUSE PROSPECTIVE BUYERS THINK THE NEIGHBORS IN THE AREA DON'T CARE AND CREATE A TRAFFIC HAZARD DEPENDING ON WHERE THE CARS ARE PARKED AND ESTABLISHES ADDITIONAL AREAS OF IMPERVIOUS COVER BY TURNING AN AREA OF EARTH OR LAWN INTO A SURFACE LIKE CONCRETE. IF YOU'RE TRULY INTERESTED IN HELPING NEIGHBORHOODS KEEP AUSTIN BEAUTIFUL, PLEASE VOTE FOR THIS ORDINANCE. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MS. BROWN. FOLLOWING MS. JOE BETH WARDEN IS MR. RAYMOND.

GOOD EVENING MAYOR GARCIA AND COUNCILMEMBERS.

MAYOR GARCIA: GOOD EVENING. LET ME MAKE A QUICK ANNOUNCEMENT. PUT IT BACK TO THREE MINUTES, PLEASE. RAYMOND TUCKER DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK, BUT IF A SPEAKER NEEDS — IF A SPEAKER IN FAVOR OF NEEDS MORE TIME, HE'S WILLING TO GIVE IT TO THAT SPEAKER. MS. WARDEN, WELCOME.

THANK YOU. I AM A 25-YEAR RESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. I HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF SERVING ON THE NORTHEAST COUNCIL, WHICH IS A NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP. I'M ALSO A MEMBER OF THE STEERING COMMITTEE FOR THE PROGRAM. TONIGHT I'VE RUN A LOT CONCERNING THESE AMEND AMENDMENTS, SO I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THESE TWO ISSUES. I FIRST AND FOREMOST APPRECIATE COUNCILMEMBER IS AND I DO SUPPORT THE INTENT OF THIS ORDINANCE. I HOPE THAT YOU ALL WILL FIND IT TO VOTE ON IT AS A STARTING POINT AT LEAST, BUT MS. GOODMAN, COUNCILMEMBER GOODMAN TICKLED SOME MEMORY CELLS HERE WHEN SHE ASKED THE QUESTION, AND I DO THINK THAT THE ORDINANCE IS SOMEWHAT AMBIGUOUS. FOR INSTANCE, MY LOT IS 95 FEET WIDE, SO AM I GOING TO HAVE A DRIVEWAY THAT COVERS 45 FEET. I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE WORDING THERE. I HEARD DURING THE POWER POINT PRESENTATION THAT THE DRIVEWAY THAT WOULD BE BUILT IN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY WOULD ONLY BE 50% OF THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY, WHICH IS WHAT I THINK MIGHT BE OF THE BEST INTEREST. IF YOUR DRIVEWAY IS 20 FEET WIDE, WHICH MOST DOUBLE DRIVEWAYS ARE, OR 19 OR 18, THEN IF YOU WANTED TO MAKE A?ARKING SPACE TO THE SIDE, IT SHOULD BE NO GREATER THAN AN ADDITIONAL 10 FEET. I CAN SEE WHERE WE WOULD EVEN GET INTO AN IMPERVIOUS LAND COVER SITUATION IF WE ALLOWED ALL THIS CONCRETE TO GO FORWARD ON SOME OF THESE LOTS. NOW SECONDLY, AND MY MEMORY IS NOT TOO CLEAR ON THIS, BUT I BELIEVE THERE'S A CITY CODE THAT PERMITS YOU TO BUILD A SLAB PRIMARILY FOR MOTOR HOMES AND WITHOUT GIVING PERMITS YOU CAN BUILD ONE THAT'S 10 FEET WIDE AND 30 FEET LONG. I KNOW OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE BUILT THESE ON THEIR SIDE YARDS, BUT THEY ARE NOT ADJACENT TO THEIR DRIVEWAY THE. AND THE MOTOR HOME SITS ON THESE SLABS. SO THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I FIND AMBIGUOUS IN THE WAY THE ORDINANCE IS CURRENTLY WRITTEN. NOW, I'M SPEAKING AS A RESIDENT OF UNIVERSITY HILLS, AND MARY ALICE HAS EXPRESSED ALL OF OUR CONCERNS. THE OTHER THING I WANT TO SPEAK TO IS THE EXPERIENCE THAT I HAVE LEARNED BY SERVING ON THE WEED AND SEED COMMITTEE. THAT IS WHEN YOU HAVE THESE CARS PARKED ON THE YARD, YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER THEY'RE INOPERABLE OR NOT BECAUSE THEY'RE LICENSED, ETCETERA. [ BUZZER SOUNDS ]

MAYOR GARCIA: PUT THREE MORE MINUTES ON THAT ONE. MR. TUCKER IS GIVING TIME TO MS. WARDEN.

THANK YOU. WHAT HAPPENS IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS, PARTICULARLY IN THE OLDER NEIGHBORHOODS AND PARTICULARLY THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE ALONG THE CORRIDOR OF I-35. THESE CARS THAT ARE PARKED IN YARDS BECOME GATHERING PLACES FOR PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT PARTICULARLY UP DOING THE RIGHT THING AT ODD HOURS OF THE DAY AND NIGHT. THEY LEAN ON THEM, THEY PASS DRUGS, THEY HIDE DRUGS. I THINK THE POLICE HAVE A TERM THEY BECOME A NUISANCE AREA TYPE THING. AND THERE'S NO WAY TO ACCOUNT FOR THAT. YOU DON'T KNOW IF IT'S INOPERABLE OR OPERABLE. WE HAVE CARS THAT ARE PARKED IN FRONT YARDS, BOATS THAT ARE PARKED IN FRONT YARDS, THINGS THAT HAVE NOT MOVED FOR SIX MONTHS, YET THEY'RE LICENSED AND INSPECTED. SO THESE ARE JUST THINGS THAT GO TO SUPPORT THE ORDINANCE. AND I WISH THAT YOU MIGHT AT A LITTLE BIT OF CLAIREICATION IN THE WORDING, AND PLEASE, PLEASE ACCEPT THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE. AND PERSONALLY WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT CITYWIDE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PATIENCE.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. LINDA MOORE? MS. MOORE, YOU HAVE NINE MINUTES GIVEN TO YOU BY ANDREW CHIN AND BRYAN LECLURE.

THOMAS: I THINK SHE NEEDED — SHE NEEDED CLARIFIED BY MS. THOMAS ABOUT THE CONCRETE, THE LADY FROM UNIVERSITY HILLS.

MAYOR GARCIA: MS. THOMAS?

YES, SIR. I BELIEVE HER CONCERN WAS SHE THOUGHT THERE WAS AN AMBIGUITY ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF THE — OF THE ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY THAT COULD BE ADDED. ACTUALLY, HER LOT BEING 95 FEET WIDE IS NOT THE ISSUE, THE ISSUE IS WHAT IS THE MINIMUM WIDTH OF THE LOT. THEN WE WOULD ADD — THEN WE WOULD TAKE 50% OF THAT, AND THAT WOULD BE THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT THAT THE DRIVEWAY — THE DRIVEWAY PLUS THE ADDITIONAL AMOUNT WOULD BE. ALSO, THAT AREA WOULD BE LIMITED BY THE EXISTING IMPERVIOUS COVER REQUIREMENT, SO YOU COULDN'T JUST PUT DOWN AS MUCH AS YOU WANTED. YOU WOULD STILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH OTHER REGULAR LAYINGS LIKE THE IMPERVIOUS COVER. SO YOU WOULDN'T TURN THE DRIVEWAY INTO JUST A CONCRETE SLAB REGARDLESS OF EVEN IF YOU DID HAVE 95 FEET OF FRONTAGE ON YOUR LOT.

COULD I ASK HER A QUESTION REAL QUICK?

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYOR PRO TEM?

GOODMAN: SO DEBRA, DO PEOPLE HAVE TO GET — DO THEY HAVE TO GET A PERMIT IF THEY'RE ADDING ON LIKE THAT EVEN IF IT'S JUST GRAVEL? BECAUSE OTHERWISE HOW WOULD THEY KNOW HOW MUCH IMPERVIOUS COVER THEY'RE PUTTING DOWN?

WELL, I'LL TELL YOU UNDER THIS ORDINANCE THEY WOULD NOT HAVE TO. THIS ORDINANCE UNDER THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE — I WOULD HAVE TO CHECK I'M NOT SURE. I GUESS IT WOULD DEPEND ON THE EXTENT OF WHAT YOU'RE DOING. I JUST DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE TO GET A PERMIT, BUT UNDER THIS ORDINANCE YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO. YOU WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH ALL THE REGULATIONS OF THE CITY, NOT JUST THIS ORDINANCE. YOU ALSO HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. DID GOODOODMAN: I'M JUST WONDERING IF ANYBODY WOULD KNOW ABOUT THAT UNLESS SOMEBODY SAID IT LOOKS LIKE TOO MUCH IMPERVIOUS COVER AND CALLED THE CITY INSPECTOR AND THEN THEY WOULD FIND OUT.

MAYOR? DEBRA, WHAT I'M SURE WE COULD DO IS CHECK TO MAKE SURE IF THERE'S SOME OTHER ORDINANCE THAT WOULD BE APPLICABLE HERE WHERE IF THERE WAS A POSSIBLE VIOLATION. WE COULD TRY TO LOOK THAT UP, COULDN'T WE?

YES. AND THERE MAY BE — JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THIS ONE, THERE COULD BE ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU'RE NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH. AND THIS DOESN'T AUTHORIZE YOU TO VIOLATE ANYTHING ELSE.

LET'S TRY TO GET THE INFORMATION AND SEE IF THERE'S ANOTHER ONE IT'S POSSIBLY VIOLATING.

ARE MY NINE MINUTES UP YET?

MAYOR GARCIA: NO. BUT YOU STILL HAVE— ON TIMER THERE. MS. MOORE, WELCOME.

THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS. I'M LINDA MOORE FROM THE NORTH AUSTIN CIVIC ASSOCIATION. AND OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AREA REPRESENTS ABOUT 27,450 RESIDENTS. I'D LIKE TO ASK THE PEOPLE HERE TONIGHT IN FAVOR OF THIS ORDINANCE IF THEY WOULD JUST STAND FOR A MOMENT SO YOU COULD SEE HOW MANY THERE ARE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE'VE TOLD YOU AND OTHER NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS HAVE TOLD YOU MANY REASONS WHY THIS ORDINANCE IS NEEDED. VISUAL POLLUTION, COMPACTING THE SOIL THAT CAUSES RUNOFF AND DEAD VEGETATION, THE ADVERSE EFFECT ON PROPERTY VALUES, DETERIORATING INFLUENCE ON NEIGHBORHOODS, RIPS IN THE LAWN, BROKEN WINDOW SYNDROME. WHEN THE AREA LOOKS UNKEMPT AND UNCARED FOR, THE CRIME RATE GOES UP. YOU'VE SEEN PHOTOS AND HEARD TESTIMONY FROM MANY NEIGHBORHOODS TO SUPPORT THE REASONS LISTED ABOVE. REASONS FOR PASSING THIS ORDINANCE. WE HAVE RECEIVED WRITTEN SUPPORT FROM ABOUT 60 NEIGHBORHOODS WHO HAVE ASKED TO BE INCLUDED IN THE ORDINANCE, AND WE'VE GONE THROUGH A LONG PUBLIC PROCESS, FIVE COMMANDER'S FORUMS, THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS AND THREE HEARINGS BEFORE THE COUNCIL, ALL FOR A SIMPLE, STAND UP, STRAIGHTFORWARD TRAFFIC ORDINANCE. AND ONE IN WHICH EVEN THE AREAS THAT DON'T WANT IT HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY NOT TO HAVE IT. SO WHAT MORE DO YOU NEED TO PASS THIS THING? THIS LETTER FROM MY OWN NEIGHBORHOOD ILLUSTRATES WHY WE GOT INVOLVED IN THIS ISSUE TO BEGIN WITH. MY NAME IS DAVID VAN AND I'M WRITING THIS NOTE FOR MY MOTHER, BETSY VAN, WHO LIVES WITHIN THE NECA BOUNDARIES. SHE'S LIVED AT THIS ADDRESS FOR OVER 20 YEARS. MY MOTHER IS 80 YEARS OLD AND IS DISABLED, CONFINED TO A WHEELCHAIR AND HAS FAILING EYESIGHT. IN SPITE OF THIS SHE TAKES GREAT PRIDE IN HER HOME AND HER YARD AND SHE WANTS YOU TO KNOW SHE FULLY SUPPORTS THE WORK THAT NECA AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS ARE DOING TO ENCOURAGE THE ENACTMENT OF THE PROPOSED CITY ORDINANCE PROHIBITING VEHICLE PARKING ON NEIGHBORHOOD LAWNS. MY MOTHER'S PROPERTY HAS BEEN NEGATIVELY IMPACTED BY VEHICLES PARKING IN LAWNS ALREADY. AND WITHOUT THIS ORDINANCE WE FEEL THE PROBLEM WILL ONLY GET WORSE OVER TIME. MR. JOSE RIVERA PURCHASED THE HOME NEXT DOOR TO MY MOTHER SEVERAL YEARS AGO. HE OWNS A ROOFING BUSINESS AND USES HIS HOME AS HIS BASE FOR THE BUSINESS. CONSEQUENTLY EACH EVENING THERE ARE NUMEROUS VEHICLES, INCLUDING LARGE TRUCKS, PARKED AT HIS RESIDENCE. THERE HAVE BEEN NIGHTS WHEN AS MANY ANZ 11 AS ON OWE AS MANY AS 11 AND 12 VEHICLES HAVE BEEN THERE OVERNIGHT. WITH THE DRIVEWAY FULL AND THE STREET LINED WITH HIS TRUCKS, SEVERAL MONTHS AGO HE BEGAN TO PARK ONE OR TWO VEHICLES IN THE SIDE YARD BETWEEN HIS HOME AND MY MOTHERS. BECAUSE A LARGE TREE BLOCKED ACCESS TO THE SIDE YARD FROM HIS DRIVEWAY, HE WAS INITIALLY DRIVING THROUGH MY MOTHER'S YARD TO ACCESS HIS SIDE YARD. WHEN I DISCOVERED WHAT WAS GOING ON, I DEMANDED THAT HE STOP DRIVING ACROSS MY MOTHER'S PROPERTY, WHICH HE DID. HOWEVER, TO MAINTAIN PARKING ACCESS TO HIS SIDE YARD, HE CUT THE TREE DOWN AND IS STILL PARKING THERE DAILY. LAST YEAR MR. RIVERA MOVED HIS PRIMARY RESIDENCE TO PFLUGERVILLE. HE HAS TOLD NEIGHBORS THAT HE NOW LIVES IN PFLUGERVILLE AND TAX RECORDS INDICATE THAT HE NOW TAKES HIS HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION ON A PFLUGERVILLE ADDRESS. HE SAYS THAT THE HOME ON OAK RUN IS OCCUPIED BY HIS COUSINS, BUT MY PERSONAL BELIEF IS THAT THE RESIDENCE IS USED SIMPLY AS A DORMITORY FOR HIS ROOFING BUSINESS EMPLOYEES. AND THAT IS WHY ALL THE VEHICLES ASSOCIATED WITH THE BUSINESS AS WELL AS THEIR PERSONAL VEHICLES, ARE THERE EVERY EVENING AND NIGHT. NOBODY CAN DENY THAT MY MOTHER'S PROPERTY VALUE HAS BEEN NEGATIVELY IMPACTED BY THE USE OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY AND THE USE OF THEIR YARD FOR PARKING. RECENTLY THE RESIDENTS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF MR. RIVERA'S PROPERTY HAVE BEGUN PARKING IN THEIR FRONT YARD. THERE HAS BEEN — RECENTLY BEEN FOUR VEHICLES TYPICALLY PARKED AT THAT ADDRESS, TWO IN THE DRIVEWAY AND TWO IN THE FRONT YARD. THIS IS INDICATIVE OF THE WAY THAT NEIGHBORHOODS DETERIORATE UNLESS THE CITY TAKES POSITIVE ACTION TO PRESENT IT TO — TO PREVENT IT AND TO PROTECT RESIDENTS' PROPERTY VALUES. OAK RUN DRIVE IS NOT A STREET FILLED WITH UNMAINTAINED DUPLEXES AS WE OFTEN SEE ON NEWS REPORTS. IT IS A QUIET STREET WITH MOSTLY WELL MAINTAINED, SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES, BUT WITHOUT THE PROTECTION OF THIS PROPOSED ORDINANCE IT IS NOT LIKELY TO MAINTAIN THAT CHARACTER FOR LONG. SIGNED DAVID VAN FOR BETSY VAN. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MS. MOORE. BOBBY HENLEY? HE DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK, BUT IS REGISTERED IN FAVOR OF. MS. MATTHEWS? AND AFTER MS. MATTHEWS IS DAVID COROLLI. HE DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK, IS REGISTERED IN FAVOR OF. AND AMBER THOMPSON.

THANK YOU, MAYOR GARCIA AND COUNCILMEMBERS FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO YOU. MY NAME IS ALOA AND I'M A MEMBER OF SOUTH RIVER CITY CITIZENS. THE GENERAL MEMBERSHIP OF SOUTH RIVER CITY CITIZENS VOTED TO SUPPORT A BAN ON LAWN PARKING IN FEBRUARY. AND SRCC REPRESENTS MORE THAN 6,000 HOUSEHOLDS. LAST WEEK ONE OF THE OPPONENT OF THIS ORDINANCE TRIED TO CONVINCE YOU THAT YOU WOULD NEED A MASK TO SNEAK OUT OF TOWN IF YOU VOTED FOR THIS ORDINANCE. I THINK THE FACTS SPEAK DIFFERENTLY. I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE WOULD WANT TO SHAKE YOUR HANDS. YOU MAY WISH TO CONSIDER THAT 61 NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS ARE ON RECORD AS SUPPORTING THIS LAWN PARKING BAN AS COMPARED TO SEVEN AGAINST IT. THE ACTUAL NUMBER OF NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS SUPPORTING IT IS PROBABLY FAR GREATER THAN THIS DUE TO THE FACT THAT MANY NEIGHBORHOODS HAVE DEED RESTRICTIONS BANNING PARKING ON THE LAWNS. IF ANY OF OUR COUNCILMEMBERS LIVED IN SUCH A NEIGHBORHOOD, THEN YOU ARE ENJOYING A BENEFIT THAT IS NOT REALLY AVAILABLE TO US. BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THIS LAW. YOUR NEIGHBORS ARE HERE TO ASK YOU TO PLEASE SUPPORT THIS AND GIVE US THE SAME BENEFIT THAT YOU MAY ENJOY IF YOU LIVE IN A DEED RESTRICTED NEIGHBORHOOD. I HOPE THAT YOU WILL LOOK AT THE FACTS AND DISREGARD THE DRAMATIC APPEALS WE HAVE SEEN AND EFFORTS TO SHAME YOU INTO VOTING AGAINST THIS ORDINANCE. THE RHETORIC I HAVE HEARD IN THIS CHAMBER THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE HAVE'S VERSUS THE HAVE NOT'S MADE FOR GOOD THEATER, BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S MADE FOR GOOD POLICY. MANY AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOODS WITH LOW SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS HAVE VOTED TO SUPPORT THIS ORDINANCE AND THEY HAVE THEIR OWN REASONS. IT IS A UNIQUELY AMERICAN DEFINITION OF POVERTY TO OWN SO MANY VEHICLES PER HOUSEHOLD THAT SOME MUST BE PARKED ON THE LAWN. [ LAUGHTER ] PLEASE HAVE THE COURAGE TO VOTE AND TO ACT FOR THE GREATER GOOD OF OUR COMMUNITY AS OTHER CITY COUNCILS HAVE DONE IN TEXAS AND PLEASE SUPPORT THIS BAN ON LAWN PARKING. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ALVAREZ: MAYOR? A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION.

MAYOR GARCIA: QUESTION BY COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ. MS. MATTHEWS? COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ HAS A QUICK QUESTION.

ALVAREZ: YOU MENTIONED THAT THE GENERAL MEMBERSHIP OF SRCC VOTED ON THIS?

YES, WE DID.

ALVAREZ: WHAT EXACTLY DID THAT MEAN?

WELL, IN DECEMBER WE HAD A PRESENTATION BY THE PROPONENTS OF IT. AND BECAUSE WE WANTED TO BE FAIR WE SAID WE — THEY ASKED US TO VOTE ON IT THEN. AND WE SAID WE'D LIKE TO HEAR BOTH SIDES, SO I BELIEVE IT WAS JANUARY WE HAD BOTH SIDES COME AND GIVE US A PRESENTATION. AND THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ON OUR MESSAGE BOARD FOLLOWING THAT. THERE WAS A DISCUSSION OF THE ACTUAL MEETING AND THEN THERE WAS DISCUSSION ON OUR WEBSITE MESSAGE BOARD FOR PROBABLY, I WOULD SAY MAYBE TWO WEEKS. AND THEN AT THE FEBRUARY MEETING WE VOTED.

ALVAREZ: SO WHOEVER SHOWED UP TO THAT MEETING, ARE THOSE WHO DECIDED WHETHER SRCC WAS FOR OR AGAINST?

RIGHT.

ALVAREZ: DO YOU KNOW OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD HOW MANY PEOPLE SHOWED UP TO THAT MEETING?

I WOULD SAY THERE WAS PROBABLY ABOUT 30 PEOPLE AT THE MEETING. WE GENERALLY HAVE 30 PEOPLE — 30 OR 40 PEOPLE AT ALL OF OUR MEETINGS, MAYBE MORE.

ALVAREZ: YOU SAID THERE WERE 6,000?

6,000 HOUSEHOLDS. AND WE'VE BEEN IN — SRCC IS I BELIEVE THE SECOND OLDEST NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IN THE CITY. SOMEONE CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT I THINK WE'RE THE SECOND OLDEST AND THERE USUALLY ARE ABOUT 30 OR 40 PEOPLE, ALTHOUGH WHEN WE HAVE OUR 4TH OF JULY PICNIC THERE'S USUALLY ABOUT A THOUSAND.

ALVAREZ: THANK YOU.

THERE'S FREE FOOD.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU. I DON'T THINK I READ INTO THE RECORD THAT EDEN HAVER ICK IS REGISTERED IN FAVOR OF AND DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK. I ALREADY READ ABOUT MR. CAROLLI. AMBER THOMPSON. FOLLOWING HER IS MARY TANNEHILL. MS. THOMPSON, WELCOME.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. MY NAME IS AMBER THOMPSON. I'M A VERY IN HIGH SCHOOL AND I LIVE IN THE NORTH AUSTIN CIVIC ASSOCIATION. I DON'T HAVE ANY LEGAL TERMS UP MY SLEEVE, I JUST COME WITH COMMON SENSE. I BELIEVE THAT PARKING ON LAWNS IS INVISIBLE BECAUSE IT DOES NOT GO ALONG WITH THE ORDER OF SOCIETY. JUST AS A PEN IS USED AS A TOOL FOR WRITING, A DRIVEWAY IS A PLACE FOR PARKING AND A YARD IS A PLACE OF BEAUTY AND FOR CHILDREN TO PLAY. IF SOMEONE TRIED TO USE A PEN IT BRUSH HIS TEETH, EVERYONE WOULD THINK HE WAS REDEEK CLUELOUS. THE SAME GOES FOR LAWNS AND DRIVEWAYS. THEY'RE BOTH THERE FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE. AND TO USE THEM FOR ANOTHER REASON IS ABSURD. FINALLY, MY ADVICE IS TO KEEP THINGS STRAIGHT. A YARD IS A YARD, A DRIVEWAY IS A DRIVEWAY, BUT KEEP IS THAT WAY. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU. MARY TANNEHILL. WELCOME.

THANK YOU, MAYOR GARCIA AND COUNCILMEMBERS. I'M SPEAKING AGAIN ON BEHALF OF THE BALCONES CIVIC ASSOCIATION AND NORTHWEST AUSTIN IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROPOSED LAWN PARKING BAN ORDINANCE. AND OUR GEOGRAPHICAL AREA ENCOMPASSES APPROXIMATELY 5,500 RESIDENTS. I WOULD LIKE TO REITERATE OUR SUPPORT OF THIS PROPOSED LAWN PARKING BAN. WE FEEL THAT THE NEIGHBORHOODS IN AUSTIN THAT HAVE ADEQUATE RESIDENTIAL PARKING AND THAT HAVE VOTED TO BE INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE, THAT THESE NEIGHBORHOODS WILL BENEFIT FROM THE PASSAGE AND ENFORCEMENT OF SUCH AN ORDINANCE. WE BELIEVE THAT THE HOME VALUES IN THE OPT END NEIGHBORHOODS WILL INCREASE. THAT ATTRACTIVENESS OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS WILL ALSO INCREASE AND THAT CRIME WILL DECREASE. ALL OF THESE ATTRIBUTES WILL POSITIVELY AFFECT THE ENTIRE CITY OF AUSTIN. WE URGED THE COUNCIL TO PASS THIS PROPOSED ORDINANCE SO THAT AUSTIN CAN JOIN THE OTHER CONCERNED CITIES IN TEXAS WHO ARE TRYING TO KEEP THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS AS BEAUTIFUL AS POSSIBLE. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU. DOR DOROTHY JOHNS? AND FOLLOWING HER IS JOYCE HEART, WHO IS REGISTERED NOT WISHING TO SPEAK, BUT IN FAVOR OF. IS MS. JOHNS HERE? OKAY. AND FOLLOWING MS. JOHNS IS SHERRY PILE. MS. JOHNS, WELCOME?

HELLO. GOOD EVENING COUNCILMEMBERS AND MAYOR. I'M FROM — DOROTHY JOHNS FROM HIGHLAND NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. AND I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SPEAK TO THE ISSUE THAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE BROUGHT UP, AND IT'S ONE THAT BEVERLY AND I TALKED ABOUT WHEN SHE CAME OUT TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND WE HAD A DRIVE AROUND. AND SHE BROUGHT UP THE PART ABOUT A BROKEN WINDOW EFFECT THAT'S BEEN SPOKEN TO HERE TONIGHT. BECAUSE IT DOES HAPPEN. AND YOU ARE RIGHT, BEVERLY. WE WERE TRYING TO BEAUTY FI OUR TRIANGLE WITH TREES AND OTHER THINGS, AND YOU HAD SAID THAT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAVE A BROKEN WINDOW EFFECT, THE WINDOW GETS BROKEN. IF YOU DON'T FIX IT, THEN THE WHOLE HOUSE LOOKS BAD. AND THE SAME THING WITH THE CARS. YOU KNOW, THEY START PARKING ON THE LAWNS AND AFTER AWHILE THE MAN NEXT DOOR DOES THE SAME THING, SO PLEASE PASS THIS ORDINANCE FOR US. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY. I'M GOING TO READ THAT. SHERRY PILES IS REGISTERED IN FAVOR OF. I HAD TO CHANGE GLASSES BECAUSE I CAN SEE SOME THINGS WITH ONE SET OF GLASSES AND I CAN'T SEE THE COMPUTER WITH THE OTHER SET. [ LAUGHTER ] ALLEN, HA — IT HAS TO DO WITH ME GETTING YOUNGER. ALLEN HEINEKER IS REGISTERED IN FAVOR OF, NOT WISHING TO SPEAK. ELLEN PHIVE DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK, IN FAVOR OF. KATHY HOL MAN DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK, IN FAVOR OF. DALE CLARK, YOU'RE NEXT. AND FOLLOWING MR. CLARK IS DONNA HIGH TOWER. AND BOBBY RIGNEY, AND I'LL READ HER STATEMENT WHEN MR. CLARK FINISHES. MR. CLARK, WELCOME.

THANK YOU, MAYOR GARCIA AND COUNCILMEMBERS FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK HERE TONIGHT. I WOULD AGAIN LIKE TO ASK THAT YOU PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THE POSITIVE ECONOMIC IMPACT THAT PASSING THIS ORDINANCE WOULD HAVE ON OUR CITY. NEW BUSINESSES ARE MORE LIKELY TO CHOOSE A CITY WHERE NO CARS ARE PARKED IN YARDS, ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MR. CLARK. BOBBY RIGNEY WROTE THE FOLLOWING: SHE SAYS SHE DOESN'T WISH TO SPEAK. IS FOR TRUE DETERMINATION AND AGAINST THE ORDINANCE. AND SHE WRITES, PLEASE VERIFY THAT THE POLICE MAY HAVE NO POSITION BECAUSE THEY SAID PUBLICLY THAT SAFETY IS NOT DIRECTLY AFFECTED. ONLY INCLUDE AREAS INITIALLY IN THE FUTURE THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING PROCESS WITH OFFICIAL NOTIFICATION AND VOTING. ACCOMMODATE UNATTENDED HARDSHIPS BY REQUIRING EXEMPTIONS BY HOUSEHOLDS FROM USING THEIR OWN PROPERTY. THIS IS BOBBY RIGNEY, MEMBER OF THE ANC AD HOC GROUP. ROBERT BAKER? MR. BAKER, I THINK YOU HAVE ABOUT 20 PEOPLE THAT GAVE TIME TO YOU, BUT THERE'S A LIMIT. [ LAUGHTER ] THERE'S A LIMIT OF 15 MINUTES.

I HOPE THAT WILL BE ENOUGH. MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS, THANK YOU FOR LETTING ALL OF US SPEAK THIS EVENING. I'M BOB BAKER FROM THE NORTH AUSTIN CIVIC ASSOCIATION. DURING THE COURSE OF OBTAINING THIS TRAFFIC ORDINANCE THERE HAS BEEN CONSIDERABLE PROPAGANDA SPREAD BY THE OPPONENTS IN AN ATTEMPT TO DID HE RAIL THE ORDINANCE. I WILL — DERAIL THE ORDINANCE. I WILL ATTEMPT TO ADDRESS SOME OF THESE ITEMS. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT IN THE BEGINNING THE OPPOSITION WANTED ONLY THE OPT IN OR INCLUSION OPTION AND NOW THEY HAVE BOTH THE OPT IN AND THE OPT OUT. HOWEVER, THEY CONTINUE TO FIGHT AGAINST THE ORDINANCE FOR SOME REASON. DURING MY TALK I WILL MAKE SEVERAL REFERENCES TO THE SAN ANTONIO EXPERIENCE FOR A VERY GOOD REASON. IT IS A SUCCESSFUL ORDINANCE. WHAT I'LL DO, I'LL PRESENT SOME STATEMENTS MADE BY THE OPPOSITION AND TRY TO OFFER SOME REBUTTALS. STATEMENTS, NOT ALLOWING LAWN PARKING IS A VIOLATION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS. TRUTH, MAYBE SO. HOWEVER, THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF ORDINANCES WHICH I AM PENDZ ON OUR SO-CALLED PROPERTY RIGHTS. FOR EXAMPLE, YOU CAN'T LET YOUR GRASS GROW OVER 14 INCHES HIGH. YOU CAN'T LEAVE ABANDONED VEHICLES IN THE YARD. YOU MUST KEEP THE PROPERTY FREE OF RATS AND OTHER VER MIN, ETCETERA, ETCETERA. THIS ORDINANCE IS A MINUSCULE IMPINGEMENT OF PROPERTY RIGHTS, IF ANY. I QUOTE ONE OF THE OPPONENTS WHO SAID A PERSON'S RIGHT, AND I — AND I QUOTE, A PERSON'S RIGHT TO DO ANYTHING CEASES TO BE AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT AT THE POINT IT BEGINS TO INFRINGE ON SOMEONE ELSE'S RIGHT, UNQUOTE. PARKING ON THE LAWN DOES VIOLATE OTHER PEOPLE'S RIGHTS BY DECREASING THEIR PROPERTY VALUES. ASK ANY GOOD REALTOR. AND WHAT IS MORE IMPORTANT, LAWN PARKING DECREASES THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR THE NEIGHBORS. STATEMENT: PEOPLE IN REAL HARDSHIP SITUATIONS WOULD BE CITED. TRUTH: THE DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE WILL DETERMINE WHETHER A EYE SOOEUTATION IS WARRANTED. IT SHOULD BE WARRANTED THAT SEVERAL PEOPLE HAVE INDICATED THAT THE DR WOULD GIVE A CITATION IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES. HOWEVER, I BELIEVE THAT THE DR'S AND OTHER POLICE OFFICERS HAVE THE INTEGRITY TO DETERMINE WHETHER A CITATION IS NEEDED JUST AS THEY DO IF YOU'RE STOPPED FOR SPEEDING. THAT IS, IF YOU'RE STOPPED FOR SPEEDING YOU MAY GET A TICKET, YOU MAY GET A WARNING, YOU MAY GET AN ADMONITION AND BE LET FREE. TO SUGGEST THAT THE OFFICERS DO NOT HAVE SUCH INTEGRITY IS AN INSULT TO THE DR'S AND ALL THE APD OFFICERS. [ONE MOMENT, PLEASE, WHILE CAPTIONERSNO CARRIERRINGCONNECT 1200? ONLY 37 NEWSLETTERS ARE DISTRIBUTED. THE TRUTH OF THAT IS, AS WITH THE LAST COMMENT, THAT'S NOT GREATLY OF IMPORTANCE TO THE COUNCIL, BUT THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN PRESENTED SEVERAL TIMES TO CRITICIZE THE PROPONENTS OF THE ORDINANCE. THIS NEWSLETTER REACHES THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE NACA RESIDENT. THERE ARE 10,401 OCCUPIED UNITS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. NEWSLETTERS ARE HAND CARRIED TO ALMOST ALL OF THE HOMES, THAT IS SINGLE AND DUPLEX RESIDENCES, PLUS THE LITTLE WALNUT CREEK LIBRARY WHERE ANYONE CAN READ THEM. THERE ARE 52 APARTMENT COMPLEXES, ALTHOUGH MOST OF THOSE WILL NOT PERMIT US TO PROVIDE EACH APARTMENT WITH A NEWSLETTER, WE DO WHERE FEASIBLE PROVIDE ONE FOR THE BULLETIN BOARD. THAT ALONE REACHES 200 OR 800 — OR MORE APARTMENTS WITH ONE NEWSLETTER. AND IF MS. MATTHEWS HAS SPOKEN EARLIER, THE OTHER PUBLIC HEARINGS, THERE ARE AT LEAST 13 WAYS A PERSON COULD HAVE LEARNED ABOUT THE ORDINANCE, OTHER WAYS. STATEMENT: MANY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS DID NOT CONTACT ALL OF THEIR RESIDENTS. TOTAL AGREEMENT IS NEEDED TO OPT IN. TRUTH: NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS ARE REGISTERED WITH THE CITY ALONG WITH THEIR ELECTED OFFICERS. THEIR METHOD OF CONDUCTING BUSINESS IS UP TO THE OFFICERS AND THE RULE OF CONDUCT. THERE IS NO PERSUASIVE EVIDENCE THAT THOSE OPTING IN, THOSE ORGANIZATIONS OPTING IN, VIOLATED THOSE RULES. THERE IS NO NEED FOR TOTAL AGREEMENT. THAT THE MAJORITY RULES IS A FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPT OF DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT. TO BE CLEAR, THAT IS THE MAJORITY OF THOSE VOTING, NOT ALL THOSE WHO MIGHT BE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE. QUESTION: THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF TO DO ABOUT THIS ORDINANCE. BUT MOSTLY WITH RESPECT TO THOSE ORGANIZES OPTING IN. THE QUESTION IS THIS: ALTHOUGH IT IS NOT NECESSARY, AT LEAST SIX OR SEVEN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS SENT LETTERS OPTING OUT. DID THOSE ORGANIZATIONS CONTACT 100% OF THEIR RESIDENTS? DID 100% OF THEIR RESIDENTS VOTE TO OPT OUT? IF NOT, DID THESE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS HAVE A VALID MEETING ACCORDING TO THEIR RULES OF CONDUCT AND PRESENT BOTH SIDES OF THE QUESTION? MY POINT IS THIS. IF THOSE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS OPTING IN ARE REQUIRED TO DO THESE THINGS, THEN IN FAIRNESS THOSE THAT ARE OPTED OUT IN WRITING SHOULD HAVE TO DO THE SAME. STATEMENT: PEOPLE PARKING ON LAWNS DURING HOLIDAY PARTIES, VISITING FOR A FEW HOURS, BARBECUES, SOCIAL EVENTS AND EVERYBODY IS WORRIED ABOUT WASHING THE CAR WOULD RECEIVE CITATIONS. TRUTH: THE ORDINANCE IS NOT INTENDED FOR SUCH EVENT. ORDINARILY THERE WOULD NOT BE A COMPLAINT IN SUCH CASES. BUT IT IS UP TO THE DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE TO DECIDE WHETHER THE SITUATION CALLS FOR A CITATION AND I BELIEVE THEY HAVE ENOUGH INTELLIGENCE TO DETERMINE THAT. STATEMENT, WHEN TWO CARS ARE PARKED NOSE TO TAIL IT IS INCONVENIENT TO MOVE A CAR TO ALLOW ACCESS TO THE FRONT ONE. TRUTH: I LIVED IN PENNSYLVANIA FOR TWO YEARS, WHERE MY GARAGE ALLOWED ONLY NOSE TO TAIL PARKING. I CAN ASSURE YOU THE INCONVENIENCE IS PRETTY MINOR AND REQUIRES ONLY TWO TO 3 MINUTES AT THE MOST TO ACCOMPLISH. THE EXERCISE IS GOOD FOR YOU, ALSO. STATEMENT: THIS ORDINANCE GOES TOO FAR. TRUTH: THE IT DOESN'T GO FAR ENOUGH. IN MY OPINION, IT SHOULD BE CITY-WIDE. STATEMENT: THIS ORDINANCE WILL COST TOO MUCH AND WILL TAKE TOO MUCH OF THE POLICE TIME. TRUTH: THIS IS A PRIORITY 4 ORDINANCE AND THAT MEANS THAT THE D.R. WILL TAKE ACTION ONLY WHEN HE HAS THE TIME AND ONLY AFTER THERE HAS BEEN A COMPLAINT. AS TO THE COST, SAN ANTONIO HAS FOUND IT TO BE SELF SUPPORTING OR EVEN BETTER. STATEMENT: THIS ORDINANCE WILL REQUIRE RESIDENTS TO SPEND $2,000 OR MORE TO PUT IN DRIVEWAYS. TRUTH: THIS ORDINANCE DOES NOT DIRECTLY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DRIVEWAY. STATEMENT: IF YOUR CAR IS PARKED ON THE LAWN, IT WILL BE TOWED. TRUTH: THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR TOWING IN THIS ORDINANCE. STATEMENT: THIS ORDINANCE POSES A TREMENDOUS HARDSHIP FOR THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE. TRUTH: THIS HAS NOT BEEN TRUE IN SAN ANTONIO AND OUR VERSION IS MUCH MORE LENIENT THAN THEIRS. STATEMENT. SAN ANTONIO ENACTED ITS ORDINANCE CONCRETE DRIVEWAYS WERE REQUIRED WITH 5/8TH'S INCH REBAR TO REINFORCEMENT. THAT STATEMENT IS FALSE. EVEN IF CONCRETE DRIVEWAYS WERE REQUIRED, THEY WOULD NOT NEED TO BE RUNWAYS FOR 747'S. IN CLOSING, I BELIEVE THAT OUR DESIRE AND PURPOSE WAS SUMMED UP PERFECTLY BY THE LITTLE LADY WHO SPOKE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION DURING ONE OF THE PUBLIC HEARINGS. I THINK HER NAME WAS MRS. JOHNNY, BUT I'M NOT SURE. SHE SAID, "WE JUST WANT OUR NEIGHBORHOODS TO LOOK NICE." THANK YOU, PLEASE SUPPORTED THE ORDINANCE.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MR. BAKER. JILL THOMAS DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK. REGISTERED IN FAVOR OF. SHE SAYS DON'T BE PUT OFF — DON'T PUT OFF THE APPROVAL BY THOSE WHO DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE. WILLIAM J. THOMAS. MR. THOMAS, WELCOME,SY. FOLLOWING MR. THOMAS IS JAY WEIDNER. HE DOESN'T WISH TO SPEAK, SAYS I AM FOR ORDINANCE TO BAN RESIDENTIAL PARKING ON LAWNS. AND KARL HADNOT WILL NOT BE SPEAKING, SHE HAS A STATEMENT THAT I WILL READ WHEN MR. THOMAS GETS THROUGH. MR. THOMAS, WELCOME, SIR.

MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. I'M FROM MILLWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD. I AM UP HERE AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN, NOT AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ORGANIZATION. IT HAS BY LETTER OF ITS PRESIDENT OPTED IN IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDINANCE. AFTER WATCHING THE LAST CITY COUNCIL MEETING, ON CHANNEL 6, I DECIDED TO SPEAK IN ORDER TO CLARIFY THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AFTER IT WAS CALLED INTO QUESTION SO SERIOUSLY BY THE OPPONENTS, ONE OF WHOM WAS THE GENTLEMAN WITH THE MASK AND THERE WAS ANOTHER WHO REPRESENTED AT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT — THAT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT HAD NO INTEREST IN THIS, NOR DID THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. I CITE YOUR ATTENTION TO A QUOTE OR SEVERAL QUOTES FROM ASSISTANT FIRE MARSHAL KEVIN BAUM OF THE AUSTIN FIRE DEPARTMENT WHO FELT THAT A DISCARDED CIGARETTE OR A CAR'S HOT CATALYTIC CONVERTER COULD IGNITE BRUSH FIRES THAT CAN GROW TO SWALLOW WHOLE NEIGHBORHOODS. ONE OF THE TIPS TO PREVENT BRUSH FIRES, DON'T PARK VEHICLES ON DRY GRASS. NOW, THIS — THIS WAS A — AN INTERVIEW IN THE METRO AND STATE SECTION OF THE STATESMAN DATED JULY 8TH, BUT I THINK IF ANYBODY CHECKED, ALTHOUGH IT MAY HAVE RAINED A LITTLE TODAY, WE ARE STILL ABOUT 3.3 INCHES SHORT OF WATER, THEREFORE WE ARE BORDERING ON — ON DROUGHT. WE ARE NOT QUITE AS BAD AS THE EAST COAST, BUT WE ARE GETTING THERE. I HAVE PREPARED SOME PHOTOGRAPHS AND ASKING THAT THEY BE CIRCULATED. WHAT THEY BASICALLY SHOW, WHAT — WHAT SOME OF THE OPPONENTS HAVE SAID IS THERE ISN'T ENOUGH ROOM TO ACCOMMODATE PEOPLE IN THE — IN THE DRIVEWAYS. WELL, HERE AT 3714 ASPENDALE COVE, WHICH IS ON THE FAR NORTHWEST SIDE OF TOWN, YOU HAVE A TWO-CAR GARAGE, YOU HAVE A DRIVEWAY THAT WILL ACCOMMODATE FOUR CARS. AT THE MOMENT IT IS TAKEN UP BY THREE JUNK CARS AND THEY ARE JUNK ACCORDING TO CITY ORDINANCE. THEY ARE NOT BEEN TICKETED AND THEY HAVE NOT BEEN MOVED. EFFORTS TO GET THEM MOVED BEGAN IN MID DECEMBER. AND HAVE NOT BEEN SUCCESSFUL. THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL CONTACTS, INCLUDING, I BELIEVE I GOT A LETTER BACK FROM CHIEF KNEE, THAT ACT WAS BEING TAKEN. NOTHING IS HAPPENING. THE JUNK CARS SIT THERE. AS A NET RESULT, A HARPER PLUMBING TRUCK AND DEPENDING UPON THE TIME OF DAY, TWO CARS PARK ON THE SIDE YARD OR FRONT YARD. AND IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THOSE THREE VEHICLES USE THE HANDICAPPED SIDEWALK CUT TO SECURE ACCESS. [BUZZER SOUNDING].

ALVAREZ: I HAD A QUESTION.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ HAS A QUESTION FOR YOU, SIR.

ALVAREZ: SO ON THIS — ON THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, WHERE THERE WERE JUNK CARS IN THE DRIVEWAY AND YOU REPORTED THAT TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, YOU ARE SAYING THAT THE ENFORCEMENT ON THAT HAS NOT BEEN ADEQUATE.

NOTHING HAS HAPPENED.

SO IF WE ADD — I GUESS I THINK WE HEARD TESTIMONY LAST TIME BY THE — BY CHIEF LANDEREZ THAT I THINK IT IS A DISTRICT REPS WHO ALSO ENFORCE THAT. SO I GUESS THE ENFORCEMENT ISSUE COMES UP IN TERMS OF, WELL, IF WE ADD ANOTHER ORDINANCE, LET'S SAY THAT THOSE CARS INSTEAD OF BEING JUNKED ARE PARKED IN THE DRIVEWAY, BECAUSE OF — BECAUSE OF STAFFING ISSUES, I GUESS, WE MIGHT BE IN THE SAME SITUATION WHERE WE CAN'T ENFORCE THESE ORDINANCES, SO I WAS JUST WONDERING KIND OF WHAT YOUR THOUGHTS WERE ON THAT IN TERMS OF WHY DO WE THINK THAT THIS WOULD SOLVE THE PROBLEM WHEN OBVIOUSLY THERE'S A PROBLEM WITH ENFORCEMENT ALREADY.

AT THE MOMENT, I'M NOT SURE HOW LONG, OUR DISTRICT REPETITIVE HAS BEEN ON LEAVE OF ABSENCE — REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ON LEAVE OF ABSENCE BECAUSE HE HAS A HEALTH PROBLEM IN THE FAMILY. SO THEY ARE TRYING TO DIVIDE UP HIS RESPONSIBILITIES AMONG SEVERAL OTHERS AND LET'S FACE IT, HIS AREA COMES LAST IN THEIR MINDS.

ALVAREZ: THANK YOU. FOR CLARIFYING.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MR. THOMAS. MR. JAY WITNER DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK. I READ HIS COMMENTS INTO THE RECORD. CAROL S. HADNOT DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK. IS REGISTERED IN FAVOR OF. WE NEED THIS ORDINANCE TO KEEP AUSTIN FROM BECOMING A SLUM AND TO PROTECT VULNERABLE NEIGHBORHOODS. CARS SHOULD BE PARKED IN DRIVEWAYS, GARAGES, CAR PORTS AND PARKING LOTS. SARAH SMITH IS THE NEXT SPEAKER. FOLLOWING MS. SMITH IS WILLIAM BURCHER, DOES HE NOT WISH TO SPEAK, IS REGISTERED IN FAVOR OF. THE NEXT SPEAKER IS A. MARK HEINZKE, YOU WILL SPEAK AFTER MS. SMITH. WELCOME.

THANK YOU, GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS. I APPRECIATE YOUR ATTENTION ON THIS MATTER. I'M WITH HIGHLAND NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND WE DID VOTE AT ONE OF OUR GENERAL MEETINGS IN FAVOR OF THIS ORDINANCE. WE HAVE APPROXIMATELY 1500 HOMES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. AND WITH SOMEONE FROM EVERY HOME AT THAT MEETING, WAS SOMEONE FROM EVERY HOME AT THAT MEETING? NO. BUT JUST AS SOMEONE MENTIONED EARLIER, MAYOR GARCIA, I BELIEVE WHEN YOU WERE ELECTED ONLY 15 PERCENT APPROXIMATELY OF REGISTERED VOTERS IN AUSTIN VOTED. YOU ALL UNDERSTAND AS ELECTED OFFICIALS UNFORTUNATELY WE CAN NEVER GET EVERYONE AND NEVER FIND OUT WHAT EVERYONE WANTS. BUT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE TAKING THEIR TIME TO COME TO THESE MEETINGS WEEK AFTER WEEK, ARE THE PEOPLE WHO CARE ABOUT THIS. I WOULD GUESS THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT HERE, ALTHOUGH THEY MAY BE OPPOSED, IT'S NOT IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO GIVE THEIR TIME FOR. WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A VOICE, BUT WE DO HAVE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT. PLEASE SUPPORT THIS ORDINANCE. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND MR. MARK HE INZKY, FOLLOWING HIM IS JENNIFER GARDNER WHO DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK, BUT IS REGISTERED IN FAVOR OF. ALICE MOORE IS — DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK. AND IS REGISTERED IN FAVOR OF AND I WILL READ HER COMMENT WHEN MR. HEINSKY COMPLETES HIS TESTIMONY. WELCOME, SIR.

THANKS, THERE'S SOME REALLY NICE SPEECHES HERE, WHAT I'M GOING TO DO IS REITERATE SOME OF THE THINGS SPOKEN OF TONIGHT AND IN THE PAST MEETINGS. I COME TO YOU TONIGHT AS A HOME OWNER AND A PAST LANDLORD AND BEFORE I — BEFORE I SAY ANYTHING ELSE I WANT TO JUST SAY THAT I THINK OUR CITY IS IN GROES NEED OF MORE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS WHICH MAY OR COULD ELIMINATE SOME OF THE PROBLEMS THAT WE'VE HAD. WITH OTHER PROBLEMS THAT WE HAPPEN TO HAVE AN ORDINANCE TO TAKE CARE OF THE PROBLEMS. A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE SAID THAT WHEN WE PASS THIS OR A LOT OF PEOPLE WRITE THAT TOO MANY PEOPLE ARE GOING TO GET TICKET. WHAT IT'S JUST GOING TO DO IS GIVE US MORE ENFORCEMENT. IT'S NOT GOING TO AUTOMATICALLY GIVE PEOPLE TICKETS SINCE THIS IS KIND OF ON A COMPLAINT BASIS. IF YOU PARK IN A YARD YOU ARE NOT GOING TO IMMEDIATELY GET A TICKET. AND THE — AND THE — SEVERAL PEOPLE HAD COMMENTED THAT THIS — THAT THIS IS GOING TO HURT RENTERS. BUT IN THE PAST I RENTED A THREE BEDROOM HOUSE TO THREE SINGLE GUYS AND IN THE LEASE I STATED THAT NONE OF THE RENTERS COULD PARK IN THE YARD. I DID THIS BECAUSE I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT MY PERSONAL PROPERTY, THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE WAY THE NEIGHBORHOOD LOOKED, ALSO. AND I NEVER HAD A PROBLEM WITH THIS. I HAVE A SINGLE DRIVEWAY, THERE WAS ALWAYS PLENTY OF ROOM FOR THREE LARGE TRUCKS, ONE TRUCK IN THE STREET. SO I DON'T THINK THIS IS GOING TO — GOING TO BE TOO MUCH OF A CONCERN WITH RENTERS. AND — AND LIKE DOROTHY JOHNSON SAID EARLIER, THAT — THAT KIND OF TRYING TO ELIMINATE THE BROKEN WINDOW SYNDROME. YOU KNOW, IF YOUR NEIGHBORS ARE PARKING IN THE YARD, THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR IS GOING TO TAKE ON THE — ON THE BELIEF THAT, WELL, IF HE'S DOING IT, SHE'S DOING IT, I CAN'T FIGHT IT, YOU MIGHT AS WELL JOIN IT. YOUR BROKEN WINDOW CONTINUES TO GO DOWN. THE NEXT THING THAT YOU KNOW YOUR ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD LOOKS DISGUSTING. IT'S HARD TO CORRECT IT AFTER ITS ALREADY TAKEN PLACE THAN IT IS TO — TO KIND OF PUT A LID ON IT BEFORE IT STARTS. AND I PERSONALLY DON'T THINK THIS ORDINANCE HAS ENOUGH TEETH. I THINK IT'S — I THINK IT'S KIND OF GOT A LOT OF ENOUGH IN IT. IF IT WAS UP TO ME, I WILL HAVE THE VOTING — I DON'T HAVE THE VOTING POWER, BUT I WOULD MAKE IT CITY-WIDE AND LET THE NEIGHBORHOODS OUT OPT OF IT RATHER THAN OPT INTO IT. PERSONALLY I WOULD PROBABLY INCREASE THE FINES BY ABOUT 200%. I THINK IT'S WHAT 20 OR $30. IT'S KINDS OF — IT'S JUST TOO MINUSCULE IN MY OPINION. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR. ALICE MOORE DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK, IS REGISTERED IN FAVOR OF. SHE WRITES, AS A LIFETIME RESIDENT OF AUSTIN (57 YEARS) I URGE YOU TO PASS THE ORDINANCE PROHIBITING PARKING OF VEHICLES IN YARDS. PLEASE PROTECT OUR CITY NEIGHBORHOODS FROM THE SLOW DECLINE THAT OCCURS WHEN YOU START TO NEGLECT THE GENERAL APPEARANCE. KEEP AUSTIN BEAUTIFUL. MR. DON D-O-H-N LARSON.

WELCOME.

WELCOME. MAYOR GARCIA, MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL, I WANT TO KEEP THIS REAL BRIEF. MY NAME IS DON LARSON. I AM REPRESENTING THE HANCOCK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION SUPPORTS IT. THIS ORDINANCE IS NEIGHBORHOOD DRIVEN AND THAT SIMPLY MAKES SENSE. THERE WHAT HAVE BEEN MANY EXCELLENT REASONS PRESENTED TO YOU TONIGHT FOR THE SUPPORT AND THE ADOPTION OF THIS ORDINANCE AND WE SUPPORT THOSE REASONS AND I WILL NOT REITERATE THEM. I CAN'T SAY MORE EXCEPT PLEASE ADOPT THIS ORDINANCE AND ALSO TO COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS AND STAFF, THANK YOU FOR THE ORDINANCE AND THANK YOU FOR STICKING WITH IT.

MAYOR GARCIA: COWBOY — THANK YOU VERY MUCH, — COUNCIL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR, THAT'S ALL OF THE SPEAKERS THAT WE HAVE, MR. LARSON WAS THE LAST SPEAKER. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC THAT'S — TO CLOSE THE HEARING.

[INAUDIBLE - NO MIC]

MAYOR GARCIA: COME ON UP. I DON'T KNOW WHAT I DID WITH YOUR CARD, BUT IF YOU TELL ME WHAT YOUR NAME IS, I WILL —

YOU KNOW ME, YOU JUST DIDN'T WANT ME TO SPEAK.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT'S WHAT IT WAS.

I THINK I KNOW JUST ABOUT EVERY ONE OF YOU ALL ON A PERSONAL BASIS, BEVERLY GRIFFITH I MET YOU WHEN I WAS VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE HIGHLAND NEIGHBORHOOD FOR SEVEN YEARS. I AM CURRENTLY PRESIDENT OF THE BALCONES WOODS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND I SHOULDN'T EVEN CALL IT THAT, IT'S A HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. WHEN THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT THE DEED RESTRICTIONS, OUR NEIGHBORHOOD DOES HAVE DEED RESTRICTIONS, BUT WE STILL GET TO DEAL WITH CARS ON THE LAWNS. WHAT OUR RESULT IS THAT WE HAVE TO SUE THE PEOPLE? CIVIL COURT TO GET THE CARS OUT OF THE LAWN AND IT END UP COSTING ALL OF THE NEIGHBORS IN A DEED RESTRICTED NEIGHBORHOOD JUST LIKE IT DOES COST ALL OF THESE NEIGHBORS. SO PLEASE GIVE PEOPLE A TOOL TO PROTECT THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS, THEIR VALUE, THE SAFETY OF THEIR CHILDREN. LIKE PERFECT VEARL WAS SAYING, I WAS ON THAT RIDE WITH DOROTHY JOHNS THAT YEAR. STOP DID THIS BROKEN WINDOW EFFECT. YOU HAVE A RIPPLE EFFECT GOING THROUGH THE INNER CITY, CENTRAL CITY, IT'S IN NORTH AUSTIN. YOU HAVE A GROUP OF 51 NEIGHBORHOODS HERE, THAT'S UNBELIEVABLE. THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE THAT ARE REPRESENTED HERE. IN SUPPORT OF THIS ORDINANCE. AND WHEN YOU HAVE SEVEN NEIGHBORHOODS THAT AREN'T IN SUPPORT OF, WHO VOTES? YOU KNOW, WHO CARES, WHO IS HERE TONIGHT? THE PEOPLE WHO ARE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS KNEW ABOUT THESE MEETINGS, WE'VE HAD — WE'VE HAD SIGNS OUT AT EVERY CORNER IN THE HIGHLAND NEIGHBORHOOD, I KNOW, ANNOUNCING THE MEETINGS. THEY HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME AND SPEAK THEIR VOICE. IT GOES ON AND ON ABOUT DIFFERENT OPTING IN, OPTING OUT. WE HAVE GIVEN THEM THEY CAN OPT OUT, THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE IN IT. THESE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE GRIPING THE SEVEN, THEN YOU ARE NOT IN IT. I MEAN THAT'S YOUR CHOICE, WE ARE GIVING THE CITIZENS A CHOICE HERE. UP THE LEADERS OF ALL OF THESE NEIGHBORHOODS HERE. THEY ARE THE ONES WHO ARE REPRESENTING THE MAJORITY IN THESE NEIGHBORHOODS. I KNOW RAUL ALVAREZ, PERSONALLY, WHAT'S THE OLD SAYING, YOU WORK ON SOMEBODY'S CAMPAIGN WITH THEM AND YOU GET THIS — [ LAUGHTER ] — YOU GET THE T-SHIRT. I MEAN, I HELPED YOU ON YOUR CAMPAIGN. I APPRECIATE ALL OF YOUR WORK ON THE CITY COUNCIL. AND MAYOR GUS GARCIA, I HAVE SEEN YOU RECENTLY AT DAVE AND BUSTERS, A LITTLE LATE THAT NIGHT BUT WE MADE IT THROUGH THERE, RIGHT? [ LAUGHTER ]. I AM — I AM NOT SO FAMILIAR WITH MR. WILL WINN, I HAVEN'T HAD ANY PERSONAL CONTACT WITH HIM. DANNY THOMAS, I WANT TO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR HELPING US WITH THIS ORDINANCE. AND JACKIE GOODMAN, I THINK YOU CAME OUT TO HIGHLAND A COUPLE OF TIMES AT OUR PICNIC, I THINK A 4TH OF JULY PARADE. WE HAVE TRIED AT HIGHLAND WHEN I WAS THERE TO BEAUTIFY THROUGH THE NEIGHBOR WOODS PROGRAM. I THINK BEVERLY TURNED US ON TO THAT:THROUGH THE TREE FOLK I THINK JACKIE HELP US WITH THAT. WE GOT T.A. BROWN FIXED UP WITH THE HELP OF DARYL SLUSHER. A SCHOOL ZONE PUT IN IN FRONT OF T.A. BROWN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL WHERE HIS WIFE TEACHES. HE'S NOT ON DIOCESE. BUT HELPED US. PLEASE HELP US AGAIN ALL OF Y'ALL. WE NEED YOUR HELP, THIS TOOL. THE POLICE NEED THIS TOOL TO HELP US KEEP OUR NEIGHBORHOODS [BUZZER SOUNDING] LIKE THEY WERE WHEN WE MOVED IN. SO PLEASE SUPPORT THIS ORDINANCE. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: WHERE IS THE GUS GARCIA T-SHIRT? [ LAUGHTER ]

I DON'T HAVE THAT, I DON'T HAVE THAT. BUT I HEARD THAT YOU WERE GOING TO BE GRAND MARSHAL AT THE PRIDE PARADE IN JUNE. MAYBE WE CAN GET YOU A T-SHIRT FOR THAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT SIGNED UP TO SPEAK THAT DID NOT GET RECOGNIZED? OKAY. I WILL ENTERTAIN A NOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH, SECONDED BY —

THOMAS: SECOND.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. K-EYE AYE OPPOSED, NO. MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF 7 TO 0. RECOGNIZE NOW COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS.

THOMAS: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MAYOR. I CAN REMEMBER IN 2001 LINDA MOORE AND HER GROUP CAME TO ME AND WAS SERIOUS ABOUT THIS MATTER. WE SAID THAT WE WERE GOING TO WORK HARD VIGOROUSLY TO TRY TO GET IT PASSED. BUT I DID ALSO TELL THEM THAT WE HAD A MOUNTAIN THAT WE HAD TO CLIMB, THAT WE COULD BE ABLE TO DO IT TOGETHER, BUT ALSO SAID WE NEED TO BE FAIR TO EVERYBODY IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN. TOOK THEM TWO YEARS TO DO THAT. WE STARTED AT THE LAW DEPARTMENT AT THE CITY OF AUSTIN, THEN WE WENT THROUGH DIFFERENT SEVERAL PROCEDURES, WE WENT THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL, THEN WE WENT THROUGH THE POLICE COMMANDER FORUMS, AND THEN WE WENT TO THE — TO THE ZONING AND WE ARE HERE TONIGHT. IT'S BEEN A LOT — I COMMEND THE GROUPS THAT ARE HERE REPRESENTING THE NEIGHBORHOODS. SOMETHING THAT — THAT I LOOKED AT MYSELF. I — TWICE A YEAR, I HAVE A LARGE FAMILY MYSELF — WE HAVE ON CHRISTMAS AND THANKSGIVING AND WE HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE, BUT WE NORMALLY PARK IN THE DRIVEWAY AND ON THE STREET. I SAY THIS TO THE GROUPS THAT ARE HERE AND THE GROUPS THAT ARE IN OPPOSITION THAT THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY, THE WAY WE HAVE IT SET UP, OPT IN OR OPT OUT. I THINK TONIGHT, I HOPE TONIGHT THAT WE WILL CONTINUE — WE WILL DO THE RIGHT THING AND PASS THIS ORDINANCE SO WE CAN MOVE ON. WITH OUR LIVES APPEARED OUR COMMUNITIES AND — WITH OUR LIVES AND OUR COMMUNITIES, ON THAT NOTE I WOULD MAKE A MOTION THAT WE PASS THIS ORDINANCE.

MAYOR GARCIA: THERE'S A MOTION BY —

THOMAS: ALL THREE READINGS.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS TO PASS THE ORDINANCE ON ALL THREE READING. IS THERE A SECOND?

WYNN: MAYOR, I WILL SECOND IT FOR DISCUSSION, BUT I THOUGHT THERE WAS GOING TO BE SOME FURTHER DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS, BUT —

MAYOR GARCIA: SURE, NOW IS THE TIME. COUNCILMEMBER WYNN?

WYNN: I WAS GOING TO DEFER —

MAYOR GARCIA: DISCUSSION FROM THIS SIDE, MAYOR PRO TEM AND THEN COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ.

GOODMAN: WHAT I NEED BEFORE THIRD READING IS WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT EARLIER, WHICH IS THE DOCUMENTATION MEANING THE LETTERS THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPINGS — I DON'T THINK THAT WAS ME, SENT IN WITH THEIR VOTES AND ALSO SO THAT WE CAN ATTACH THAT TO THE ORDINANCE. LIKE I SAID, THE REASON THAT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE GOING BY THE LETTER OF THE ORDINANCE THAT WE HAVE GOT IN FRONT OF US, IS BECAUSE I KNOW ON ONE OF THE UMBRELLA GROUPS IT ENCOMPASSES A GREAT MANY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS AND I KNOW THAT SEVERAL OF THEM HAVE NOT MET AND THEY DON'T KNOW THEY ARE HERE. SO I — I COULDN'T VOTE FOR THIS LAST PAGE AND THERE ARE — THERE ARE ALSO A COUPLE OF OTHER THINGS THAT I THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO FINE TUNE BEFORE WE WENT FOR THIRD. THAT WAS DEFINITIONS AND LANGUAGE.

MAYOR GARCIA: SO YOUR REQUEST IS WE DO FIRST AND SECOND?

GOODMAN: WELL, I WOULD SAY FIRST. BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF I'M THE ONLY ONE — IF THERE ARE OTHER THINGS BESIDES THE LIST.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY.

GOODMAN: THAT WE NEED TO ATTACH THE LETTERS TO.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ?

ALVAREZ: YES, MAYOR, I HAD A SERIES OF QUESTIONS. AND — AND I THINK MAINLY FOR STAFF. MS. THOMAS. NOW IN TERMS OF, YOU MENTIONED THERE WERE SOME CHANGES TO THE ORDINANCE AND — AND ONE OF THEM, I THINK THAT YOU MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT NOW THAT A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION PRESIDENT COULD SUBMIT A — A REQUEST FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD TO OPT IN.

YES, SIR.

ALVAREZ: NOW, DID I HEAR YOU SAY ALSO THAT THE — THAT THAT NEIGHBORHOOD PRESIDENT WOULD NOT HAVE TO GET THE 10%?

THAT'S CORRECT.

ALVAREZ: — PETITION? OKAY. AND — OKAY. ANOTHER QUESTION, WAS ABOUT THE GRAVEL DRIVEWAY AND I THINK THAT'S THE ONE THAT MAYOR PRO TEM BROUGHT UP ABOUT — ABOUT WHETHER THAT — IF YOU WANT TO CREATE A GRAVEL DRIVEWAY WHERE THAT — WHERE THAT — THAT REQUIRES A CERTAIN — REQUIRES CERTAIN PERMITS. DO WE HAVE ANYONE HERE WHO CAN TELL US THAT?

I DON'T — WE MAY IN THE BACK.

ALVAREZ: OKAY. THE OTHER RELATED QUESTION IS IS THE GRAVEL DRIVEWAY CONSIDERED IMPERVIOUS COVER.

GRAVEL IS CONSIDERED IMPERVIOUS COVER. YES, IT IS.

ALVAREZ: IT IS CONSIDERED IMPERVIOUS COVER.

YES.

ALVAREZ: SO IN AN S.F. 3 HOUSEHOLD THEN WE WOULD — THEN YOU WOULD HAVE THAT 35% IMPERVIOUS COVER, IS IT 35% OR 45%?

[INAUDIBLE].

ALVAREZ: OKAY. AND THEN I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT — ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD BOUNDARY ISSUE, WHERE WE TALKED ABOUT THE PROCESS THAT THE CITY HAS IN PLACE FOR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS TO FORM AND BECOME RECOGNIZED BY THE CITY, NOW HAS ANYTHING CHANGED BETWEEN THAT — BETWEEN NOW AND — BETWEEN LAST TIME AND NOW IN TERMS OF HOW WE ARE DEFINING THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AREAS.

NO, THAT'S THE SAME.

ALL RIGHT. THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AREAS YOU ARE —

ALVAREZ: YES, I'M SORRY THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AREAS.

YES.

ALVAREZ: AND THEN I HAD REQUESTED SOME INFORMATION FROM STAFF ABOUT AVERAGE SIZE AND MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM SIZE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AREAS. DO WE HAVE THAT INFORMATION? I MAY NOT HAVE — MAY NOT HAVE OWE OWE I.D...... I.D.'D IN THE BACKUP? CARLOS SOLIZ FROM NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AND ZONING. COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ THAT WAS PROVIDED TO YOUR OFFICE. THE AVERAGE SIZE THAT — IN — AVERAGE SIZE OF A PLANNING AREA IS ABOUT — ABOUT 700 ACRES, I BELIEVE, IS WHAT WE WERE — WHAT WE LOOKED AT. ON THE AVERAGE SIZE.

ALVAREZ: DO YOU REMEMBER OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD WHAT THE BIGGEST AND THE SMALLEST WERE.

YES, I DO, ACTUALLY, I HAVE A LIST OF THAT. ONE OF THE LARGER ONES IS THE — I THE MLK-183 AREA, FOR INSTANCE, AT 1500 ACRES. NORTH AUSTIN CIVIC ASSOCIATION, AT — AT 1900 ACRE. SOUTHEAST AT ABOUT 1800 ACRE. WINDSOR PARK, 1400.

ALVAREZ: WHAT ABOUT THE SMALLEST ONES? JUST KIND OF SEE WHAT THEIR RANGE IS.

SOME OF THE SMALLEST ONES, FOR INSTANCE, WE HAVE CHESTNUT AT 181 ACRES. LET SEE, NORTH UNIVERSITY AT 235 ACRES. ST. EDWARD'S, 146 ACRE.

ALVAREZ: OKAY. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS.

ALVAREZ: ONE OTHER QUESTION. I'M KIND OF HUNG UP HERE ON THE ISSUE OF HOW WE DEFINE THE NEIGHBORHOOD AREAS. AND THEN HOW — HOW WE GO ABOUT DETERMINING I GUESS HOW WE INCLUDE THE NEIGHBORHOODS BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THERE'S A LOT OF SUPPORT FROM DIFFERENT NEIGHBORHOODS. THE REAL QUESTION IS HOW DO WE MAKE SURE WE ARE BEING FAIR AND EVERYONE IS BEING TREATED THE SAME IN THIS PROCESS. NOT JUST THE ONES WHO SEND IN THE LETTER RIGHT NOW. BUT ALSO AFTER WE PASS THE ORDINANCE WE ARE SAYING THOSE FOLKS HAVE TO GO THROUGH A DIFFERENT PROCESS. THAT'S WHAT I'M KIND OF STRUGGLING WITH. AND SO I GUESS — AND I GUESS ONE OF THE OTHER QUESTIONS THAT IS KINDS OF A LEGAL QUESTION IS — HAS MORE TO DO WITH — IF WE DO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD BY NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU COULD GET INTO A SITUATION WHERE YOU HAVE, YOU KNOW, ONE SIDE OF THE STREET THAT'S IN A NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AREA, THAT, YOU KNOW, WHERE THE ORDINANCE APPLIES AND THEN OPPOSITE SIDE MAYBE WHERE THE ORDINANCE DOESN'T APPLY. SO I GUESS I'M JUST WONDERING IF — I GUESS IF LEGAL IS — OBVIOUSLY GOING TO LOOK AT THAT AND DETERMINED THAT THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN DO? I MEAN —

WELL, IF THE BOUNDARY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION HAPPENS TO SPLIT A STREET, THAT INDEED IF ONE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WAS IN AND ONE WAS OUT, THAT INDEED WOULD BE WHAT WOULD HAPPEN. THAT — THAT WOULDN'T BE A PROBLEM FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT. I DO HAVE AN ANSWER TO YOUR OTHER QUESTION ABOUT THE PERMIT. NO, YOU WOULDN'T NEED A PERMIT BECAUSE YOU CANNOT GET A PERMIT TO BUILD A GRAVEL DRIVEWAY. WHAT THIS ORDINANCE WOULD DO WOULD THAT BE — WOULD BE THAT THOSE DRIVEWAYS THAT ARE ALREADY IN EXISTENCE AND ARE GRANDFATHERED FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER, THOSE — THOSE DRIVEWAYS WOULD BE RECOGNIZED AND WOULDN'T HAVE TO BE PAVED IN ORDER TO — NOT TO VIOLATE THIS ORDINANCE. BUT YOU COULDN'T GET A PERMIT TODAY TO DO A GRAVEL DRIVEWAY. I'M SORRY, ALSO, MAYOR PRO TEM, GOODMAN, WE DO HAVE THE LETTERS THAT WE HAVE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOODS, THAT NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS THAT HAVE ASKED TO BE INCLUDED, WE DO HAVE THOSE IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO LOOK AT THOSE. AVENUE......

GOODMAN: IF WE ARE GOING TO LIST AREAS OUT, WE NEED TO HAVE THE DOCUMENTATION OF THAT MEETING AND VOTE.

OKAY.

ALVAREZ: I WILL JUST SUMMARIZE. I STILL THINK THAT THERE'S SOME THINGS TO BE TIGHTENED UP IN THIS ORDINANCE. I WOULD SUPPORT IT ON FIRST READING BUT I DO THINK WE NEED TO BETTER DEFINE HOW NEIGHBORHOOD CAN OPT IN AND HOW IT IS THAT WE ARE GOING TO ENSURE THAT ALL OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT WANT TO BE INCLUDED, YOU KNOW, GO THROUGH THE SAME PROCESS AND THEN HOW — HOW THEN ARE WE GOING TO ENSURE THAT AGAIN EVERYBODY THAT OWNS PROPERTY IN THESE AREAS KNOWS THAT THIS IS HAPPEN AND HAS A CHANCE TO HAVE A VOICE IN THE PROCESS. AND SO — SO REALLY I THINK THAT'S WHAT — ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I THINK WE ARE CHARGED TO DO, A CAMPAIGN SUPPORTER HERE WANTS ME TO VOTE ONE WAY, AND I — AGAIN OBVIOUS THROUGH THERE'S SUPPORT HERE FOR THE — FOR DOING SOMETHING OR CRAFTING SOMETHING THAT WILL WORK, BUT I THINK WE ARE TRYING TO — WE ARE CHARGED WITH MAKING SURE THAT IT IS SOMETHING THAT IS FAIR FOR EVERYBODY IN THE CITY AND IN ALL NEIGHBORHOODS. SO I THINK THERE'S STILL SOME WORK TO BE DONE, I WOULD SUPPORT IT ON FIRST READING AS WELL.

MAYOR GARCIA: COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER.

SLUSHER: I JUST HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. I UNDERSTAND PEOPLE'S HOME IS THEIR MOST IMPORTANT INVESTMENT AND I THINK THAT'S FUNDAMENTALLY WHAT'S BEHIND THE DESIRE TO HAVE THIS. LIKE COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ, I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS, I THINK THIS NEEDS TO HAVE QUITE A BIT OF WORKMENT LET ME ASK YOU JUST A COUPLE OF THINGS MS. THOMAS. I AM LOOKING HERE AT THE FAR SOUTH COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION AREA. THAT COVERS THAT MUCH AREA?

ACCORDING TO THE BOUNDARIES ESTABLISHED THAT ARE SET OUT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMUNITY REGISTRY, YES.

SLUSHER: OKAY. SO HOW — UNDER WHAT PROCESS DID — OKAY THIS MEANS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS SUPPORTING THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE. SO UNDER THIS, UNDER WHAT'S ON THE TABLE RIGHT NOW, THIS WHOLE AREA WOULD BE INCLUDED?

YES.

SLUSHER: OKAY. SUBJECT TO THE ORDINANCE. SO HOW — HOW DID THIS AREA GET ON THERE RIGHT NOW? THROUGH WHAT PROCESS?

THEY SENT A LETTER TO COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS' OFFICE.

SLUSHER: WHO DID? THE ORGANIZATION?

I BELIEVE THE LETTER IS SIGNED BY BETTY EDGEMOND.

GOODMAN: WELL, IT'S NOT ACTUALLY A LETTER. IT'S SORT OF A SENTENCE.

SLUSHER: CAN I SEE IT, THOUGH.

GOODMAN: IT'S A SHORT ONE. LIKE A MEMO.

SLUSHER: IN REFERENCE TO THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE IN PARKING IN THE FRONT OR SIDE YARD, THE FAR SOUTH AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WANTS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE ENFORCEMENT ORDINANCE IN OUR AREA, BETTY EDGEMOND AND WILLIAM ALTHENE. SO THIS IS AN AREA THAT — LET'S SEE, I THINK THIS IS WILLIAM CANNON ON THE NORTH AND ALL THE WAY OUT IT APPEARS TO THE SOUTHERN CITY LIMITS BETWEEN I-35 AND WESTGATE. AND THAT'S ON THERE. THAT IS GOING TO BE SUBJECT TO THE ORDINANCE BECAUSE OF A LETTER SIGNED BY TWO FOLKS.

NO. THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS LISTED ON THE MAP AS PART OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE, THOSE ARE REGISTERED ASSOCIATIONS WITH THE CITY. THOSE BOUNDARIES WERE ESTABLISHED BY THOSE NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTS WHO ESTABLISHED THAT ASSOCIATION. SO THAT LETTER IS NOT ESTABLISHING THE BOUND DEARS.

SLUSHER: I SAID THEY ARE IN HERE BECAUSE TWO PEOPLE SIGNED THIS LETTER.

THE PRESIDENT AND VICE-PRESIDENT.

SLUSHER: RIGHT. BUT DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE, WHO THEY CONSULTED WITH — I MEAN, HOW MANY PEOPLE, I WONDER, LIVE IN THIS AREA. LIKE UNDER THE ORDINANCE IT WOULD BE 10% WOULD HAVE TO SIGN IN ORDER TO — UNDER THE ORDINANCE TO MAKE THIS AREA SUBJECT TO IT. BUT WE HAVE JUST A LETTER FROM TWO FOLKS WHO HAVE PUT AN AREA FROM WILLIAM CANNON TO THE SOUTHERN CITY LIMITS IN THE ORDINANCE.

RIGHT. THE 10% RULE APPLIES TO PROPERTY OWNERS. IT DOESN'T APPLY TO THE ELECTED NEIGHBORHOOD LEADERSHIP. RIGHT NOW AS IT STANDS THE ELECTED NEIGHBORHOOD LEADERSHIP CAN OPT IN. OFF THE ORDINANCE IS APPROVED IF THAT'S THE CASE, THE ELECTED NEIGHBORHOOD LEADERSHIP CAN OPT IN. THE SAME PROCESS BOTH TIMES. THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT AFTERWARDS IF A PROPERTY OWNER WANTS TO GO AROUND THE ELECTED NEIGHBORHOOD LEADERSHIP, THEY WOULD HAVE TO GET A PETITION OF 10%. BUT SINCE THE PRESIDENT AND VICE-PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY/TREASURER OF THOSE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS ARE ELECTED TO REPRESENT THOSE ASSOCIATIONS THAT'S WHY WE ASKED THEM TO PUT IT IN WRITING WHAT THEIR ASSOCIATION ACTIVITIES HAS ADOPTED.

SLUSHER: WELL THAT'S SORT OF MY POINT. THAT — THAT — THAT JUST SORT OF MAKES MY POINT THAT YOU HAVE A COUPLE OF PEOPLE THAT THEY ARE THE HEAD OF A GROUP, WE DON'T KNOW HOW SOME OF THE GROUPS HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THEM. AND SOME OF THEM DON'T. AND THIS AREA IS VERY, VERY LARGE. TO ME I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN THAT. THAT'S ACTUALLY PERSUASIVE TO ME IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION.

THOMAS: MR. MAYOR.

GOODMAN: COUNCILMEMBER, MAYOR, SOMEBODY.

MAY I ADDRESS THAT AS A FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE — OF A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.

MAYOR GARCIA: OLD ON JUST A SECOND.

SLUSHER: WE'VE HAD THREE PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THIS MATTER, THE COUNCIL NOW IS DELIBERATING ON THE MATTER.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER.

SLUSHER: I WOULD YIELD TO THE MAYOR PRO TEM.

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYOR PRO TEM?

GOODMAN: THANKS, MAYOR. NOBODY IS QUESTIONING THE INTEGRITY OF BETTY AND BILL. THEY ARE NEIGHBORS OF MINE, THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY SOLID CITIZENRY. BUT THIS ASSOCIATION ENCOMPASSES MANY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS WITHIN IT. AND THOSE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS ARE THERE OWN ENTITIES AND THEY ARE NOT LISTED AND THEY DIDN'T WRITE A LETTER. SO THAT'S WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT IN AN UMBRELLA GROUP, THERE'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE — THIS IS A HUGE BOUNDARY AND WITHIN THAT BOUNDARY I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS THERE ARE. I HAVEN'T COUNTED THEM. BUT THERE ARE MANY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS. SO THAT'S THE KIND OF THING WHERE I THINK THE INDIVIDUAL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THEIR OWN MEETING AND THEIR OWN VOTE. AND I THINK MANY OF THEM DO NOT KNOW THAT THEY ARE ON THIS LIST. BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T MET TO DISCUSS THIS. SOME OF THEM KNOW ABOUT IT, KNOW THAT IT'S BEING DISCUSSED. SOME OF THEM IN FACT WERE WANTING US TO — TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN WE PASSED IT, THE DATE THAT IT TOOK EFFECT, WAS FAR ENOUGH OUT THAT THEY WERE ABLE TO TELL EVERYBODY ABOUT IT SO THAT NOBODY WOULD BE BLIND SIDED. SO — BUT THEY DEFINITELY HAVE NOT TAKEN A VOTE YET. WHICH IS WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO LET EVERYBODY KNOW ABOUT. YOU KNOW, WITHOUT TRYING TO BE ACCUSE INVENTORY IN ANY WAY — ACCUSE....... ACCUSATORY IN ANY WAY. BUT THERE ARE MANY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS ON THIS LIST WHO HAVE BEEN OPTED IN WHO I THINK WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A LITTLE SAY FOR THEMSELVES. SO I HAVE SAID THIS, YOU KNOW, A BUNCH OF TIMES BEFORE THE — ABOUT THE — I DON'T KNOW IF OTHER UMBRELLA GROUPS ARE IN THERE OR NOT, BUT THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO SEE THE LETTER. IF WE ARE ASKING PEOPLE IN THE FUTURE TO COME IN WITH 10% OR WHATEVER WE ARE ASKING THEM TO COME IN WITH, THEN I THINK THE VERY BEGINNING WE CANNOT OPT IN FOR EVERYBODY BASED ON SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T FOLLOW OR DOESN'T EVEN ATTEMPT TO FOLLOW WHAT WE ARE GOING TO ASK FROM EVERYBODY FROM HERE ON OUT. SO — SO —

CAN I ASK YOU FOR A CLARIFICATION. YOU MENTIONED THAT THERE WERE SEVERAL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS ON HERE. IF YOU CAN LET ME KNOW WHICH ONES THOSE ARE, I CAN DO SOME FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS INTO IT. YOU MENTIONED BETTY EDGEMOND'S ASSOCIATION FAR SOUTH. BUT WERE THERE OTHERS ON THIS LIST THAT — THAT YOU —

GOODMAN: THAT'S WHAT I SAY I DON'T KNOW. BUT I KNOW THAT ONE IS AN UMBRELLA ASSOCIATION. AND WITHIN IT COOPER LANE OBVIOUSLY IS THERE, BUT COOPER LANE DIDN'T MEET AND HAVE A LETTER. SALEM WALK IS IN THERE.

THEY ARE NOT ON THIS LIST.

EXACTLY. BUT THEY ARE WITHIN THE FAR SOUTH NEIGHBORHOOD — FAR SOUTH COMMUNITY.

OKAY.

GOODMAN: BOUNDARIES. AND THOSE ARE JUST THREE IN A VERY SMALL — I THINK THAT SOUTHWEST AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS THERE. BATTLE BEND IS THERE. THEY HAVE OPTED IN AND ARE SIGNED ON.

UH-HUH.

GOODMAN: I AM SURE MANY NEIGHBORHOODS WOULD SIGN ON. AS SOON AS THEY HAVE THEIR MEETING OR AS SOON AS THEY REALIZE THAT IT'S — IT'S IMMINENT AND THEY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A VOICE IN IT, BUT THEY ARE NOT AT THIS MOMENT HERE. THEY HAVEN'T ACTED. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T TELL EVERYBODY THAT YOU CAN OPT IN AND THEN THEY FIND OUT THAT THEY WERE ALREADY OPTED IN AND THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY ABOUT IT.

SLUSHER: MAYOR, WE HAD SORT OF A SIMILAR SITUATION ON THE BARTON SPRINGS ROAD RECONSTRUCTION OR REDO A FEW YEARS AGO WHERE WE HAD THE NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP COME DOWN TO ONE PLAN, THAT PLAN WAS PASSED, I THINK — I CAN'T REMEMBER IF IT WAS PASSED OR PASSED ON FIRST READING, IT ENDED UP BEING ONE OF THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL THINGS THAT WE'VE HAD AND A REAL SERIOUS DIVISION IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I WORRY ABOUT US GETTING INTO THAT SITUATION AND — IN A WHOLE BUNCH OF NEIGHBORHOODS HERE. WE HEAR A LOT ABOUT — ABOUT LACK OF NOTICE OR — WHEN WE DO NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS, WE — THEN WE HEAR, WELL, WE WEREN'T NOTIFIED AND IT'S — IT'S EITHER — SOMETIMES IT'S NOT TRUE. BUT PEOPLE MAY THIS IT TRUE BECAUSE THEY JUST DIDN'T REALIZE WHEN THEY GOT THE NOTICE, COMING UP A YEAR LATER, THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, I THINK AT LEAST IF SOMEBODY IS GOING TO OPT IN, WE OUGHT TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE NOTICE. ALTHOUGH I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE'VE HAD THREE PUBLIC HEARINGS THAT'S BEEN IN THE PAPER A WHILE, PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT IT. YOU KNOW, A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT THIS. I JUST THINK THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME FOLKS THAT ARE PRETTY SURPRISED THAT THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD HAS BEEN OPTED INTO THIS, SPECIALLY — I REALIZE THAT I WAS WRONG. I CAN'T SEE SMALL PRINT VERY WELL. IT'S STASSNEY TO THE SOUTHERN CITY LIMITS. THAT IS INCLUDED IN HERE. NOT WILLIAM CANNON.

COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS? LOOKS LIKE THERE'S ABOUT THREE COUNCILMEMBERS THAT WOULD LIKE TO DO IT ON FIRST READING. DO YOU HAVE ANY CHANGES THAT YOU WANT TO PROPOSE?

THOMAS: MAYOR, I REALLY — I UNDERSTAND THEIR CONCERNS, I REALLY DO. WE ALWAYS HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT PEOPLE THAT WASN'T AWARE. I JUST WISH WE WOULD HAVE BROUGHT A LOT OF THIS TO THE ATTENTION BEFORE WE GOT TO THIS LAST DAY. I THINK IT BEEN OUT TWO YEARS THAT WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THIS. I JUST REALLY — I WOULD LIKE IF WE COULD AGREE ON THE FIRST AND SECOND AND WE WOULD DO ALL OF THE EFFORTS ON THE THIRD BEFORE THE THIRD READING TO DO WHAT MAYOR PRO TEM — THEY DO HAVE VALID CONCERNS, FIRST AND SECOND IF WE COULD DO THAT. I WOULD DO THE THIRD READING, WE WOULD LOOK AT CONTACTING THOSE — THOSE GROUPS THAT ARE NOT — THAT ARE NOT ON THE LIST.

MAYOR GARCIA: WHAT ARE THE WISHES OF THE COUNCIL?

GOODMAN: MAYOR, I WOULD ASK THE MAKER AND SECONDER OF THE MOTION IF THEY WOULD ACCEPT WHAT I CONSIDER A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, WHICH IS FIRST READING. AND WHAT I WOULD ALSO ASK STAFF, ALONG WITH THAT, IF IT WAS FRIENDLY, IS TO PROVIDE A MAP WITH ALL OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS ON IT, WHICH I THINK WE HAVE FROM DOING THE COUNCILMEMBER DISTRICT MAPS, SO THAT — SO THAT WHAT I HAVE BEEN ASKING FOR SINCE THE MOMENT I SAW THIS — THIS MAP IS EVIDENT. THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THAT I HAVE BROUGHT IT UP. THIS IS — THIS IS EVERY OPPORTUNITY THAT I HAVE BROUGHT IT UP. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE FAIR AND THAT WHAT PEOPLE THINK WE ARE DOING IS ACTUALLY WHAT WE ARE DOING.

SO BASICALLY —

LIKE A MAP THAT WOULD SHOW ALL OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS DETAIL WITHIN SOME OF THE UMBRELLA GROUPS?

GOODMAN: THE BOUNDARIES SO THAT WE KNOW. IT'S REAL EASY TO TELL. I DON'T KNOW IF COUNCILMEMBERS THOMAS AND WIN WOULD CONSIDER THAT FRIENDLY, BUT IT IS WITH FRIENDLY INTENT THAT I OFFER IT.

MAYOR GARCIA: I ASKED THE QUESTION ONE TIME IN KIND OF A ROUGH WAY, YOU CAN NOW ASK THE QUESTION IN A VERY NICE WAY COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS. WITH MORE EXPLAIN NATIONS — EXPLANATIONS —

THOMAS: ONLY IF — WHEN WE COME BACK TO SECOND AND THIRD WE CAN FINALIZE THIS. YEAH, I WILL ACCEPT THAT AMENDMENT.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY, SO WE HAVE ON THE TABLE COUNCILMEMBER WYNN IS THAT OKAY WITH YOU?

WYNN: YES, SIR.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE IN THE FIRST READING.

EXCUSE ME, MAYOR?

MAYOR GARCIA: MS. THOMAS?

THERE WERE SEVERAL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS THAT TURNED IN THEIR LETTERS AFTER THIS ORDINANCE WAS PREPARED. MAY I READ THOSE INTO THE RECORD SO THAT THEY WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE FIRST READING?

MAYOR GARCIA: SURE.

SUMMIT OAKS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, MCNEIL ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, CROSSING GARDEN HOMES, HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, RIDGE — RIDGELEA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, SPRING MEADOWS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, CHERRY CREEK SOUTHWEST NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, AND GREATER SOUTH WOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. REV...THAT WAS ALL THE ADDITIONAL ONES.

THOMAS: THAT OUGHT TO BE ENOUGH TO DO IT. AREN'T THOSE OWE ARE THOSE SOUTH, DO YOU KNOW?

NO, I'M SORRY, I DON'T, WE HAVEN'T MAPPED THEM YET.

THOMAS: SOME OF THEM ARE, OKAY.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER DISCUSSION? THIS IS ON FIRST READING FOR APPROVE. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED, NO.? MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF 7-0. AND — AND WE WILL HAVE IT ON THE AGENDA ON MAY 9TH, THAT'S TWO WEEKS. AND — AND WE WILL CONSIDER IT AT THAT TIME. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. EVERYBODY. FOR BEING HERE AND — AND BEING SO CIVIL IN THIS — IN THIS TIMES OF — I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO TAKE ABOUT A 10 MINUTE BREAK. AND THEN — AND THE MOTION ALSO NEEDS TO INCLUDE APPROVAL OF — OF WAIVING THE 10:00 RULE FOR COUNCIL MEETINGS.

SO MOVE.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WYNN. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.? OPPOSED, NO. MOTION CARRIES. WE WILL BE BACK RIGHT AT 10:00.

TEST TEST TEST TEST TEST TEST

MAYOR GARCIA: THERE BEING A QUORUM OF THE COUNCIL IN THE CHAMBERS, IF YOU ALL COULD TAKE YOUR SEATS. WE WILL GO TO THE LAST ITEM ON THIS AGENDA. MS. BROWN, I THINK WE HAVE HANDLED ALL THE ITEMS EXCEPT 53?

I BELIEVE 56 IS YET TO BE VOTED ON.

MAYOR GARCIA: 56, COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER, DID YOU WANT TO DO SOMETHING ON 56?

SLUSHER: NO. I MIGHT BRING IT BACK NEXT MONTH.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION TO POSTPONE 56 INDEFINITELY. I'LL SECOND THAT. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. MOTION CARRIES. WITH COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ — THAT WAS A VOTE OF SIX TO ZERO TO ONE WITH COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ TEMPORARILY OFF THE DIAS. OKAY. ITEM NUMBER 53 IS AN ITEM TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER FOR POSSIBLE ACTION AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CHILD CARE OR DAY CARE SERVICE USE WITH CONDITIONS. THE PROPOSED SITE IS LOCATED AT 4814 RED RIVER STREET, FILE NUMBER SPC-01-0026A, SEAM SAMMY'S HOUSE. AND SYLVIA OWE DEM IS THE OWNER OR OPERATOR. THE APPELLANT IS JANIE ANY SIMON, JULIA SAWYER, JULIA SAWYER DILL. KERRY MCHUGH, DORIS COWRD. DEBBIE VOCKER, PATRICIA KNETEN, JOHN AND HELLLY KNETEN. AND ARE YOU GOING TO MAKE A PRESENTATION? ARE YOU MR. BOLT TON?

YES, SIR.

BEFORE HE GETS STARTED, MAYOR, IF I CAN, I HAVE PREPARED FOR YOU ALL AND HANDED EACH MAYOR AND THE MAYOR PRO TEM ON THE DIAS A HANDOUT THAT I HAD PREPARED IN PREPARATION FOR THIS MATTER THE LAST TIME IT WAS UP. AND THAT HANDOUT CONSISTS OF THE RELEVANT CODE SECTIONS THAT GOVERN APPEALS AND THEN IN ADDITION THE LAST TWO PAGES CONSISTENT OF THE STANDARDS THAT APPLY TO THIS APPEAL. AND I WANTED TO BRING THAT TO YOUR ATTENTION SO THAT YOU WILL KNOW THAT YOU HAVE THOSE MATERIALS IN FRONT OF YOU AGAIN THIS EVENING.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. THE FIRST PART OF THAT PROCEDURE IS THE STAFF REPORT, AND THAT'S YOU.

GOOD EVENING MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS. THIS AGENDA ITEM HAS TO DO WITH AN APPEAL FILED AGAINST — OR AN APPEAL TO A DECISION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR IS A CHILD CARE CENTER AT 4814 RED RIVER STREET. BACK IN NOVEMBER OF LAST YEAR, SYLVIA ODOM OR AN AGENT FOR SYLVIA MADE APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF SAMMY'S HOUSE FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CHILD CARE CENTER AT 4814 RED RIVER STREET. THE STAFF REVIEWED THE INFORMATION PROVIDED AND IN CONSIDERATION DRAFTED SEVERAL CONDITIONS THAT THEY WOULD RECOMMEND FOR APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON FEBRUARY 13TH TOOK STAFF'S ADVICE AND MODIFIED SOME OF THE CONDITIONS, BUT WENT FORWARD AND APPROVED THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. NUMBER ONE, THAT PERMANENT EMPLOYEES USE THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY ACCESSIBLE FROM RED RIVER STREET ONLY. NUMBER TWO, THAT VISITORS AND SPECIAL NEED CARE PROVIDERS USE A DRIVEWAY AND PARKING ACCESSIBLE FROM EAST 49TH STREET ONLY. NUMBER 3, TO PROVIDE A VEGETATIVE SCREENING FOR INTENSIVE OUTSIDE ACTIVITY AREAS. NUMBER 4, TO MAINTAIN THE 25-FOOT SET BACK TO THE PROPERTY FOR THE SOUTH FOR INTENSIVE OUTSIDE ACTIVITY AREAS. AND THIS WOULD NOT INCLUDE ANY GARDENS, BUT THE APPLICANT HAD INDICATED THEY MIGHT WANT TO PLANT. NUMBER 5 THE DROPOUT AND PICK UP OF CHILDREN WAS TO OCCUR ON EAST 49TH ONLY AT THE NEW DRIVEWAY. AND NUMBER 6, LIMIT THE ENROLLMENT TO 12 CHILDREN UP TO THREE YEARS IN AGE. AND THEN STAFF HAD INCLUDED A 7TH, WHICH WAS TO RESTRICT THE USE OF THE AREA ABOVE THE CARPORT FOR STORAGE ONLY, AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION MODIFIED OR REMOVED CONDITION NUMBER 7. AND ORIGINALLY CONDITION NUMBER 6 HAD TO DO — ADDRESSED PERCENTAGES FOR INFANTS AND THE REMAINDER OF THE CHILDREN UP TO THREE YEARS IN AGE. AND BECAUSE OF SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF NOT BEING ABLE TO ACCEPT A SPECIAL NEEDS CHILD IF THEY WERE AT THAT 25/75 RATIO, WE REMOVED THAT FROM THE CONDITIONS. THE NEIGHBORS HAVE APPEALED THAT DECISION AND WE'RE HERE THIS EVENING. I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

MAYOR GARCIA: QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR. IS JEANNIE C. SIMON HERE? YOU'RE ONE OF THE APPELLANTS, BUT THE ORDER OF SPEAKING DOESN'T INCLUDE YOUR NAME.

[ INAUDIBLE ] HAIR OR GARCIA: I'M SORRY, JULIA J. SAWYER WAS THE ONE. SHE IS NOT LISTED IN THE LIST OF SPEAKERS.

[ INAUDIBLE ].

MAYOR GARCIA: NEITHER IS HER DAUGHTER. JULIE DILL? OKAY. SO IT WOULD BE JULIE SAWYER DILL. CITY ATTORNEY, DO ALL THE PEOPLE WHO ARE APPELLANTS HAVE TO SPEAK?

THE APPELLANTS CAN DESIGNATE SOMEONE TO SPEAK FOR THEM. FOR EXAMPLE, IF THEY ARE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, BUT THAT IS THEIR TIME.

MAYOR GARCIA: IF THEY'RE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, BUT WHAT IF THEY'RE REPRESENTED BY SOMEBODY ELSE?

IF THEY'RE REPRESENTED BY SOMEONE ELSE, THAT PERSON CAN SPEAK FOR THEM, BUT THAT IS THEIR TIME.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. SO THE PERSON THAT'S GOING TO SPEAK FOR JULIA J. SAWYER IS WHO?

[ INAUDIBLE ].

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU'RE MS. DILL, RIGHT? YOU'RE ONE OF THE APPELLANTS. CAN YOU — MS. SAWYER, CAN YOU SAY, FOR INSTANCE, THAT DID HE KNEESE GERARD COULD BE SPEAKING FOR YOU OR ILIAN? OR RANDALL — ARE YOU THE ATTORNEY?

YES, SIR, I'M AN ATTORNEY ON THIS ISSUE. YOUR HONOR, LAST WEEK WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING ON HOW — DISCUSSING ABOUT HOW TO SCHEDULE THIS THING, THEY WERE GOING TO BE APPELLANTS THAT WERE SPEAKING —

MAYOR GARCIA: I'M JUST WANTING TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL THE APPELLANTS EITHER SPEAK OR HAVE SOMEBODY SPEAKING FOR THEM. AND YOU ARE GOING TO SPEAK FOR MS. JULIA J. SAWYER, CORRECT?

NO, I'M NOT. YOU MENTIONED LAST WEEK THAT IT DID NOT MATTER HOW WE DIVIDED IT UP, WE HAD 42 MINUTES.

MAYOR GARCIA: SO YOU'RE OKAY — ALL OF YOU ARE OKAY WITH MS. SAWYER NOT SPEAKING, CORRECT? EVERYBODY AGREES TO THAT?

I THINK THEY WERE GOING TO SPEAK TOGETHER.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE HER ON THE LIST. DEBBIE VOCKER ON THE FIRST SPEAKER. AND LET ME TELL THE PERSON THAT'S DOING THE TIMING, PUT 42 MINUTES ON THE CLOCK. AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO STOP THE CLOCK BETWEEN — 42. WE'RE NOT GOING — WE'RE NOT GOING TO STOP THE CLOCK BETWEEN SPEAKERS, SO I'M GOING TO LIST — I'M GOING TO CALL OUT THE NAMES, AND YOU ALL GET READY TO COME UP. DEBBIE VOCKER, SEEN ANY SIMON, DENISE GERARD. AND THEN ERMELINDA. I'LL CALL THE OTHERS AS YOU FINISH. GO AHEAD. WELCOME.

THANK YOU, SIR. MY NAME IS DEBBIE VOCKER. THE PURPOSE OF OUR VISIT TONIGHT IS TO APPEAL THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO ALLOW AN ABSENTEE HOMEOWNER TO LEASE HER HOUSE TO A DAY CARE BUSINESS. I LIVE AT 4810 RED RIVER, WHICH IS IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. I'M A CANCER NURSE BY PROFESSION. AFTER 19 YEARS OF SERVICE AT MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER IN HOUSTON, I ACCEPTED A FACULTY POSITION AT U.T. I SELECTED A HOME IN CENTRAL AUSTIN BASED ON RESIDENTIAL ZONING AND PROXIMITY TO MY WORK. I'VE INVESTED MY LIFE SAVINGS IN MY HOME ON RED RIVER. MY NEIGHBORS AND I ARE ALL SUPPORTIVE OF QUALITY DAY CARE FOR ALL CHILDREN. ISABEL, THE DIRECTOR OF THE DAY CARE, IS A NEGOTIABLE WOMAN WITH A VERY — NOBEL WOMAN WITH AN IMPORTANT CAUSE, BUT OUR AAPPEAL IS NOT ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF QUALITY DAY CARE SERVICES FOR SPECIAL NEEDS CHILDREN. OUR APPEAL IS ABOUT A COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE OPERATING IN A PRIMARILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD ZONED FOR SINGLE-FAMILY AND DUPLEX DWELLINGS. WE BELIEVE THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS MISGUIDED IN ITS INTERPRETATION OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND HOW THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DOES ADVERSELY IMPACT US. NO, THE COMMISSION DID NOT HAVE AN ACCURATE PLAT MAP AT THE TIME OF OUR MEETING AND THOUGHT MY HOME WAS A VACANT LOT UNTIL I SPOKE WITH THEM. AND I THINK YOU HAVE A PACKET OF EXIKTS EXHIBITS SO YOU CAN SEE THE MAP THAT WAS PROVIDED TO THEM. TONIGHT WE'D LIKE TO SPECIFICALLY DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 255145 REGARDING THE VALUATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SITE PLANS. MY NEIGHBORS WILL ADDRESS CONDITIONS TO THE FOLLOWING COMPONENTS OF THE CODE. SECTION #KR-1, A CONDITIONAL USE SITE PLAN MAY NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE ADJACENT SITE. WE BELIEVE IT DOES ADVERSARY AFFECT US. SECTION C-#-, THE SITE PLAN MAY NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE SAFETY OR CONVENIENCE OF VEHICULAR OR PEDESTRIAN. MY NEIGHBORS WILL SPEAK TO THAT. IN CONNECTION B-4, THE SITE PLAN MUST PROVIDE ADEQUATE AND CONVENIENT OFF STREET PARKING AND LOADING FACILITIES. WE BELIEVE IT DOES. SECTION B-5, THE SITE PLAN DOES NOT REASONABLY PROTECT PERSONS AND PROPERTY FROM NOISE AND SIMILAR ADVERSE EVENTS. THE CITY STAFF ASSERTS THAT NOISE GENERATED FROM USE WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH OTHER RESIDENTS WHERE CHILDREN PLAY OUTSIDE. WE HAVE NO NEIGHBORS WHO ARE RAISING 12 CHILDREN WHO COME AND GO BY CAR EVERYDAY AND PLAY OUTSIDE. IN SUM OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS A DELICATE BALANCE OF HOMES ON THE EDGE OF A HIGHLY COMMERCIALIZED AREA OF AIRPORT BOULEVARD. WE ASK THAT YOU NOT TIP THE BALANCE TOWARDS INCREASED SPECIALIZATION BY NOT ALLOWING A BUSINESS TO OPERATE NEXT TO MY HOUSE. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA AND COUNCILMEMBERS, MY NAME IS JEANNIE SIMON AND MY HUSBAND AND I LIVE ON 48TH STREET, WHICH IS ONE BLOCK SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE LOCATION FOR SAMMY'S HOUSE DROPOFF AND PICKUP IS SENSIBLE OR SAFE. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT IT IS SENSIBLE TO IMAGINE THAT A RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT AND DAY CARE FACILITY CAN SHARE A COMMON DRIVEWAY. AS I UNDERSTAND IT, PEOPLE WILL BE DROPPING OFF AND PICKING UP CHILDREN. SURELY THIS IS NOT A QUICK AND SNEAP PROCESS. CERTAINLY THE ADULT WILL NEED TO UNLOAD EXTRA ITEMS LIKE A DIAPER BAG OR EQUIPMENT, SPEAK SPE TO THE CAREGIVERS INSIDE AND GET THE CHILD ADJUSTED, ALL WHILE THE VEHICLE SITS IN THE DRIVE OR ON THE CURB, THE CURB THAT IS ALREADY FULL. ONE MUST REMEMBER WITH 12 CHILDREN, THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF TRIPS TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD TO THIS CORNER WILL BE 48 TRIPS PER DAY. THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE THE TRIPS MADE BY THE STAFF, THIS BEING THERAPISTS OR THE RESIDENTS OF THE APARTMENT UPSTAIRS. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT BOTH THE CITY BUS AND SCHOOL BUS TURN THIS CORNER FREQUENTLY THROUGHOUT THE DAY AND OFTEN TIMES MEET AT THIS VERY CORNER, IT IS EASY TO IMAGINE HOW THE BOTTLENECK AT THIS CORNER WILL ESCALATE. NOW PICTURE AN EMERGENCY VEHICLE NEEDING ACCESS TO ONE OF THE CHILDREN OR ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS AND NOT BEING ABLE TO GET THROUGH. HOW CAN YOU MAKE THE DETERMINATION THAT THIS BUSINESS WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE SAFETY AND CONVENIENCE OF THE VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION IN THE AREA, WHICH IS ONE OF THE VERY CRITERIA NECESSARY TO PASS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT? IT IS IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO KNOW THAT ON THE SITE PLAN PRESENTED TO CITY STAFF BY THE APPLICANT, ONLY TWO EMPLOYEES WERE LISTED. THE PLANNING COMMISSION MADE ITS DECISION BASED ON TRAFFIC DATA PREPARED BY CITY STAFF, HOWEVER GREG, THE CITY'S TRANSPORTATION PLANNER, HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF ADDITIONAL STAFF IN ADDITION TO THESE TWO UNTIL 5:00 O'CLOCK P.M. TONIGHT. FURTHER MORE, I DO NOT THINK THAT IT'S FAIR IN GRANTING THIS PERMIT TO THE MANY NEIGHBORS WHO OPPOSE THE COMMERCIALIZATION OF THIS SITE. I AM NOT EMBARRASSED TO SAY THAT I AM FEARFUL OF WHAT COMMERCIALIZATION WILL DO TO MY PROPERTY VALUES. LIKE ANY HOMEOWNER I WOULD LIKE TO MAXIMIZE MY PROPERTY VALUE. JUST AS SYLVIA WISHED TO MAXIMIZE HER PROPERTY VALUE BY REQUESTING A SPECIAL FRIENDLY AMENDMENT FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THE PLANNING COMMISSION GRANTED HER PERMISSION TO RENT AN APARTMENT BEING CONSTRUCTED UPSTAIRS ABOVE THE DRIVEWAY FOR THE DAY CARE FACILITY. THE CITY STAFF'S ORIGINALLY DRAFTED PERMIT REQUIRED THAT THAT STRUCTURE ONLY BE USED FOR STORAGE FOR THE DAY CARE FACILITY. NO ONE HERE IN THIS ROOM IS AGAINST THE WONDERFUL SERVICES THAT SAMMY'S HOUSE WILL PROVIDE FOR AUSTIN. HOW MANY PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM WHEN SEARCHING FOR A NEW HOME ASK THE REALTOR TO FIND A LOCATION ADJACENT TO A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS WHICH BEGINS OPERATIONS EARLY IN THE MORNING EVERY WEEKDAY AND OFTEN TIMES HAS OPERATIONS IN THE EVENINGS AND ON THE WEEKENDS? I AM CURIOUS TO KNOW HOW MANY OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE SPEAKING TONIGHT IN FAVOR OF SAMMY'S HOUSE OWN HOMES NEXT DOOR TO A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS OR WISH THAT THEY DID? AND HOW MANY OF THESE SAME PEOPLE WOULD BE STANDING HERE IN MY SHOES TONIGHT IF THE ROLES WERE REVERSED?

MAYOR GARCIA AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL, I'M DENISE GERARD, A THIRD GENERATION AUSTINITE AND I'VE OWNED A HOME AT 4520 RED RIVER ABOUT THREE BLOCKS SOUTH OF THE PROPOSED FACILITY, FOR 10 YEARS. I MET APPELLANTS DORIS HOWARD AND DEBBIE VOCKER ABOUT SIX MONTHS AGO WHEN WE STARTED WORKING TOGETHER TO WORK TOGETHER WITH THE CITY AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO ADDRESS OUR GROWING CONCERNS REGARDING TRAFFIC AND SAFETY ISSUES ON OUR RESPECTIVE ENDS OF THIS NORTHERN MOST RESIDENTIAL PART OF RED RIVER. I'M HERE TO SAY THAT MY CONCERNS ARE DEEPENED BY ANY COMMERCIALIZATION OR ENDEAVOR THAT ADDS TRAFFIC AND SAFETY ISSUES TO AN ALREADY CONGESTED RESIDENTIAL AREA. I WANT TO REQUEST THAT IN THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS THAT WE REMEMBER THAT WHEN ALL OF THE EMOTIONS IS REMOVED AND ALL OF THE ADJECTIVES TAKEN AWAY, WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS A BUSINESS THAT HAS PEOPLE COMING AND GOING, OPERATING IN A HERETOFORE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD THAT ALREADY HAS TRAFFIC ISSUES. THOUGH IT'S NOT IN MY BACKYARD, IT CERTAINLY WILL HAVE LONG REACHING EFFECTS FOR THE FUTURE OF MY RESIDENTIAL AREA. THE PROPOSED PERMIT HAS PROMPTED ME TO SPEAK OUT AGAINST THE LOCATION — THIS LOCATION FOR THIS BUSINESS. I SINCERELY HOPE THAT WE CAN RESOLVE THIS TO THE MUTUALIZATION OF ALL CONCERNED PARTIES. THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS ONE OF OUR NEIGHBORS WHO COULDN'T BE HERE TONIGHT. SHE'S JOINING US BY A VIDEOTAPE.

MAYOR GARCIA: CAN YOU STOP THE CLOCK? ADD ABOUT 10 SECONDS. STOP IT RIGHT THERE. THERE YOU GO. OKAY. NOW START IT AGAIN.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS, MY NAME IS [ INAUDIBLE ] I'M NOT ABLE TO BE THERE IN PERSON TONIGHT BECAUSE I HAVE TO WORK. I LIVE AT 4811 CASWELL AVENUE. I MOVED HERE WHEN I WAS PREGNANT WITH MY CHILD WHO IS ALMOST 13 YEARS OLD. HER BROTHER IS 11 AND THIS IS OUR DOG. OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS A GREAT PLACE FOR FAMILIES AND WE WOULD LIKE TO KEEP IT THAT WAY. BRINGING BUSINESSES INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WILL DESTROY IT. LET ME DESCRIBE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. IT IS A PLACE THAT HAS ANNUAL CELEBRATIONS. WE GET TOGETHER AND GO TRICK OR TREATING HALLOWEEN AND WE HAVE A BIG PARTY AFTERWARDS. WE ALSO HAVE A PARTY FOR CHRISTMAS. WE HAD A GREAT BIG PARTY FOR THE AIRPORT MOVING. AND THEN WE HAD SOME SAD GOOD-BYE PARTIES. IT'S A NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE NEIGHBORS COME OUT AND TALK TO EACH OTHER. IT'S CLOSE TO THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS, SO YOU SEE A LOT OF PEOPLE WALKING AND BICYCLISTS GOING UP AND DOWN THE STREETS. PEOPLE COME OUT AFTER WORK AND THEY REGULARLY WALK THEIR DOGS OR EXERCISE THEMSELVES. PLACES LIKE OWE [ INAUDIBLE ] ALSO DRAW PEOPLE OUTDOORS. WE ALREADY HAVE A TRAFFIC PROBLEM. A FEW YEARS AGO A SPEEDING CAR HIT MY DOG AND IT COST ME $1800 TO TAKE CARE OF HIM. FORTUNATELY HE'S VERY WELL AND HEALTHY RIGHT NOW. AS A MOTHER I UNDERSTAND STRESS AND CONCERN OF FINDING GOOD CHILD CARE. IT'S SOMETHING THAT I FACED WHEN MY CHILDREN WERE SMALLER. WHEN THEY WERE OLD ENOUGH TO PLAY WITH OTHER KIDS, I FOUND — I FOUND A LOVING ENVIRONMENT WHERE THEY COULD GO TO A COUPLE OF MORNINGS A WEEK. IT WAS IN A CHURCH AND THEY JUST REALLY LOVED IT. I HEAR SUPPORTERS OF SAMMY'S HOUSE SAY THEY WANT A HOME LIKE ENVIRONMENT. THE MOST IMPORTANT THING THAT ANYONE CAN PROVIDE IS LOVE, AND LOVE CAN BE GIVEN ANYWHERE, ESPECIALLY IN A PLACE THAT IS NOT A HOME-LIKE ENVIRONMENT. I WANT TO PRESERVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. WE ALL LIKE IT JUST AS IT IS. MY CHILDREN AND I HOPE TO BE HERE FOR MANY YEARS TO COME. THIS IS A NEIGHBORHOOD FOR FAMILIES AND FOR LIVING, AND WE DON'T WANT IT TO BE USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY.

HI, I'M DORIS COWARD. I'M A CANCER NURSE. I WORK WITH AN ADULT POPULATION WITH SPECIAL NEEDS, WOMEN A NEWLY DIAGNOSED BREAST CANCER. I LIVE AT 4810 RED RIVER, THE HOME IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF 4814. MY PROPERTY LINE IS 21 FIGHT FROM THE HOUSE ITSELF AND 11 FEET FROM THE CARPORT THAT MR. GRIFFITH TOLD ME WILL BE CONVERTED TO A PLAY PORCH FOR THE CHILDREN. MY LIFE HAS BEEN ADVERSELY IMPACTED BY THE FOUR TO SIX CHILDREN SERVED BY THE DAY CARE SINCE IT OPENED ON MARCH THE FOURTH. STAFF AND PARENTS ARE GOING FROM THE HOUSE WHEN I GET UP IN THE MORNING AND WHEN I GO HOME IN THE EVENINGS. AT LUNCHTIME THE SAME OCCURS WITH THE ADDITION OF SUPPORT PERSONS THAT COME AND GO AS WELL AS A CHILD ARRIVING ON A SCHOOL BUS. EVENINGS AND WEEKENDS PEOPLE I DON'T KNOW ARE ON THE PROPERTY WORKING BOTH INDOORS AND OUTDOORS. THERE'S RARELY A TIME I CAN WORK IN MY KITCHEN OR GARDEN WITHOUT FEELING I'M BEING WATCHED. I BEGIN MY RETIREMENT NEXT MONTH, THEN I WILL HAVE MORE TIME TO WORK IN ANY KITCHEN AND GARDEN, PEOPLE WATCH AND BE WATCHED. WE BOUGHT A NEWLY BUILT HOME IN JULY OF 2000, BELIEVING THAT AN ALREADY DESIRABLE HYDE PARK NEIGHBORHOOD WAS ENHANCED FURTHER BY THE CLOSING OF THE OLD AIRPORT. WE NAIVELY ASSUMED THAT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WAS PROTECTED FROM BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE IT WAS ZONED SF-3. AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING MS. ODOM SAID THAT SHE REQUESTED THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BECAUSE SHE COULD OBTAIN MORE RENTAL INCOME FROM THE PROPERTY AS A BUSINESS THAN SHE COULD AS A RESIDENCE. WE FEAR THAT PERMITTING THIS BUSINESS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD CREATES A DANGEROUS PRECEDENCE THAT WILL LEAD TO FURTHER COMMERCIALIZATION BOTH BY THIS OWNER AND BY OTHERS WANTING INCREASING INCOME FROM THEIR PROPERTY. AND AT THE EXPENSE OF OUR OWNERS WHO STRUGGLE TO MAINTAIN THE RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER OF THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: CAREY MCHUGH, JULIE SAWYER DILL.

GOOD EVENING, MY NAME IS CAREY MCHUGH. I LIVE ON CASWELL AVENUE. IN ORDER TO EXPEDITE THIS EVENING, I STAND BEFORE YOU REPRESENTING THE VOICE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD BY WAY OF PETITION. YOU CAN SEE FROM THE COPY IN FRONT OF YOU THAT EXHIBIT 2-A THROUGH J THAT WAS HANDED OUT EARLIER YOUR SECRETARY AND BY THIS BILLBOARD HERE, THIS DISPLAY HERE, IT IS A BLOWUP OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD SURROUNDING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND IT'S THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD IS THE LARGER PICTURE. AND THEN THE SMALLER PICTURE IS THE REPRESENTATION OF THE LARGER AREA ALONG WITH A COPY OF SIGNATURES. THE RED BLOCKS INDICATE THE 91 RESIDENTS AND/OR PROPERTY OWNERS THAT ARE OPPOSED TO THE GRANTING OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. THE YELLOW BLOCKS INDICATE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE TWO NEIGHBORS WHO ARE NOT OPPOSED TO THIS PERMIT. COMMERCIALIZATION, SAFETY AND TRAFFIC ISSUES ARE VERY HIGH ON THE LIST OF CONCERNS WITH THE NEIGHBORS BECAUSE WE LIVE IN A DENSELY POPULATED AREA, AND THIS ALONE BRINGS TRAFFIC WITHOUT ADDING BUSINESSES TO OUR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, ESPECIALLY LONG RED RIVER. 91 OF OUR NEIGHBORS KNOW THAT THIS PERMIT WILL MORE ADVERSELY AFFECT THE ADJOINING PROPERTIES THAN WOULD PERMITTED USE. THE CITY STAFF EVALUATED THIS PART OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND STATED THEIR DESIRE TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD BY SETTING EXTRA CONDITIONS. HOWEVER, NO ADVERSE EFFECTS ARE ALLOWED PER THE CODE. THE PLANNING COMMISSION WORKS BY MAJORITY VOTE. I ASSUME THAT THE CITY COUNCIL WORKS BY A MAJORITY VOTE. WE WOULD LIKE TO ASK THAT THE NEIGHBORS GET TO VOTE ON THIS DECISION THAT WOULD PERMANENTLY AFFECT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE CITY COUNCIL HAVE RECEIVED A COPY OF OUR DESIRES. WE DO NOT WANT MS. ODOM TO BE GRANTED A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO USE THIS ARE RESIDENCE AS A PLACE OF BUSINESS. THIS IS OUR HOME, THIS IS WHERE WE LIVE. WE WOULD LIKE THE CITY COUNCIL TO LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE. THANK YOU.

HI. I'M A PROPERTY OWNER AND THE PRIMARY RESIDENTS AT 61249THH STREET. I'VE RESIDED? HYDE PARK FOR 14 YEARS. FOR 11 OF THOSE YEARS I WAS A RENTER, ONE WHO CARED ABOUT THE FUTURE AND CONSERVATION OF HYDE PARK. SO MUCH SO THAT THREE YEARS AGO I INVESTED IN AN OLD HOME THAT I HAVE RENOVATED BOTH INSIDE AND OUTSIDE VERY CLOSE TO THE SITE. MY NEIGHBORHOOD MEANS A LOT TOO ME, WHICH IS WHY I'M FIGHTING TO CONSERVE IT AS A NEIGHBORHOOD AND NOT TO BRING — NOT TO BEGIN ITS CONVERSION INTO A BUSINESS DISTRICT. I HAVE HEARD FROM THE OPPOSING SIDE THAT BASICALLY WE JUST DON'T WANT THESE KIDS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. WELL, LET ME TELL YOU, I'M A SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER. I HAVE WORKED FOR AISD FOR EIGHT YEARS IN THE HOMEBOUND PROGRAM, WHICH PROVIDES EDUCATIONAL SERVICES TO STUDENTS SUFFERING FROM SEVERE DISABILITIES, DEBILITATING INJURIES AND LONG-TERM ILLNESSES. I HAVE WORKED FOR FIVE YEARS AS A MENTOR, ADVOCATE AND EDUCATOR TO A YOUNG HYDE PARK STUDENT WITH DISABILITIES, ONE IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD. AND I HAVE TUTORED MANY STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS AND HAVE GIVEN MY TIME AND ENERGY TO MANY SPECIAL ED PROGRAMS. IN AUSTIN. DO I SOUND LIKE SOMEONE THAT IS PROJECTED AGAINST CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES? ONE WOMAN SPEAKING TONIGHT CARED FOR HER ELDERLY MOTHER FOR OVER SEVEN YEARS WHILE SHE SUFFERED FROM ALZHEIMER'S. TWO OTHERS ARE NURSES WHO HAVE DEDICATED THEIR LIVES TO HELPING CANCER PATIENTS. ANOTHER WOMAN HAS BEEN A CONSTANT SUPPORT FOR HER QUADRAPLEGIC MOTHER AND ONE COUPLE HAS EVEN PROVIDED FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO THE SAMMY'S ORGANIZATION AND THEY ARE SPEAKING TONIGHT. DO THESE PEOPLE SOUND LIKE THEY ARE AGAINST PROVIDING SERVICES TO PEOPLE WITH SPECIAL NEEDS? WE BELIEVE THE SAMMY HOUSE NEEDS TO EXIST, BUT THIS IS NOT THE ISSUE. THE ISSUE IS IS IT APPROPRIATE TO GET A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO A HOME THAT IS WITHIN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD FOR THE PURPOSES OF OPERATING A BUSINESS, ANY BUSINESS? THE NEIGHBORHOOD FEELS THAT IT IS NOT. MZ HUERTA SAYS SEPTEMBERS HER BUSINESS IN A HOME-LIKE ENVIRONMENT. A HOME A DWELLING PLACE TOGETHER WITH A FAMILY OR SOCIAL UNIT THAT OCCUPIES IT. IT IS A HOUSEHOLD. BOTH MY NEIGHBORS AROUND THE BUSINESS AND I ARE RUNNING HOUSEHOLDS AND BUILDING HOMES WITH FAMILIES. SAMMY'S HOUSE IS NOT A HOME, IT IS A BUSINESS, AND THE PARENTS ARE TAKING THEIR CHILDREN THERE FOR SERVICES. IT IS NOT A HOME AND IT IS NOT A HOUSEHOLD. THERE ARE MANY AVAILABLE PROPERLY ZONED HOME-LIKE BUSINESS SITES IN AUSTIN. IS IT NECESSARY TO PUSH COMMERCIALISM EVEN CLOSER IT OUR HOMES WHEN OTHER VIABLE LOCATIONS EXIST? AND JUST TO PUT THE POINT ON THE TRAFFIC PROBLEM, ON MY WAY OVER HERE, THERE WAS AN ACCIDENT ON RED RIVER WITHIN TWO BLOCKS OF THIS SITE. AND I HAD TO — AS I PASSED THE SITE JUST NOT EVEN 30 SECONDS DOWN THE ROAD WAS AN ACCIDENT WITH POLICE CARS AND MEDICAL EMERGENCY. SO WE DO HAVE A PROBLEM IN THIS AREA. ALREADY. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU. MS. JULIE SAWYER DILL AND JOHN AND BRUCE NADY?

MY NAME IS JULIA JOSEPH SAWYER. AND I LIVE ON EAST 49TH IN AUSTIN, TEXAS. I AM VERY, VERY SURPRISED THAT WE HAVE THIS PROBLEM. I'VE BEEN LIVING HERE FOR 43 YEARS, AND THE NEIGHBORS AND EVERYBODY ARE JUST LIKE A BIG FAMILY. AND ALL OF A SUDDEN AFTER THE WOMAN PASSED, THE HOUSE WAS SOLD AND NOW WE HAVE EVERYTHING DIFFERENT. IT'S CROWDED, THE TRAFFIC IS AWFUL, AWFUL. WE HAVE BUSES COMING UP THE STREET FOR THE SCHOOL, RIDGETOP SCHOOLS, AND WE ALSO HAVE THE REGULAR STREET BUSES. AND ABOUT A MONTH AGO THEY'VE HAD A BIG WRECK WITH A CITY BUS, AND THE STREETS IS ALL CROWDED. AND YOU CAN HARDLY GET OUT OF YOUR DRIVEWAY WHEN CARS COME SPEEDING THROUGH, AND IT'S VERY DANGEROUS. SO I'M GOING TO TURN THIS OVER TO MY DAUGHTER.

HELLO. MY NAME IS JULIE DILL. I LIVE ACROSS THE STREET, DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE DAY CARE. I WANT TO SAY I RELISH THE CHARM OF THIS WONDERFUL NEIGHBORHOOD. IT WOULD HURT MY FAMILY, MYSELF? AND MY NEIGHBORS TO TAKE THIS CHARMING NEIGHBORHOOD AWAY FROM US. MY MOTHER CAN'T JUST GET UP AND MOVE. SHE'S RETIRED AND NEVER HAD ENVISIONED HER DAYS LIVING NEXT TO A BUSINESS. WE WANT TO PROTECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS A DESIRABLE PLACE TO LIVE. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: MR. —

MR. MAYOR, MY NAME IS DENARDO. I LIVE DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THE MONTH MON AT THE SORRY SCHOOL ON AVENUE H. AND I'LL GIVE YOU SOME OF MY EXPERIENCE ABOUT IT. THE SCHOOL DOES NOT HAVE ON-SITE PARKING, SO PARENTS MUST PARK IN THE STREET. AND BY THE WAY, THEY HAD 55 CHILDREN THERE. AND THIS HAS GROWN AND GROWN AND GROWN SINCE I'VE BEEN THERE TO THE POINT NOW I HAVE TO GO AND WAIT UNTIL THE CROWD GOES BETWEEN EIGHT AND 9:00 O'CLOCK SO I CAN GET OUT OF MY DRIVEWAY. MANY TIMES MY DRIVEWAY IS BLOCKED. I CAN'T GET OUT UNTIL I GO INTO THE SCHOOL AND FIND A PARENT TO MOVE THE CAR. PART OF THE SITUATION ALSO IS THEY HAVE PEOPLE THERE AT NIGHT CLEANING UP THE PLACE. AND IT DOESN'T STOP THEN. SO THAT HOUSE WENT FROM A RESIDENT TO A PLAYGROUND. I'M RETIRED, I HAVE NOWHERE TO GO. MY RESIDENCE — MY VALUE OF MY HOUSE ISN'T WORTH ANYTHING. AS FAR AS RESALE, PEOPLE SAY, GEE, YOU GOT THAT SCHOOL OVER THERE. I DON'T WORK ANY MORE, SO MY INCOME HAS STOPPED. ONE OF THE — WHAT WOULD BE THE REACTION IF YOU LEARNED — ADDRESSING ALL OF YOU UP HERE. IF YOU LEARNED THAT THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR TO YOU, THAT YOUR PARENTS OR SOME SENIOR RELATIVES OF YOURS OR YOUR FRIENDS OR NEIGHBORS, SOMEBODY APPLIED FOR A PERMIT TO OPEN A DAY CARE CENTER? ONE HOME IN AUSTIN — FOR ME AND OTHER SENIORS, WE HAVE NO PLACE TO GO BECAUSE OF THIS. WE HAVE LOST THE ONE THING WE WORKED FOR ALL OUR LIVES, OUR HOME. SENIOR CITIZENS HAS EARNED THE RIGHT TO ENJOY THEIR REMAINING YEARS WITHOUT A BUSINESS NEXT DOOR. IN MY CASE MY CASTLE HAS BECOME MY PRISON. WE, THE SENIOR CITIZENS OF AUSTIN, HAVE RIGHTS TOO AND WE LOOK AND TRUST TO THE MAYOR AND THE COUNCILMEMBERS TO PROTECT THEM. THE LAST THING WE HAVE LEFT IS OUR HOMES. AND I'M QUOTING COUNCILMEMBER MR. SHRES ENGER. YOUR HOME IS YOUR MOST IMPORTANT INVESTMENT. TONIGHT YOU HAVE THE POWER WITH YOUR VOTES TO SAVE THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND ITS PEOPLE. IT'S UP TO YOU. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: MR. BRUCE NADIG.

THANK YOU IF HAVING ME HERE TONIGHT. I'M JUST HERE TO APPEAL TO YOU, PLEASE, PLEASE LET ME KEEP MY NEIGHBORHOOD A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. I'VE LIVED THERE WITH MY WIFE FOR FOUR YEARS NOW AND WE'RE VERY PROUD HOMEOWNERS AND WE WANT TO KEEP IT THAT WAY. I DON'T FOR A MOMENT ARGUE THE NECESSITY OF THE SERVICES BEING OFFERED BY SAMMY'S HOUSE. IT'S JUST A MATTER OF THE LOCATION. GOOD CARE CAN BE GIVEN ANYWHERE BY GOOD CARE PROVIDERS. I JUST DON'T SEE THE NECESSITY THAT GOOD CARE BE PROVIDED BY A BUSINESS IN THE MIDDLE OF A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD THAT'S SURROUNDED BY RESIDENCES. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: MR. STAN?

MY NAME IS STAN. I'M CHAIRMAN OF A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE FOR THE HYDE PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THE HYDE PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION VOTED TO RECOMMEND THAT ONLY THE SIX CHILDREN BE AT THIS DAY CARE CENTER. IT'S NOT THAT WE DON'T HAVE SYMPATHY FOR THESE CHILDREN. WHO COULD NOT? BUT WE HAVE SEEN SYMPATHETIC DECISIONS LIKE THIS COME BACK TO BITE US. WE HAVE AN ATTORNEY'S OFFICE RIGHT NOW WHERE AT ONE TIME AN OLD MAN WAS SELLING WORMS OFF HIS FRONT PORCH AND GRANTED C ZONING SO HE COULD SELL WORMS. WE FOUGHT A DEVELOPER WHO WANTED TO BUILD 27 APARTMENT UNITS WHERE THERE WAS A B ZONING FOR A NURSING HOME THAT HAD 12 OLD LADIES. AND WE RUED THE DAY THAT WE SUPPORTED C ZONING FOR A PARKING GARAGE FOR A CHURCH THAT PROMISED TO SOLVE OUR PROBLEMS BY GOING UP AND NOT OUT. DOROTHY RICHTER TAUGHT ME THAT YOU ZONE LAND, NOT PEOPLE. THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RUNS WITH THE LAND, NOT WITH THESE PEOPLE. IF WE KNOW ONE THING FOR SURE, WE KNOW THAT CHANGE WILL HAPPEN. THEY COULD SELL THE LAND, LEASE IT TO SOMEONE ELSE WHO DIDN'T MAKE PROMISES TO ANYONE, AND WE HAVE THE KIND OF PROBLEM THAT DON DEALS WITH EVERYDAY. THESE CONDITIONAL USES, NO ONE MONITORS THESE THINGS. THE CITY DOESN'T MONITOR ITS OWN STUFF, THE STATE DEPARTMENTS CERTAINLY DON'T. IT RUNS WITH THE LAND. IT'S LIKE A PERMANENT ZONING THING, NOT WITH THESE PEOPLE. NEXT WE HAVE A TAPE FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION. IT WILL BE — I THINK IT'S BEN SPEAKING. I THINK THERE'S A LADY BEFORE HIM, BUT THE PRIMARY SPEAKER IS BEN ISMAN.

MAYOR GARCIA: CAN YOU STOP THE CLOCK WHILE THE VIDEO STARTS? ARE YOU GOING TO GIVE US A LECTURE?

I THINK THAT THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVIEW DOESN'T REALLY ADEQUATELY ADDRESS PARKING AND THE TRAFFIC CONCERNS THAT THE HAS RAIDED, SO I WILL OPPOSE THE MOTION.

COMMISSIONERS, IF I COULD, I THINK I HAVE TO ALSO OPPOSE THE MOTION. AND I'M VERY TORN BY THE KIND OF DECISION THAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO MAKE, BUT THAT'S WHAT OUR JOB IS. WE VOLUNTEER OUR TIME. WE SEE LOTS OF SITUATIONS THAT ARE VERY CUT AND DRIED. THIS IS NOT ONE OF THEM. THIS IS ONE OF THOSE GRAY AREAS WHERE WE HAVE DIFFERENT NEEDS AND OUR CURRENT CODES ALLOW FOR THIS VERY ISSUE TO BE DISCUSSED JUST LIKE IT IS, SO THAT WE MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION. IF THIS WAS ONLY APPROVING THE PRESENTATION THAT WE SAW TODAY WITH THE LIMITS THAT WE SAW AND THE KIND OF ADVOCACY THAT WE SAW TODAY, I WOULD HAVE VERY LITTLE CONSTERNATION ABOUT THE MOTION. BUT UNFORTUNATELY WHAT WE HAVE IS A SITUATION AND A VERY BAD HISTORY WHERE THE DAY CARE ACCESSORY USE WITHIN SF-3 GETS OUT OF HAND. AND I THINK IT WAS DESCRIBED AS A SLIPPERY SLOPE. I SOMETIMES USE THE ANALOGY AS THE CAMEL GETS GETS THE NOSE UNDER THE TENT, BUT WE'VE SEEN A COUPLE OF DAY CARE SITUATIONS WHERE THE FIRST USE THAT WAS APPROPRIATE DIDN'T AFFECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD ADVERSELY. THEN GOES THE — THE CONDITION CONTINUES AND ALL THOSE LIMITATIONS AS FINE TUNED AS WE MAKE THEM, I'M AFRAID THE CITY'S TRACK RECORD WITH ENFORCEMENT HAS BEEN MISERABLE. AND I DON'T BELIEVE IN THE TIME I'VE HAD ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION THE CITY HAS EVER COME BACK TO US AND SAID, WE HAVE A SITUATION THAT'S NO LONGER IN COMPLIANCE, WE WISH TO PRESENT TO YOU A WAY OF REVOKING THAT CONDITION AND SHUTTING THIS OPERATION DOWN. IF WE HAD THAT AS A STRONG ARM, I THINK THE NEIGHBORS' CONCERNS WOULD BE DONE AWAY WITH WITH THESE CONDITIONS. BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE VERY QUICKLY A MATTER OF WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IN THE YEARS TO COME. AND THE OPPORTUNITY IN THE CATEGORY WE WOULD APPROVE WOULD ALLOW ESSENTIALLY DAY CARE UP TO 20 KID. IN A FRAGILE NEIGHBORHOOD LIKE THIS, I DON'T THINK DAY CARE WITH UP TO 20 KIDS IS GOING TO BE A POSITIVE IMPACT IN A LONG-TERM IN THAT AREA, SO THEREFORE I CAN'T SUPPORT THE MOTION EITHER. AGAIN, I THINK SAMMY'S HOUSE IS A WONDERFUL OPERATION AND I DO HOPE THAT THEY'RE STAYING IN THE GENERAL VICINITY, BUT I THINK THE RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER IS POTENTIALLY AT RISK HERE.

MAYOR GARCIA: I'M SORRY. THE ATTORNEY, MR. RANDALL? WAS THAT YOUR FIRST NAME?

MY NAME IS RANDALL TERRELL. AND I REPRESENT THE KNETENS. HELEN IS NOT GOING TO SPEAK. THIS IS NOT A REFERENDUM ON SAMMY'S HOUSE OR THE GOOD DEEDS IT DOES. IT'S NOT A REFERENDUM ON THE NEED FOR DAY KAY IN AUSTIN, WHETHER FOR THE GENERAL POPULATION OR FOR SPECIAL NEEDS KIDS. IT DOES A GREAT SERVICE, BUT THAT CONSIDERATION IS IRRELEVANT TO THE DECISION BEFORE YOU TONIGHT. WE BELIEVE THE LAND COMMISSION GOT CAUGHT UP IN ALLFER VER CREATED BY SAMMY'S HOUSE SUPPORTRS AND IGNORED THE SERIOUS CONCERNS TO THE NEIGHBORS AND THE IMPACT THAT THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WOULD HAVE ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS APPEAL IS NOT ABOUT SAMMY'S HOUSE, IT IS ABOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD. A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MAY ONLY BE APPROVED IF IT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE AND HAS NO GREATER IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAN AN OTHERWISE APPROVED USE. THIS PERMIT SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE IT DOES NEITHER. THE PERMIT WILL CREATE A SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC BURDEN ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WITHOUT THE CERTAIN CONDITIONS, THE PERMIT WOULD HAVE A TRAFFIC IMPACT. SO THEY RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS THAT WOULD MINIMIZE THE PERMITS IMPACT ON THE TRAFFIC IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THERE ARE TWO PROBLEMS WITH THIS. FIRST OF ALL IS THAT THEY USED THE WRONG STANDARD. THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS ONLY MIHMMIZE, BUT DO NOT ELIMINATE THE TRAFFIC PROBLEMS. IF THERE IS AN IMPACT, ACCORDING TO THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, THE PERMIT MUST BE DENIED. WE BELIEVE THERE IS AN IMPACT. THE SECOND PROBLEM IS THAT THE LAND COMMISSION REMOVED ONE OF THE CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE STAFF. THAT CONDITION WOULD HAVE LIMITED THE SECOND BUILDING ON THE PROPERTY TO ADMINISTRATIVE AND STORAGE USES. REMOVAL OF THAT CONDITION ALLOWS THE BUILDING TO BE USED AS A DRELG DWELLING, WHICH WILL INCREASE THE TRAFFIC AND TRIBUTE CREUBT TO THE IMPACT THE STAFF WAS HOPING TO MEAL YOUR LATE. THERE IS NO FUND FOOEUNDING OF NO IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE PERMIT SHOULD ALSO BE DENIED BECAUSE IT DOES NOT MEET THE CODE RIRPTS FOR OFF SITE PARKING FOR A DAY CARE. A DAY CARE MUST HAVE ONE PARKING SPACE FOR EACH ADMINISTRATOR, EACH TEACHER AND EACH DAY CARE PROVIDER. ACCORDING TO THE CONDITIONS APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION, THIS SITE HAS TWO EMPLOYEE PARKING SPACES. IT ALSO HAS TWO FULL TIME STAFF. HOWEVER, AT THE LAND COMMISSION MEETING AND IN THE DOCUMENTS FILED WITH THE CITY, SAMMY'S HOUSE ACKNOWLEDGES IT WILL HAVE A NUMBER OF OTHER PROFESSIONALS, HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS, DAY CARE PROVIDERS, TEACHERS AND PROFESSIONALS, WHO WILL VISIT THE SITE THROUGHOUT THE DAY. WE DO NOT KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE WILL VISIT THE SITE DURING THE DAY, BUT WE DO KNOW THAT EACH MUST HAVE A PARKING SPACE, AND THERE ARE NONE AVAILABLE. THIS PERMIT DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE AND IT SHOULD BE DENIED.

MAYOR GARCIA: JOHN KNETEN? AND DENISE. — PATRICIA. AND THOSE ARE THE LAST TWO SPEAKERS. IF YOU'LL STOP THE CLOCK, WE'LL SEE HOW MUCH TIME YOU HAVE FOR REBUTTAL.

HONORABLE COUNCILMEMBERS, HONORABLE MAYOR, MY NAME IS JOHN. I LIVE AT 4833 RED RIVER. I LIVE ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE PROPOSED DAY CARE. THIS IS MY HOME. I GREW UP AT 4813 RED RIVER. MY GRANDFATHER BUILT THE HOMES. MY MOTHER GREW UP IN THEM. THIS IS MY NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS IS OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. I OPPOSE THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WHAT THIS PERMIT WILL DO TO THE CHARACTER AND FABRIC OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT MY FAMILY HAS PUT MUCH EFFORT INTO. IN THE AREA BORDERED BY 45TH STREET, THE RAILROAD TRACK, 50TH STREET AND DUVAL THERE IS ONE COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE. IT HAS BEEN USED SINCE 1921 WHEN IT WAS BUILT AS A GROCERY STORE. THE OWNER WHO LIVES IN EIGHT JAY SENT PROPERTY ALSO OPPOSES THE GRANTEDING OF THIS PERMIT. THIS IS THE EXTENT OF THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT INTO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD UNTIL YOU CROSS AIRPORT BOULEVARD. THERE ARE OTHER COMMERCIALLY ZONED PROPERTIES, BUT THEAR USED AS SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES. THERE ARE PEOPLE, SUCH AS MY WIFE, WHO IS A REAL ESTATE AGENT, WHO USE THEIR HOME AS A HOME OFFICE. THESE ARE INVISIBLE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. A 12-CHILD DAY CARE WITH 96 CAR TRIPS PER DAY VERSUS 10 PER A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE IS NOT INVISIBLE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THESE VEHICLE TRIPS STATISTICS WERE PROVIDED BY CITY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STAFF. AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AN INSINUATION WAS MADE THAT THE AREA AROUND US IS NOT A NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE MANY OF THE HOMES ARE RENTAL. ARE THE PEOPLE WHO RENT THOSE THAT HOMES NOT RESIDENTS. ARE THE PROPERTIES NOT THEIR HOMES. MANY HAVE BEEN MEMBERS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR FAR LONGER THAN FOUR YOORZ. THIS PERMIT WOULD IMPACT AND COMERNL LIES THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN A MANNER THAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE RESIDENTIAL ZONING. IT WILL HAVE A PERMANENT IMPACT IN TERMS OF TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND COMMUNITY. IT'S ALREADY HAVING AN IMPACT AND THEY ARE AT LESS THAN HALF THEIR PROPOSED CAPACITY. YOUR DECISION TODAY WILL IMPACT HOW PEOPLE VIEW THE GOVERNMENT CONCERNS. I'M NOT OPPOSED TO DAY CARE'S OR SAMMY'S HOUSE, BUT I AM OPPOSED TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND THE PERMANENT EFFECTS ON THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. I'M ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THESE KIDS. BEFORE HE BUILT THOSE HOMES, MY GRANDFATHER WAS A STREET CAR OPERATOR IN KANSAS CITY IN THE 1920'S. BUN DAY A LITTLE GIRL RAN OUT IN FRONT OF THE CAR HE WAS OPERATING AND WAS KILLED. AFS AN ACCIDENT, BUT HE DIDN'T SEE IT THAT WAY, SO FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE HE FELT A GUILTY FOR KILLING A CHILD. I DON'T WANT TO SEE THAT, DO IT. I BACK MY TRUCK OUT AIMED EVERYDAY AT THAT PROPERTY AND THE CAPITAL METRO BUSES RAN BY THERE ON TWO SIDES 91 DAYS TOOEUMZ A DAY. I DON'T WANT A CAPITAL METRO DRIVER LIVING WITH THAT EITHER.

HI. HI NAME IS PATRICIA. I LIVE ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE LOCATION IN QUESTION. IT IS MY HOME. DESPITE WHATEVER THE PROPONENTS OF SAMMY'S HOUSE MIGHT SAY HERE TONIGHT, THE NEIGHBORS AND OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OPPOSE THE LOCATION OF THIS BUSINESS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD FOR MANY REASONS. NONE OF WHICH HAVE TO DO SPECIFICALLY WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS, SILL VEE YARKS THE DIRECTOR OF THE DAY CARE, ISABELLE AND OTHER FAMILY, THE SUPPORTERS OF SAMMY'S HOUSE OR THE SUPPORTERS AND FAMILIES OF CHILDREN SERVED BY THIS ORGANIZATION. HOWEVER WE ARE APPEALING THE DECISION THAT WOULD ALLOW THIS BUSINESS TO EXPAND AT THIS SITE. IT SEEMS THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS WELL AS THE PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT THIS SPECIAL USE PERMIT WERE MORE WRAPPED UP IN WHAT SAMMY'S HOUSE DOES THAN WHETHER OR NOT THIS PROPERTY IS A SAFE AND APPROPRIATE LOCATION FOR A BUSINESS OF ANY KIND, LEAST OF ALL A DAY CARE. WE BELIEVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN THEIR DESIRE TO SUPPORT THE IMPORTANT SERVICES SAMMY'S HOUSE PROVIDES FAILED TO EXAMINE THE ISSUES RELATED TO THIS SPECIFIC PROPERTY. THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT ARE ASKING THAT YOU ALLOW A NONCONFORMING COMMERCIALLY OPERATED BUSINESS TO BE RUN FROM A 1258 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE-FAMILY HOME BY AN ABSENTEE — OWNED BY AN ABSENTEE LANDLORD AND SURROUNDED BY RESIDENCES. IT IS EASY TO BE DISTRACTED BY WHAT THIS ORGANIZATION AEXPIRES TO PROVIDE AND WHO IT SEARCHES SCHEDULE STED OF EXAMINING THE ISSUES RELATED TO LAND USE CONCERNS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. I ASK YOU ONCE AGAIN TO PLEASE REFER TO EXHIBIT 4-B PROVIDED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION BY CITY STAFF FOR THEIR MEETING ON FEBRUARY 13TH. PLEASE NOTE THE DEPARTMENT COMMENTS. QUOTE, STAFF DEVELOPED THE CONDITIONS TO PROVIDE THAT THE PROPERTY COULD BE USED AGAIN AS A RESIDENCE SHOULD THIS BUSINESS DECIDE TO LOCATE ELSEWHERE, END OF QUOTE. ONE OF THE REASONS FOR OUR APPEAL IS THAT THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS WERE HASTELY REVISED AN ONE DROPPED ALTOGETHER BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN AN 11TH HOUR FRIENDLY AMENDMENT PROPOSED BY ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS. A COUPLE OF THE COMMISSIONERS DID NOT RECOGNIZE THE TERM FRIENDLY AMENDMENT AND THE OTHERS SEEMED UNCLEAR ABOUT EXACTLY WHAT THEY WERE OR NOT APPROVING. THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS NEITHER STIPULATE NOR GUARANTEE THAT THE PROPERTY WILL NOT CONTINUE TO BE USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES IN THE FUTURE. THIS PERMIT WILL HAVE A PERMANENT IMPACT ON OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. IT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT STAYS WITH THE PROPERTY FOREVER. THIS IS A POOR LOCATION FOR A DAY CARE. THERE ARE BETTER AND SAFER LOCATIONS EVEN IN THIS SAME AREA. PROPERTIES THAT ARE FOR SALE OR LEASE THAT COULD PROVIDE BETTER ACCESS, MORE SPACES AND ARE SAFER FOR THE KIDS. THIS IS NOT JUST AN OPINION. AS A PROFESSIONAL REALTOR I CAN SAY IT IS A FACT. I'M HAPPY TO PROVIDE SPECIFIC EXAMPLES SHOULD THE COUNCIL REQUEST IT. HOWEVER, AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING THE COMMISSIONERS WERE LED TO BELIEVE THAT THERE WERE NO OTHER CHOICES AVAILABLE. THIS APPEAL IS NOT ABOUT SAMMY'S HOUSE, IT'S ABOUT ALLOWING A BUSINESS TO EXPAND AT THIS LOCATION AT THE OPPOSITION OF AN ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE PEOPLE WHO WILL HAVE TO LIVE WITH THE CONSEQUENCES OF THIS DECISION LONG PAST TODAY. THERE WILL BE NO WINNER'S HERE TONIGHT. IF THE PERMIT IS GRANTED IT WILL BE TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE NEIGHBORS, FINANCIALLY, EMOTIONALLY AND IN TERMS OF OUR QUALITY OF LIFE. DISSPIRITED BY A PROCESS THAT IGNORES OUR ABILITY TO MAINTAIN ANY CONTROL OVER WHAT HAPPENS ON OUR VERY OWN STREET. IF THE PERMIT IS NOT GRANT GRANTED, THE SUPPORTERS OF THIS PERMIT WILL FEEL THEY HAVE LOST BECAUSE THEY HAVE TRIED TO MAKE IT AN ISSUE ABOUT SOMETHING IT IS NOT ABOUT. THEY WANT YOU TO THINK ABOUT A KIDS, HOW WONDERFUL SAMMY'S HOUSE IS. SAMMY'S HOUSE IS, BUT THIS LOCATION IS NOT. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE CITY STAFF, THEY WERE GIVEN SOME MISLEADING AND IN SOME CASES INCORRECT INFORMATION ON WHICH THEY BASED THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUBSEQUENT DECISION TO APPROVE THIS PERMIT. AMONG WHICH WAS INFORMATION ABOUT THE USE OF THE SPACE ABOVE THE COVERED PARKING, THE LACK OF OTHER AVAILABLE SPACES FROM WHICH TO OPERATE THIS BUSINESS AND THE NUMBER OF ANTICIPATED EMPLOYEES. THIS IS WHY WE HAVE APPEALED. THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE AROUND THIS PROPERTY, THE NEIGHBORS SURROUNDING THIS SITE, ARE ASKING THAT YOU, CITY COUNCIL, RECONSIDER THIS DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND DENY THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THAT'S ALL THE SPEAKERS. LET ME READ INTO THE RECORD OTHER PEOPLE WHO SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK, THERE'S ABOUT FOUR AND A HALF MINUTES LEFT IN THE 42 MINUTES THAT WERE ASSIGNED TO YOU. HELEN, DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK? SHE'S AGAINST THE THE GRANTING OF THE PERMIT. CHRISTINE GUTIERREZ? SHE DOESN'T INDICATE. SHE DOESN'T WANT TO SPEAK, BUT SHE DOESN'T SAY WHETHER SHE'S FOR OR AGAINST. CHRIS CRAIGER? ALSO DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK, BUT DOESN'T INDICATE. JULIE SAWYER, YOU ALREADY SPOKE? OKAY. STEPHANIE MORRIS? IS HE HERE? HE DOESN'T WISH TO SPEAK AND HE'S REGISTERED AGAINST — HE DOESN'T INDICATE WHETHER HE'S AGAINST THE APPEAL OR THE GRANTING OF THE PERMIT. YOU THEN HAVE SEVEN MINUTES AND 36 SECONDS LEFT FOR THE REBUTTAL. YOU CAN — THAT MEANS YOU CAN PICK TWO OR THREE SPEAKERS TO SPEAK ON THIS SEVEN MINUTES. IT'S 4:36 PLUS THE THREE MINUTES THAT YOU'RE LEFT. WE WILL NOW GO TO THE APELL EES I GUESS IS A WORD. MS. HUERTA, IF YOU COULD PUT 45 MINUTES — PUT 45 BECAUSE THEY DON'T GET REBUTTAL. THE REBUTTAL IS ONLY FOR THE APPELLANT. WELCOME.

THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS.

MAYOR GARCIA: IF YOU COULD BRING THE MIC DOWN.

MY NAME IS MS. HUERTA AND I'M THE FOUNDER AND CO-DIRECTOR OF SAMMY'S HOUSE. OUR SUPPORTERS ARE HERE TO ASK YOU TO HELP US IN SUSTAINING THE CITY'S DECISION STO GRANT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE SAID PROPERTY. OUR ORGANIZATION, SAMMY'S HOUSE IS A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION THAT PROVIDES NON-TRADITIONAL HIGH QUALITY DHIED CARE TO INFANTS AND TODDLERS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS IN AN INCLUSIVE ENVIRONMENT. WE PROVIDE FAMILIES WITH SUPPORT AND ORGANIZATIONS TRIES TO PROVIDE PUBLIC AWARENESS AS TO THE DIVERSITY IN THE COMMUNITY. SAMMY'S HOUSE WAS OPENED IN NOVEMBER OF 1999 AS A FAMILY HOME CHILD CARE CENTER. THE NEED WAS TO GREAT IN THE AUSTIN AREA THAT SAMMY'S HOUSE GOT A NONPROFIT STATUS AND BEGAN TO TRY TO REACH A LARGER NUMBER OF FAMILIES. SOME OF OUR FAMILIES HAVE DIFFERENT CHILD CARE NEEDS AND THEIR CONCERNS FOR THEIR CHILDREN'S CARE OFTEN INCLUDES FINDING FACILITIES TO PROVIDE APPROPRIATE MEDICAL CARE, ADDRESS FEEDING ISSUES, CLOW LOU FOR THE INCLUSION OF THERAPY WHILE OFFERING AN HOLISTIC APPROACH TO THEIR CHILD'S DEVELOPMENT. IN CONTRAST TO SOME CENTERS, WHO MAY ACCEPT SOME WITH SPECIAL NEEDS, WE ACCEPT SOME WHO ARE MEDICALLY FRAGILE. THE EXISTING NEED FOR QUALITY AND ABLE CARE GROWS. CHILD CARE PROVIDED AT SAMMY'S HOUSE IS NURTURING AND LOVING AND MEANT TO BE IN A HOME LIKE SETTING. OUR CHILDREN OFTEN BEGAN THEIR FORMAL EDUCATION AT EARLY AS THREE YEARS OF AGE. THEY BECOME THE NORM FOR THE CHILDREN AS THEY GROW OLDER. OUR CHILDREN RESIDE ALL OVER AUSTIN AND THE SURROUNDING AREAS. OUR FAMILIES LIVES ARE VERY INVOLVED. HAVING OUR FACILITY CENTRALLY LOCATED IS A HIGH PRIORITY FOR OUR FAMILIES. SAMMY'S HOUSE ALLOWS FOR FAMILY TO REGAIN ECONOMIC STABILITY BY ALLOWING FAMILIES TO RETURN TO EMPLOYMENT. THE HOUSE WE CURRENTLY OCCUPY ON RED RIVER HAS BEEN A BLESSING. HIS ODOM AGREED TO MAKE THE HOUSE AVAILABLE TO US FOR FRO MONTHS RENT FREE AS WE PREPARED OUR LICENSING AND ZONING APPLICATIONS. PRIOR TO ACCEPTING HER OFFER, THE CHAIRMAN AND I CONSULTED A REALTOR TO COMPARE VARIOUS OPTIONS, INCLUDING COMMERCIALLY ZONED HOMES, AND LOOKING AT TRAFFIC AND LOCATION. IT TOOK NO TIME AT ALL TO SEE THE GENEROSITY OF MS. ODOM'S GIFT. MS. ODOM PROVIDED THE CENTER WITH ADDITIONAL PARKING IN THE REAR AT HER EXPENSE AND SHE'S PREPARING TO SET THE SIDEWALKS IN AGAIN AT HER EXPENSE. THE LOCATION IS CONVENIENT AND CENTRALLY LOCATED AND IT MET ALL THE LICENSING REQUIREMENTS. CHILD CARE FOR CHILDREN UNDER AGE 3 IS THE HARDEST TO FIND. ALMOST NON-EXIST FOR CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS. APPROXIMATELY 62 LICENSED FACILITIES CLOSED LAST YEAR. SAMMY'S HOUSE AS AN ORGANIZATION UNDERSTANDS THE NEIGHBORS' CONCERNS REGARDING COMMERCIALIZATION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE INTEND TO ALWAYS HAVE A LOW PROFILE, TO BE UNNOTICED, TO BE CONSIDERATE AND GOOD NEIGHBORS, TO BEHAVE IN A MANNER SO UNBUSINESSLIKE THAT THE WORD CENTER IS REPLACED WITH HOME. NEIGHBORHOODS ARE MADE UP OF ALL SORTS OF PEOPLE. SOME ARE LARGE, SOME OF SMALL, SOME OF OLD AND SOME ARE YOUNG. SOME YOUNG WITH BODIES THAT DON'T WORK THE SAME AS YOURS AND MINE. MINDS THAT BEAT TO A DIFFERENT DRUM. THEY LIVE IN THE SOUTH AND NORTH AND THEY ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS. SOME OF OUR CHILDREN ARE AT THE HOUSE 10 HOURS A DAY. THEY EAT THERE, SLEEP, LEARN AND PLAY THERE. THIS IS THEIR HOME FOR THE MAJORITY OF THEIR WAKING HOURS. WE CAN FIX THE PARKING, WE CAN REROUTE THE TRAFFIC. WE CAN DO THINGS THAT INCREASE THE VALUE OF THE HOUSE WE OCCUPY AND WE CAN CONTINUE TO ADDRESS EACH OF THE NEIGHBORS' NEW CONCERNS WITH SOLUTIONS AS QUICKLY AS THEY EMERGE. BUT WE CAN'T FIX THE CHILDREN NO MATTER HOW MUCH WE OR THE NEIGHBORS WOULD LIKE. OUR FAMILIES AND I NOW ASK YOU TO PLEASE CONSIDER THIS AS A LARGER COMMUNITY ISSUE, NOT AN ISOLATED DISPUTE AMONGST NEIGHBORS. YOUR DECISION CAN AFFECT THE CHILD NEXT DOOR WHO JUST RAN OUT OF OPTIONS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

HI. THANK YOU FOR HEARING OUR CASE TONIGHT. I'M A HOMEOWNER OF — I'M THE OWNER OF THE HOUSE AT 4814 RED RIVER AND THE APPLICANT FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. IN MY TIME I'D LIKE TO TELL YOU ABOUT HOW I GOT TO WHERE I AM TODAY, PROVIDE SOME CLARITY TO SOME MISINFORMATION AND PROPOSE SOME ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. IN 1998 I BOUGHT MY HOUSE ON RED RIVER AND THE FOLLOWING YEAR, IN MAY OF 19 SNIEP 99, I HAD MY DAUGHTER. SOON AFTER RILEY WAS BORN, HER FATHER AND I LEARNED THAT SHE HAD A RARE CHROME ZONE SYNDROME. WITH MULTIPLE MEDICAL PROBLEMS. BECAUSE SHE HAD SO MANY ISSUES WE WERE ADVISED BY OUR THERAPIST AND FRIENDS TO TRY TO MOVE TO THE EANES SCHOOL DISTRICT BECAUSE THEY HAD THE REPUTATION FOR PROVIDING BETTER EDUCATION SERVICES AND SPECIAL EQUIPMENT FOR CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS. RILEY IS COVERED ON MY MEDICAL INSURANCE, SO QUITTING WORK TO CARE FOR HER WAS NEVER AN OPTION FOR ME. BECAUSE OF HR SEVERE FEEDING PROBLEMS, WE COULDN'T FIND A DAY CARE. SHE WAS ON A PUMP THAT PUMPS FOOD DIRECTLY INTO OTHER STOMACH EVERY HOUR AND A HALF. SHE COULD ONLY TOLERATE TWO TO FOUR OUNCES OF FOOD PER HOUR AND BEFORE THE END OF EACH FEEDING SHE WOULD VOMIT AND HAVE DIARRHEA. SHE COULDN'T CONTROL THE FOODS OR LIQUIDS SWALLOWED INTO HER LUNGS, SO THERE WAS THE THREAT OF CHOKING. SHE HAD SEVERE REFLUX AND HAD TO BE IN AN UPRIGHT POSITION AT ALL TIMES AND SOMEONE HAD TO WATCH HER WHILE BEING FED SO IF SHE VOMITED SHE COULD SUCTION HER IF NECESSARY. THIS IS ONE AS PEBLGHT OF HER DAILY CARE. WHAT DAY CARE WAS GOING TO TAKE CARE OF HER WHILE I WORKED TO KEEP HER MEDICAL INSURANCE IN PLACE? I FOUND SAMMY'S HOUSE WITH PILOT PAIRPT AND THAT DAY CARE FERS THE ONLY ONE THAT WOULD TAKE CARE OF RILEY. IT WAS A GODSEND TO MY FAMILY. SAMMY'S HOUSE ALWAYS HOPED TO EXPAND ONCE THEY GOT ENOUGH FUNDING. I WAS SO GRATEFUL TO SAMMY'S HOUSE AND ALL HAD IT DONE THAT I DID NOT HESITATE TO OFFER MY RENTAL HOUSE AS A POSSIBLE SITE BECAUSE I KNEW THERE WERE OTHER FAMILIES LIKE OURS WHO DESPERATELY NEEDED THIS TYPE OF CARE. MY RED RIVER HOUSE IS IDEAL BECAUSE IT IS CENTRALLY LOCATED AND CLOSE TO ALL THE MAJOR HOSPITALS AND DOCTOR'S OFFICES. THERE ARE RUMORS FLOATING AROUND ABOUT MY ROLE AS THE PROPERTY OWNER AND I WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THEM. I AM NOT GETTING ABOVE MARKET RENT FOR THE DAY CARE NOR CHARGING A HIGHER RENT BASED ON THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN ENROLLED. THE RENTAL INCOME I AM RECEIVING FROM THE DAY AIR ONLY COVERS A PORTION OF MY MORTGAGE, TAXES AND INSURANCE. IN FACT, I AM LOSING MONEY EVERY MONTH UNTIL I CAN GET THE GARAGE APARTMENT LEASED. A THAT I WILL ONLY BE MAKING ABOUT $200 IN PROFIT. AND THIS WILL GO TOWARDS MAINTENANCE OF THE TWO PROPERTIES. BEFORE THE DAY CARE MOVED IN I HAD COMPETENT TENANTS WHO PAID BELOW MARKET RENT. I COULD HAVE HAD THEM SIGN ANOTHER YEAR LEASE, BUT I WANTED TO KEEP THE HOUSE AVAILABLE AT A MOMENT'S NOTICE FOR THE DAY CARE. IF THEY DECIDED THIS WAS THE LOCATION THAT WOULD WORK FOR THEM WHEN THEY DID FINALLY HAVE THE FUNDING. I FORFEITED AN EXTRA 300 DOLLARS A MONTH FOR OVER A YEAR SO THAT SAMMY'S HOUSE COULD HAVE THE OPTION TO LEASE MY HOUSE. IT LOOKED AT OTHER PROPERTIES, BUT THEY ARE NOT COMPATIBLE BECAUSE OF HIGH RENT, LOCATION OR OTHER FACTORS. AFTER THE TENANTS MOVED OUT AND THE HOUSE WAS AVAILABLE, I DIDN'T COLLECT RENT FROM THEM FOR TWO MONTHS. ALSO AS PART OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, I AM GOING TO BE PAYING TO PUT SIDEWALKS IN AT THE HOUSE. AND THIS IS NOT A MONEY MAKING DEAL FOR ME IN ANY WAY. AND SO FAR IT HAS BEEN A MONETARY LOSS. BUT THAT'S NOT THE POINT. IT'S MY HEART AND MY HEART IS COMPLETELY IN THIS AND I'M LUCKY TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO MAKE MY CONTRIBUTION TO THE DAY CARE'S GOAL AND MISSION TO HELP CHILDREN IN NEED LIKE MY DAWR DAUGHTER. ALSO I WANT TO MAKE THIS CLEAR WHEN WHEN A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MEANS. THIS IS IN NO WAY A ZONING CHANGE. IT IS A PERMIT ALLOWING ME TO USE THE PROPERTY FOR A DAY CARE WITH CONDITIONS. IT IS NOT A ZONING CHANGE. THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT EXPIRES 90 DAYS AFTER THE DAY CARE TERMINATES ITS LEASE WITH ME. IT DOES NOT STAY WITH THE LAND. IN THE 90-DAY PERMIT I CAN ONLY LEASE THE HOUSE TO ANOTHER DAY CARE WITH NO MORE THAN 12 CHILDREN AGES ZERO TO THREE IF I WANTED TO KEEP THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN PLACE. I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO INTENTION OF DOING SO AND I FULLY INTEND TO RETURN THE PROPERTY TO A LEASING RESIDENCE. IF YOU NEED DECIDE TO UP HOLD THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL SIX-THREE OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU TO INCLUDE TWO MORE CONDITIONS TO THE PERMIT. FIRST I WOULD LIKE IT PUT IN WRITING ON THE PERMIT THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WILL EXPIRE 90 DAYS AFTER SAMMY'S HOUSE VAIKTS THE PROPERTY. I KNOW THIS IS AN UNDERSTOOD REGULATION WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, BUT IN OUR RESEARCH WE FOUND THAT ON FEBRUARY 6TH, 2001, THE GROWING TREE DAY CARE, CASE NUMBER FTC002018A HAD WORDING TO THAT EFFECT AS A CONDITION OF THEIR APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. ALSO I WOULD LIKE IT ADDED AS A CONDITION TO THE PERMIT THAT AS THE PROPERTY OWNER I WILL SEND A CERTIFIED LETTER TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN A 300 FOOT RADIUS FROM THE HOUSE, THE CITY COUNCIL, CITY STAFF AND WHOEVER ELSE YOU MIGHT DEEM NECESSARY, NOTIFYING THEM THAT ON SUCH AND SUCH DATE SAMMY'S HOUSE WILL BE VACANTING THE PROPERTY AND 90 DAYS FROM THAT DATE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WILL BE EXPIRED. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY OF YOUR QUESTIONS. MOMENTOMENT, PLEASE, WHILE CAPTIONERS CHANGE]NO CARRIERRINGCONNECT 1200?

... DURING THE WEEK. THIS LEVEL OF SPECIALIZED CARE IS SIMPLY NOT AVAILABLE AT COMMERCIAL DAYCARE CENTERS. I WONDER HOW THE SAMMY'S HOUSE OPPONENTS WOULD REACT IF SUDDENLY THEIR CHILD REQUIRED THIS KIND OF CARE. IMAGE WHEN I LEARNED MARGARET WAS REQUIRED TO HAVE MAJOR BACK SURGERY AND COULD NOT CARE FOR MY CHILDREN. I FELT TRAPPED. MY ONLY OPTIONS SEEMED UNTHINKABLE, QUIT TEACHING AND LOSE INSURANCE OR SEND RUTH TO STAY WITH MY PARENTS UNTIL SUMMER. ISABEL THEN CALLED ME. WE WANTED HER TO BEGIN ATTENDING PART TIME OVER A YEAR AGO, BUT THE DISTANCE FROM OUR HOME IN PFLUGERVILLE RULED THAT OUT. AFTER ALL THIS TIME, ISABEL STILL REMEMBERED RUTHIE AND CALLED ME WITH THE INCREDIBLE NEWS SHE WAS OPENING ANOTHER SAMMY'S HOUSE, ONE CLOSE ENOUGH FOR ME TO BRING RUTH THESE IN THE MORNINGS AND STILL MAKE IT TO WORK ON TIME. THE FIRST DAY SAMMY'S HOUSE WAS OPEN WAS ALSO THE VERY DAY OF MARGARET'S SURGERY, AN AMAZING COINCIDENCE. THE HOUSE ITSELF IS AN AMAZING PLACE. ONLY A MONTH AND A HALF IT'S BEAUTIFULLY PAINTED WALLS HAVE SEEN MANY FIRSTS. ONE CHILD BEGAN TAKING FOOD BY MOUTH FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THREE YEARS AFTER MEALS AND SNACKS GATHERED AROUND THE TABLE IN THE SUNNY KITCHEN OF SAMMY'S HOUSE WITH HER NEW FRIENDS. MY OWN RUTH, SHE OF THE LOW MUSCLE TONE IN HER UPPER BODY AMAZED ME BY SWINGING FROM THE PORCH RAILING ONE AFTERNOON AS WE LEFT. SWINGING THERE AND SMILING SHE LOOKED JUST LIKE ANY OTHER PRESCHOOLER. I ASKED ISABEL HOW DID YOU GET HER TO DO THAT. THROUGH HER OWN TEARS, SHE REPLIED WE JUST GOT THIS HOUSE FOR HER, THAT'S WHAT WE DID. THE FAMILIES CURRENTLY USING SAMMY'S HOUSE, TWO OF THE CHILDREN WHO CURRENTLY ATTEND THERE ARE ISABEL'S CHILDREN, SO THEY RIDE THERE WITH HER WHEN SHE COMES TO WORK. THAT WOULD CUT OUT SOME OF THE 96 TRIPS, I BELIEVE. ALL DROP OFF AND PICK UP AT STAGGERED TIMES. RUTH HAS OVER AN HOUR ALONE WITH HER TEACHER MOST MORNINGS, THIS FOCUSED ATTENTION HAS BEEN MARKEDEDLY BENEFICIAL TO HER. AT 1.2 TRUCKS THAT DIDN'T BELONG TO ANYONE ASSOCIATED WITH SAMMY'S HOUSE WERE PARKED BLOCKING THE REAR DRIVEWAY THAT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO USE. SIMPLY PARKED AT THE SECOND DRIVEWAY, BACKING IN AND OUT WITH THE EMPLOYEES. I'M NOT SURE WHO BLOCKED THE DRIVEWAY OR WHAT THE MOTIVATION WAS. ANOTHER MORNING I ARRIVED TO FIND THAT SOMEONE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS WORKING ON A VEHICLE AND HAVE FOUNTAIN MOUNTAINED IT ON ON BLOCKS. DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF THE GATE OF THE BACK YARD. SAMMY'S HOUSE QUICKLY DEALT WITH THIS OBSTACLE. THEY COULDN'T STOP PEOPLE FROM BLOCKING THE GATE JUST AS I COULDN'T STOP MARGARET FROM NEEDING SURGERY. THEY SIMPLY BUILT ANOTHER GATE. ANOTHER WAY FOR RUTH TO HAVE ACCESS TO THE SPECIALIZED CARE SHE NEEDS. THAT'S WHAT SAMMY'S HOUSE HAS DONE, THEY HAVE MADE ANOTHER GATEWAY FOR MY FAMILY. AND I HOPE THAT SOME DAY WE HAVE REACHED THE POINT WHERE SAMMY'S HOUSE CAN BE AN ACCEPTED PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE WOULD LIKE TO BE PART OF THE CELEBRATIONS, WE WOULD LIKE TO LET THE NEIGHBORS HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET TO KNOW OUR WONDERFUL CHILDREN AND WE WOULD LIKE TO GET TO KNOW THEM AS WELL. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU.

HELLO, MY NAME IS CRYSTAL MILLS, I HAVE TWO DAUGHTERS, JADE AND EMMA. IF THIS PASSES, THEY WILL BE TAKING THE 11TH AND 12TH SPOT AT SAMMY'S HOUSE. JADE WAS INJURED AT BIRTH AND SUFFERS FROM BRACKENRIDGEAL PLESUS PALSY. I WAS FORCED TO FIND A JOB FOR HELP PAY FOR ALL OF HER MEDICAL BILLS. WE ARE A TWO INCOME FAMILY. WITHOUT ME WORKING MEDICAL BILLS WOULD NOT GET PAID. I HAVE OCCASIONALLY BEEN ABLE TO WORK OUT CHILD CARE WITH FAMILY AND FRIENDS, BUT NOTHING — NOTHING EVER PERMANENT. WE HAVE LOOKING FOR DAYCARE CENTERS FOR ABOUT A YEAR AND JADE HAS ALWAYS BEEN TURNED DOWN BECAUSE THEY DO NOT WANT THE ADDED RESPONSIBILITY OF A DISABLED CHILD. THIS IS OUR ONLY HOPE. THEN JADE'S SERVICE COORDINATOR TOLD ME ABOUT SAMMY'S HOUSE. WE WERE OVERJOYED TO HEAR THAT THERE WOULD SOON BE TWO OPENINGS DUE TO A NEW LOCATION. WHEN WE WENT TO VISIT THEM, WE COULDN'T FIND IT. BECAUSE WE WERE LOOKING FOR A TYPICAL DAYCARE CENTER. WHAT WE FOUND WAS A LITTLE HOUSE WITH A LITTLE YARD, SOMETHING WE HAVE BEEN WANTING FOR OUR CHILDREN. GOING INSIDE WE FOUND THE STAFF TO BE EXCELLENT AND THE ATMOSPHERE IDEAL FOR LEARNING AND FUN. WE KNEW RIGHT AWAY THAT IT WAS A PERFECT PLACE FOR OUR CHILDREN. SAMMY'S HOUSE IS ONE OF A KIND. WHERE OTHER DAYCARES WERE INTIMIDATED BY JADE'S DISABILITIES, SAMMY'S HOUSE ACCEPTED BOTH GIRLS, THE OTHER ONE TYPICAL, WITH OPEN ARMS. THIS IS WHERE JADE AND EMMA BELONG. EXCUSE ME. SORRY. THIS APPEAL IS WHAT THREATENS THEIR ENROLLMENT. IF SAMMY'S HOUSE IS FORCED OUT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I WOULD HAVE TO QUIT MY JOB AND STAY HOME AND MEDICAL BILLS WILL NOT GET PAID. AND EVEN WORSE, HYDE PARK WILL BE MISSING OUT ON THE BEST NEIGHBORHOOD — NEIGHBORS ANYONE COULD ASK FOR. IT IS EASY JUST TO TELL SAMMY'S HOUSE TO GO AWAY, BUT I CHALLENGE YOU TO TELL THESE 12 KIDS. I ALSO HAVE A FRIEND AMBER ANDREWS, SHE COULD NOT SPEAK TONIGHT BECAUSE IT GOT TOO LATE. SHE HAS A SEVERELY DISABLED CHILD. DUE TO NO CHILD CARE AVAILABLE, SHE WOULD HAVE TO QUIT HER DREAM OF NURSING SCHOOL. SHE WAS IN NURSING SCHOOL AT TWO YEARS HAD A DISABLED CHILD THERE WAS NOTHING AVAILABLE TO HER. SO SHE HAD TO QUIT HER DREAM. IF SAMMY'S HOUSE OPENS UP, SHE MAY HAVE A CHANCE. WITHOUT IT SHE HAS NO CHANCE. I HAVE BEEN LOOKING FOR A YEAR. THERE'S NOTHING OUT THERE FOR MY DAUGHTER. THIS IS THE ONLY PLACE. PLEASE — THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO ME. THANK YOU.

MAYOR.........> I WANT TO START OFF BY SAYING I'M ALMOST A HYDE PARK RESIDENT, I LIVE TWO BLOCK AWAY FROM SAMMY'S HOUSE. I FEEL VERY STRONGLY THAT SAMMY'S HOUSE IS A PERFECT PLACE FOR THESE SPECIAL CHILDREN. WHEN I FOUND OUT A VERY SMALL SELECT MINORITY OF NEIGHBORS WANTED SAMMY'S HOUSE TO CLOSE OR EVEN HAVE IT MOVED, I WAS COMPLETELY APPALLED, DISHARTENED AND EVEN EMBARRASSED THAT THESE WERE SOME OF MY NEIGHBORS. I REFUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE IN HYDE PARK COULD BE OPPOSED TO SOMETHING SO WONDERFUL. IN LESS THAN AN HOUR OR SO I GENERATED A LIST OF OVER 50 PEOPLE WHO COMPLETELY SUPPORTED SAMMY'S HOUSE WHOLEHEARTEDLY. THE FACT OF THE MATTER THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE IN HYDE PARK DO SUPPORT SAMMY'S HOUSE 100%. THESE CHILDREN DESERVE AND HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO BE A PART OF OUR COMMUNITY AND MORE IMPORTANTLY OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. I VISITED SAMMY'S HOUSE AND SEEN WHAT AN INCREDIBLE PLACE THAT IT IS FOR YOUNG CHILDREN TO LEARN, GROW, EXPLORE, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY FEEL LIKE THEY BELONG TO SOMETHING SPECIAL. NO CHILD DESERVES TO BE STUCK IN SOME CONCRETE BUILDING IN A STRIP SHOPPING MALL WITH A PARKING LOT FOR A PLAYGROUND AND THE ONLY MUSIC THEY HEAR IS THE NAUSEOUS SOUND OF — NOXIOUS SOUND OF TRAFFIC AND CAR HORNS. THEY DESERVE TO BE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD WITH GREEN GRASS, CRUNCHY LEAVES UNDER THE FALL. HYDE PARK AND THE CITY OF AUSTIN HAS ALWAYS WELCOMED DIVERSITY, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT SAMMY'S HOUSE PRESENTS. THE CITY COUNCIL HAS BEFORE IT TODAY THE PERFECT OPPORTUNITY TO SET A PRECEDENT THAT WE WELCOME AND EMBRACE ALL OF THESE CHILDREN IN OUR COMMUNITY AND ALSO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK YOU.

MY NAME IS DR. KAREN HASLAND, A PEDIATRICIAN HERE IN AUSTIN, ALSO A HYDE PARK NEIGHBOR AND HAVE BEEN FOR 11 YEARS. I HAVE RENTED AND OWNED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I DID NOT SIGN THE PETITION AND OPPOSE IT VIOLENTLY. SAMMY'S HOUSE IS AN EXTREMELY SMALL AND INCON SUSPICIOUSOUS HOUSE. — INCONSPICOUS HOUSE, IT IS ONE MET TICK......... METICULOUSLY MAIN TAINTED HOUSES IN A SEA OF RENTAL HOUSES. HAS NO SIGNAGE IN FRONT. IT IS AS MUCH OF A HOME AND INOBTRUSIVE AS IT IS POSSIBLE TO BE. PEOPLE HAVE TALKED ALSO FROM A MEDICAL POINT ABOUT THE NEED FOR SAMMY'S HOUSE. I TAKE CARE — I AM ONE OF THE PEDIATRICIANS AT ROSEWOOD ZARAGOSA WHEN TAKES CARE OF MOSTLY INDIGENT PATIENTS. APPROXIMATELY A THIRD OF MY PATIENTS ARE SEVERELY HANDICAPPED AND THEIR PARENTS LIVE IN POVERTY. TO ALLOW SOMETHING LIKE SAMMY'S HOUSE TO PERSIST, WOULD ALLOW ADDITIONAL FAMILIES TO PULL THEMSELVES OUT OF POVERTY AND BENEFIT AUSTIN. AS NEIGHBOR, THIS IS A BEAUTIFUL PLACE. THE — IT IS NOT — IT IS NOT A DAYCARE FACILITY. IT IS A SMALL HOME. FOR MEDICAL REASONS, THERE COULD NEVER BE MORE THAN 10 OR 12 CHILDREN HERE. BECAUSE OF THEIR MEDICAL NEEDS. THE CONCEPT OF 97 TRIPS PER DAY FOR ME IS CONDOMINIUM STEVEABLE. BECAUSE I CARE FOR CHILDREN LIKE THIS, I KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE COME AND GO. INCONCEIVABLE. I CANNOT IMAGINE THAT THIS MANY PEOPLE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO CARE FOR 12 CHILDREN. EVEN INCLUDING ANY KIND OF SCHOOL BUSES BECAUSE OF THE CONCERNS OF THE NEIGHBORS, ABOUT THE SCHOOL BUSES, MRS. ODEM PREPARED EXTRA AREAS FOR THEM AND HAS INSISTED UPON ANY LOADING AND UNLOADING TO BE IN — IN OFFSITE PARKING SO THAT THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY IMPACT. THE FAMILY AND SAMMY'S HOUSE HAVE BENT OVER BACKWARDS TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS. IT'S — AGAIN, IT'S AN INOBJECT...... OBSTUSIVE PLACE IN A MOSTLY RENTAL NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBERS, MY NAME IS JOHN, I AM PROUD TO BE A BOARD MEMBER OF SAMMY'S HOUSE. I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THREE SUBJECTS WITH YOU THIS EVENING. THE IMPACT OF SAMMY'S HOUSE ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE FABRIC OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND FINALLY THE ACCOMMODATIONS WE HAVE ALREADY MADE WITH THE NEIGHBORS. FIRST, WHAT IMPACT WOULD A NON-PROFIT DAYCARE CENTER FOR SPECIAL NEEDS CHILDREN HAVE ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD? THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARD THAT WE WOULD BE A PRECEDENT THAT WOULD LEAD TO COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES ENTERING THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. HOW CAN WE BE A PRECEDENT WHEN THERE ARE ALREADY FOUR COMMERCIALLY ZONED LOTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, INCLUDING A PLUMBING OPERATION WITHIN TWO AND A HALF BLOCKS ON 47TH STREET? HOW CAN WE BE A PRECEDENT IF THERE ARE ALREADY SIX DAYCARE OPERATIONS IN THE 78751 ZIP CODE AREA. THE PLANNING COMMISSION ALSO HEARD THAT OUR NON-PROFIT DAYCARE CENTER WOULD ADVERSELY IMPACT PROPERTY VALUES. ONE OF THE SIX DAYCARE CENTERS IS LOCATED AT 4108 AVENUE H AND HAS 49 CHILDREN AGES 2 TO 6. WHAT EFFECT DID THIS CENTER HAVE ON ADJACENT PROPERTY VALUES? WE LOOKED AT 8 PROPERTIES THAT SOLD FROM 1997 TO THE YEAR 2001. THE AVERAGE DAYS ON THE MARKET WAS 28 WITH A RANGE OF 1 TO 119. THE AVERAGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE LIST PRICE AND THE SALE PRICE WAS 3%. THE AVERAGE PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT SHOWS A GENERAL TREND UPWARD. AFTER LOOKING AT THE DATA, I CAN ONLY SUGGEST THAT PEOPLE GENERALLY SOLD THEIR PROPERTIES WITHIN A MONTH AT 3% LESS THAN THE LIST PRICE. CAN I CONCLUDE THERE IS NO IMPACT? NO, I CANNOT. NOR CAN ANYONE ELSE PROVE THAT IN A BUSINESS AS COMPLEX AS REAL ESTATE THAT A DAYCARE CENTER WOULD BE THE MOST INFLUENTIAL FACTOR IN A BUYING DECISION. OTHER FACTORS SUCH AS CLOSING A NEARBY AIRPORT OR AN ECONOMIC DOWNTURN COULD HAVE MORE OF A POTENTIAL IMPACT ON PROPERTY VALUES. LET US NOW LOOK AT THE FABRIC OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. ONE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS DESCRIBED THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS VERY ECLECTIC. IT IS AS DIVERSE AS THE PATCHES ON A PATCHWORK QUILT. IT INCLUDES SINGLE FAMILY, TWO STORY HOUSES, SINGLE STORY HOUSES, APARTMENT GARAGES, CONDOS, COMMERCIAL BUSINESS, ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, OTHER DAYCARE CENTERS, CHURCHES, RENTAL DUPLEXES AND QUAD PLEXS. WE ESTIMATE THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS A POPULATION APPROXIMATELY 50% RENTERS. WITHIN A FOUR BLOCK LENGTH ON RED RIVER, WE COUNTED 43 PROPERTIES WITH 30 RENTALS, WHICH REPRESENTS ALMOST 70 PERCENT, WE THINK THAT SAMMY'S HOUSE IS A PERFECT ADDITION TO THE FABRIC OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. FINALLY, LET ME ADDRESS THE ACCOMMODATIONS THAT SAMMY'S HOUSE HAS ALREADY MADE TO THE NEIGHBORS IN ADDITION TO THE CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. AFTER THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL ON FEBRUARY 13TH, WE ASKED ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS WHAT ELSE COULD WE DO TO HELP ALLEVIATE THEIR CONCERNS? THAT LED TO THE SELECTION OF A BOARD MEMBER TO JOIN THE HYDE PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AS A LIAISON AT THE REQUEST OF THE PROPERTY OWNER. SINCE WE ARE PROUD OF SAMMY'S HOUSE AND THE UNIQUE SERVICE THAT OFFERS TO AUSTIN, WE WILL MAINTAIN THE PROPERTY BETTER THAN A SERIES OF RENTERS WOULD. WE WILL MAKE NO STRUCTURAL CHANGES. WE WILL NOT PUT UP ANY COMMERCIAL SIGNS. WE HAVE INSTALLED A SIX FOOT PRIVACY SCREEN AT OUR NEIGHBOR'S REQUEST. WE WILL NOT HAVE ANY INTENSIVE OUTDOOR AREAS. WE HAVE LIMITED THE WEEKEND ACTIVITIES AT SAMMY'S HOUSE. WE NO LONGER PLAN BOARD MEMBERS AND ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETINGS AT THIS SITE. AND IN CONCLUSION, LET ME REPEAT, HOW PROUD I AM TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH SAMMY'S HOUSE. THAT PRIDE IS SHARED BY ALL OF OUR SUPPORTER AND WILL BE REFLECTED IN HOW WE CONDUCT OURSELVES AS GOOD NEIGHBORS. I ASK THAT YOU SHARE THAT PRIDE WITH US TONIGHT BY UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, SIR. GOOD EVENING MR. MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, MY NAME IS SCOTT ODEM. SOME MEMBERS OF THE HYDE PARK COMMUNITY HAS EXPRESSED CONCERNS ABOUT THE EFFECT THAT SAMMY'S HOUSE WILL HAVE AT LEAST 49TH AND RED RIVER. SAMMY'S HOUSE IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THIS INTERSECTION. IN ORDER TO ADDRESS THE PARKING ISSUE AND RECEIVE A PERMIT FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION, SAMMY'S HOUSE AGREED TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: THE FIRST POINT WAS STAFF MEMBERS, CLIENTS OR PROVIDERS WILL NOT PARK ON RED RIVER OR EAST 49TH STREETS. THIS IS STRESSED IN THE PARND HAND OUTBOOKS. PARENTS AND SERVICE PROVIDERS ARE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THIS. ARRIVALS ARE STAGGER AND PLANNED. THE SECOND POINT IS TO RESERVE THE RED RIVER DRIVEWAY, WHICH COULD HOLD FOUR VEHICLES FOR STAFF MEMBERS. THE THIRD POINT IS TO USE A NEWLY CONSTRUCTED DRIVEWAY ON EAST 49TH STREET, WHICH CAN HOLD THREE CARS FOR RELATED CHILD PICKUP AND DROPOFF AND SCHEDULED SERVICES SUCH AS NURSES OR THERAPISTS. IF MORE SPACE IS NEEDED DURING THE DAY, THE RED RIVER DRIVEWAY CAN ACCOMMODATE MORE VEHICLES SINCE TWO VEHICLES WOULD USUAL BE BE PARKED THERE. THERE IS SPACE TO LEGALLY PARK TWO CARS ON RED RIVER STREET IN FRONT OF SAMMY'S HOUSE, ON EAST 49TH STREET, THERE IS GENEROUS SPACE TO LEGALLY PARK FOUR VEHICLES AND STILL BE CLEAR OF THE FIRE HYDRANT AND THE BUS STOP. THIS IS LEGAL UNDER TITLE 116 OF THE AUSTIN CITY CODE AND IRONICALLY DOES NOT PREVENT SAMMY'S HOUSE'S NEIGHBORS FROM LEGALLY PARKING IN FRONT OF SAMMY'S HOUSE. WE FEEL THAT SAMMY'S HOUSE HAS MET THE BURDEN PLACED ON IT BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. WE ASK THAT YOU UPHOLD THE RULING. THE ISSUES RAISED BY SOME HYDE PARK RESIDENTS WERE EASILY ADDRESSED. THIS LEADS ONE TO WONDER IF THE OBJECTIONS TO SAMMY'S HOUSE RAISED BY SOME HYDE PARK RESIDENT WERE REAL OR JUST AN EXCUSE TO KEEP CHILDREN, DISABLED CHILDREN OUT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. MY WIFE HAVE BEEN BENEFITED GREATLY FROM SAMMY'S HOUSE. OUR DAUGHTER LIPPED SEE HAS CEREBRAL PALSY AND WAS THE FIRST DISABLED CHILD TAKEN IN. MY WIFE WORKS FOR THE STATE, I WORK FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN. BECAUSE OF SAMMY'S HOUSE, NEITHER ONE OF US HAD TO CONTEMPLATE QUITTING OUR JOBS IN ORDER TO TAKE CARE OF LINDSAY. SHE NO LONGER ATTENDS SAMMY'S HOUSE BUT WE REMAIN INVOLVED. I CURRENTLY SIT ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AS A SECRETARY. WE BELIEVE SAMMY'S HOUSE WILL BENEFIT THE COMMUNITY FOR YEARS TO COME. AND I WILL ADD THIS PERSONAL NOTE, I HAVE — I HAVE KNOWN THE JUERTAS NOW SINCE 1999, THEY ARE SOME — SOME OF THE PEOPLE THAT I KNOW HAVE THE HIGHEST PERSONAL LEVEL OF INTEGRITY, THEY WILL UPHOLD THE STANDARDS OF ANY PERMIT GRANTED TO THEM BY THE CITY OF AUSTIN. I — I JUST — I MEAN, THERE'S NO QUESTION IN MY MIND THAT THAT WILL HAPPEN. THANK YOU.

GOOD EVENING, COUNCILMEMBERS. MR. MAYOR. MY NAME IS ROASHT GRIFFACE ON THE BOARD OF SAMMY'S HOUSE, I ALSO HAVE A CHILD WHO ATTENDS SAMMY'S HOUSE AND HAS BEEN THERE FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS. I'M ALSO A HYDE PARK RESIDENT, I LIVE AT 50006 AVENUE H, THREE BLOCKS FROM THE DAYCARE. NUMBER CAME BY MY HOUSE TO SURVEY US REGARDING WHETHER WE SUPPORTED OR OPPOSED THE DAYCARE. I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE NEIGHBORS CONCERN OVER POSSIBLE TRAFFIC CONGESTION AT OR NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF RED RIVER AND 49TH STREET. ACCORDING TO GREG MONTE, WHO PERFORMED THE TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS AS PART OF THE SITE PLAN REVIEW, CITY STAFF USED AN AVERAGE NUMBER OF 4.5 VEHICLE TRIPS PER DAY PER STUDENT TO ARRIVE AT AN ESTIMATED 54 VEHICLE TRIPS DAILY GENERATED BY A 12 CHILD DAYCARE. NOT 96 TRIPS. 54 WAS THE NUMBER THEY USED. NO FORMAL TRAFFIC ANALYSIS WAS PERFORMED BY THE CITY BECAUSE SAMMY'S HOUSE DOES NOT GENERATE ENOUGH TRAFFIC TO MEET THE CITY'S MINIMUM THRESHOLD OF 300 VEHICLE TRIPS PER DAY TO WARRANT A NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC ANALYSIS. THE TRAFFIC COUNTS FOR RED RIVER AVERAGE 3,150 VEHICLE TRIPS PER DAY FOR THE SECTION OF RED RIVER NORTH OF 45TH AND SOUTH OF 51ST STREET. THIS NUMBER COMES FROM THE CAPITAL AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION'S TRAFFIC STUDY THAT'S CONDUCTED EVERY FIVE YEARS. THE DATA ARE 1997 NUMBERS BECAUSE THE 2002 STUDY HAS YET TO BE CONDUCTED. I THINK THEY ARE OUT THERE PERFORMING THAT RIGHT NOW. BASED ON THESE FIGURES, SAMMY'S HOUSE WILL POTENTIALLY ADD 1.7% TO THE OVERALL TRAFFIC FLOW ON RED RIVER. AND IF YOU TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE FACT THAT POSSIBLY 12 ADULTS COULD LIVE IN AN S.F. 3 ZONED PROPERTY, THAT DIFFERENCE IS REALLY REDUCED DOWN TO ABOUT 1%. OVER THE CURRENT TRAFFIC FLOW ON RED RIVER. WE BELIEVE THAT THIS IS AN INSIGNIFICANT AMOUNT AND WILL HAVE A MINIMAL IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT IS ALSO WORTH NOTING THAT ACCORDING TO THE CAMPO STUDY, TRAFFIC ON THIS SECTION OF RED RIVER HAS ACTUALLY BEEN DECREASING OVER THE YEARS. IN THE 1997 COUNT WAS THE LOWEST OF ALL OF THE STUDIES CONDUCTED SINCE 1968. THERE'S NOT MANY STREETS IN AUSTIN THAT YOU CAN SAY THAT ABOUT. IT'S ALSO WORTH NOTING THAT MOST OF SAMMY'S HOUSE STAFF AND PARENT ACCESS THE DAYCARE COMING SOUTH ON RED RIVER FROM AIRPORT AND 51ST STREET. THIS ROUTE ONLY PASSES FOUR HOMES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. REGARDING CONGESTION AT THE INTERSECTION OF RED RIVER AND 49TH STREET, SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS HAVE EXPRESSED A CONCERN THAT THERE MIGHT BE POTENTIAL TRAFFIC CONGESTION AT THE INTERSECTION OF RED RIVER AND 49TH. SINCE IT SERVES AS A BUS STOP FOR METRO BUS ROUTE, INCLUDING OUR OWN OBSERVATIONS, INCLUDING MY LIVING AT THE HOUSE FOR 10 MONTHS, BUSES DO NOT HAVE TROUBLE NAVIGATING THE INTERSECTION. ALSO TRAFFIC RARELY BACKS UP MORE THAN TWO VEHICLES EVEN DURING MORNING AND AFTERNOON RUSH HOURS. SEVERAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ALSO NOTED THAT THEY WENT OVER TO THE HOUSE, SAT THERE AND WATCHED TRAFFIC GO BY, THEY DIDN'T OBSERVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THE BUSES COMING OR GOING AROUND THE INTERSECTION. IT'S ALSO WORTH NOTING THAT SAMMY'S HOUSE MADE A REQUEST TO THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TO POST NO PARKING SIGNS 49 STREET STREET DUE TO THE PREBS OF THE BUS STOP, THERE'S ALSO A FIRE HYDRANT THERE. AFTER REVIEWING THE TRAFFIC AND PARKING SITUATION AT THE CORNER, WE WERE TOLD BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT THEY DID NOT SEE A REASON TO POST SIGNS AT THIS TIME SINCE THEY DIDN'T SEE ANY TRAFFIC OR PARKING PROBLEMS. WE ASKED THEM TO MONITOR THE INTERSECTION TO DETERMINE IF SIGNS MIGHT BE NEEDED IN THE FUTURE. SINCE THE PARENT DROPOFF AND PICKUP DRIVEWAY IS LOCATED MORE THAN 100 FEET FROM THE INTERSECTION, WE DON'T FEEL THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE DAYCARE WILL IMPACT THE TRAFFIC SITUATION AT THE CORNER OF RED RIVER AND 49TH. ALSO DROPOFF AND PICK UP TIMES ARE GENERALLY SPREAD OUT OVER A TWO HOUR PERIOD IN THE MORNINGS AND AFTERNOONS, MEANING THAT THE PARENTS ARE TYPICALLY NOT AT THE HOUSE AT THE SAME TIME. IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT JUST THE OTHER DAY, ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS CAME OVER TO OUR HOUSE, WAS TALKING TO ISABEL, AND ASKED TO SEE THE ROSTER OF THE DAYCARE BECAUSE SHE DIDN'T BELIEVE THAT WE HAD SIX CHILDREN ENROLLED BECAUSE SHE HADN'T SEEN ENOUGH TRAFFIC GENERATED TO CONVINCE HER THAT WE REALLY HAD SIX KIDS THERE IN THE DAYCARE. WE AGREE THAT WITH THE NEIGHBORS THAT THERE IS A TRAFFIC PROBLEM ON RED RIVER. BUT THIS PROBLEM HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OPERATION OF SAMMY'S HOUSE. IT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH PEOPLE WHO USE RED RIVER AS A THOROUGHFARE FROM 45TH STREET TO 51ST STREET AND TRAVEL AS EXECUTIVIVE SPEED. WE WOULD LIKE TO WORK TO HAVE TRAFFIC CALMING DEVICES BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THIS IS A SAFETY HAZARD FOR THE CHILDREN AS WELL. THERE'S ONE OTHER POINT THAT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE REGARDING THE FABRIC OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S OFF THE TRAFFIC ISSUE FOR JUST A MOMENT. BUT I DID A DRIVE AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD THE OTHER DAY. IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT WITHIN A SICK BLOCK RADIUS OF SAMMY'S HOUSE, NOT INCLUDING THE COMMERCIAL ZONE ALONG AIRPORT BOULEVARD, THERE ARE 52 OPERATING BUSINESSES WITHIN A SIX BLOCK RADIUS OF SAMMY'S HOUSE. THESE — 90% OF THESE BUSINESSES ARE ADJACENT TO S.F. 3 ZONED PROPERTY. SO WE ARE NOT SETTING IS IN KIND OF PRECEDENT HERE. WE ARE NOT OVERLY COMMERCIALIZING THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THERE'S A LOT OF BUSINESS GOING. IT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT MOO MAKES THE HYDE PARK AREA A SPECIAL AREA, THE ECLECTIC NATURE OF IT ATTRACTS A LOT OF PEOPLE TO THE AREA. IN CONCLUSION, SAMMY'S HOUSE AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS SYLVIA ODEM FEEL THAT THE DAYCARE WILL HAVE A MINIMUM IMPACT ON TRAFFIC FLOW AND URGE COUNCIL TO UPHOLD THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THIS URGENTLY NEEDED COMMUNITY SERVICE, THANK YOU.

GOOD EVENING, MY NAME IS ENGINE IF HER, I AM ON THE — JENNIFER, I HAVE WORKED WITH CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES FOR THE PAST SIX YEARS. I HAVE SEEN FIRSTHAND THE FEAR OF A CHILD CARE PROVIDER WHEN A CHILD WITH MEDICAL NEEDS IS ENROLLED. SAMMY'S HOUSE IS VERY UNIQUE BECAUSE IT DOES NOT HAVE THAT FEAR. THERE IS NO FEAR. IT TRULY IS AN INCLUSIVE SETTING ALREADY PREPARED FOR CHILDREN WITH OR WITHOUT MEDICAL NEEDS. THE FEAR THAT I HAVE SEEN IN PAST CHILD CARE SETTINGS HOWEVER IS SIMILAR TO THE FEAR THAT I HAVE SEEN OF SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS. TONIGHT I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS TWO CONCERNS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. FIRST, WILL SAMMY'S HOUSE ENROLL MORE THAN 12 CHILDREN? AND WILL ANOTHER BUSINESS REPLACE SAMMY'S HOUSE AND COMMERCIALIZE THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE FUTURE? I WILL BEGIN WHY SAMMY'S HOUSE WILL NOT ENROLL MORE THAN 12 CHILDREN FOR SEVERAL REASONS. FIRST, BY THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVED BY THE CITY OF AUSTIN, ONE OF THE CONDITIONS SET BY THE CITY ZONING STAFF ACTUALLY LIMITS ENROLLMENT TO 12. HOW WILL THIS BE MONITORED BY THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF REGULATORY — PROTECTIVE AND REGULATORY SERVICES? THIS IS A STATE MONITORING AGENCY FOR ALL CHILD CARE FACILITIES. THEY HAVE ISSUED A PROVISIONAL LICENSE TO SAMMY'S HOUSE AS A GROUP DAYCARE HOME. NOT A DAYCARE CENTER. THIS IS IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER BECAUSE BY BEING A HOME, NOT A CENTER THERE MAY NEVER BE MORE THAN 12 CHILDREN. THAT'S THE MINIMUM STANDARD. THE D.P.R.S. STAFF MONITORS ALL LICENSED FACILITIES SUCH AS SAMMY'S HOUSE REGULARLY, WHICH IS ABOUT EVERY FIVE TO 12 MONTHS. ENROLLMENT WILL BE MONITORED ALONG WITH OTHER MINIMUM STANDARDS DURING THESE INSPECTION VISITS. SAMMY'S HOUSE, IN ADDITION, SAMMY'S HOUSE HAS NO INTENTION OF BECOMING A LICENSED CENTER WITH MORE THAN 12 CHILDREN. THIS SIMPLY DOES NOT MATCH THE VISION OR PHILOSOPHY OF THE SMALL HOME-LIKE SETTING. ALSO DPRS WOULD REQUIRE ADDITIONAL STANDARDS SUCH AS SINKS. THIS IS TOO COSTLY FOR A NON-PROFIT. FURTHERMORE THE OWNER WOULD NOT ALLOW THIS TYPE OF CHANGE BECAUSE IT WOULD CHANGE THE LOOK OF THE HOUSE. LASTLY ANOTHER BUSINESS WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO MOVE IN BECAUSE AS MS. ODEM WAS STATED THE HOUSE WILL NOT BE RENTED OR SOLD IF IT'S STILL IN PLACE, SHE'S REQUESTED THE CITY TO ADD THIS AS A CONDITION. IN CONCLUSION BOTH THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND LICENSE STATE THAT ONLY 12 CHILDREN WILL BE ENROLLED THUS MONITORED BY DPRS. IN ADDITION HAVING MORE THAN TWOAFL CHILDREN DOES NOT MATCH THE VISION OF SAMMY'S HOUSE NOR IS IT FINANCIALLY VIABLE. LASTLY THE PERMIT WILL NOT BE TRANSFERRED TO OTHER BUSINESS MUCH THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MAYOR GARCIA: SO YOU ALL HAVE A READING, YOU HAVE ABOUT 8.5 MINUTES LEFT.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBERS. MY NAME IS JULIA DONAHUE, I AM THE CHAIRPERSON FOR THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF SAMMY'S HOUSE, LIKE MOST NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS, SAMMY'S HOUSE REALIZES THE VALUE OF INTEGRITY. IT IS INTEGRITY THAT IS CRITICAL FOR FUNDRAISING. IT IS BECAUSE PEOPLE BELIEVE IN OUR MISSION AND IN OUR COMMITMENT TO IT THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED DONATIONSS FROM WELL OVER 300 INDIVIDUAL AND CORPORATIONS. AS WELL AS SEVERAL GRANTS FROM SUCH PROMINENT FOUNDATIONS AT THE RONALD McDONALD HOUSE, THE [INAUDIBLE] FOUNDATION, STERLING TURNER FOUNDATION, WE HAVE RECEIVED SUPPORT FROM MANY COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS, RELIGIOUS AFFILIATIONS, ADVOCACY GROUPS, I HAVE A PETITION HERE FOR 165 NAMES THAT'S JUST BEEN FILLED OUT IN THE LAST FEW DAYS. OUR SUPPORTERS HAVE DONATED BASED ON OUR MISSION. WHICH IS TO PROVIDE A — A SMALL DAYCARE IN A HOME-LIKE SETTING FOR SPECIAL NEEDS CHILDREN. THEY HAVE NOT DONATED TO SUPPORT A DAYCARE IN A STRIP MALL CENTER. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF SAMMY'S HOUSE WILL ACT RESPONSIBLY IN ITS GOVERNING, WE WILL BE DOING EVALUATIONS ON THE CENTER ITSELF AND THE DIRECTOR. IT WILL BE THE DIRECTOR'S JOB, THAT IS MS. JUERTA TO ENSURE THAT THE CONDITIONS ON THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ARE MET AND FOLLOWED. THERE ARE ALSO OPERATING GUIDELINES THAT HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED AND APPROVED BY THE BOARD TO ENSURE THAT THE CURRENT AND THE FUTURE DIRECTORS ARE AWARE OF THESE CONDITIONS AND OUR VISION STATEMENT AND THAT THEY ARE FOLLOWED. THESE EVALUATIONS AND OPERATING GUIDELINES ARE TO ACT AN AN INTERNAL SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES TO MAKE OUR BOARD ACCOUNTABLE, NOT ONLY TO THE COMMUNITY BUT TO ALL OF OUR SUPPORTERS AS WELL. AS MR. LEWIKI MENTIONED WE DO HAVE A BOARD MEMBER ASKING AS A LIAISON TO THE HYDE PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION TO BE AVAILABLE TO SPEAK WITH THEM. WE ARE TRULY COMMITTED TO SEEING OUR CENTER FLOURISH, HAVE TAKEN SEVERAL PROACTIVE STEPS TO HELP EASE OUR NEIGHBORS CONCERNED. OUR PARK BEING PLAN IS WORKABLE, HAS BEEN DOING BEAUTIFULLY. WE DO HAVE A BACKUP PLAN WHEN THE 49TH STREET DRIVEWAY HAS BEEN MADE INACCESSIBLE THAT HAS WORKED OUT. WE HAVE STAGGERED OUR SERVICE PROVIDERS AND HAVE ASKED THEM TO COME DURING OFF PEAK HOURS, SO AS TO NOT INTERFERE WITH THE PARENT DRAPOFF AND PICKUP, AGAIN TO EASE TRAFFIC FLOW. WE DID INITIATE THE PROCESS WITH THE CITY FOR THE NO PARKING SIGNS ON 49TH STREET, WE ARE TOLD THAT THEY WERE NOT NECESSARY. WE HAVE A BEAUTIFUL LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR THE BACK YARD, WE HAVE MANY VOLUNTEERS WHO ARE READY TO CARRY IT OUT AS SOON AS THIS DECISION GETS COMPLETE. WE HAVE ALREADY PUT UP THE 6 FOOT HIGH READ SCREENING ALONG OUR FENCE LINE WITH OUR SOUTH NEIGHBORS AS PER THE CONDITIONAL USE PERM AS THEY REQUESTED A GOOD FAITH RESPONSE EVEN PRIOR TO TONIGHT'S HEARING. WE INITIATED DISCUSSIONS WITH THESE NEIGHBORS REGARDING WHAT TYPE OF SCREENING THEY WOULD LIKE ALONG THE RED RIVER DRIVEWAY, ALTHOUGH THIS IS NOT ONE OF OUR CONDITIONS. BUT IT IS SOMETHING THAT THEY ASKED FOR. WE EVEN REMOVED A PLASTIC LITTLE TYKES PLAY HOUSE FROM THE BACK YARD THAT WAS FOUND TO BE OFFENSIVE, I SUPPOSE VISIBLE FROM THE SECOND FLOOR OF THEIR HOME. WE HAVE NO COMMERCIAL SIGNAGE AND WILL NOT HAVE ANY. THERE HAS BEEN NO STRUCTURAL CHANGES NOR WILL BE THERE ANY STRUCTURAL CHANGES MADE TO THE HOME. OUR BACK DOOR IS OUR MAIN ENTRANCE AND THAT — THAT FURTHER REDUCES THE VISIBILITY OF — OF THE DAYCARE. WE HAVE RELOCATED ALL OF OUR BOARD MEETINGS TO AN ALTERNATE LOCATION, WE WILL TRY TO DO THE SAME WITH ANY INCIDENT TALL RESPITE CARE. REGARDING ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS CONCERNS THAT OUR CHILDREN WILL BE AT A GREATER RISK FOR BEING HIT BY A CAR IF THEY WERE TO RUN OUT ON TO RED RIVER STREET. THIS IS A VALID WORRY IN ANY NEIGHBORHOOD FOR ANY PARENT. HOWEVER, I FEEL THAT OUR CHILDREN ARE PROBABLY SOMEWHAT MORE SAFEGUARDED. THEY ENTER AND EXIT THEIR VEHICLES AT THAT 49TH STREET DRIVEWAY, WHICH AS WAS POINTED OUT HAS A GATE THAT GOES DIRECTLY FROM THE DRIVEWAY INTO THE BACK YARD. THUS LEADING TO THE BACK DOOR, WHICH ELIMINATES ANY NEED FOR PARENTS TO TAKE THE CHILDREN ON TO THE STREET. WHETHER IT BE 49TH STREET OR RED RIVER. THE BACK YARD IS COMPLETELY FENCED IN AS IS CODE FOR DAYCARE CENTERS. AND THAT IS WHERE THE CHILDREN WILL GO GOING FOR OUTSIDE PLAY TIME. NOT THE FRONT YARD. SADLY MOST OF OUR CHILDREN WILL NOT BE RUNNING ANYWHERE, NOT IN THE MIDDLE OF A STREET. FINALLY, THE FINANCIAL HARDSHIP THAT SAMMY'S HOUSE WOULD ENDURE IF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WERE REVOKED OR IF TONIGHT'S DECISION IS POSTPONED WOULD BE ATMOSPHERE STROFK. WE ARE A NON-PROFIT — CATASTROPHIC. WE ARE A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION. WE WOULD BE UNABLE TO REMAIN WITH SIX CHILDREN. ALTHOUGH OUR FUNDRAISING HAS BEEN FAIRLY SUCCESSFUL, WE HAVE HAD TO DIP INTO OUR FUNDS TO TAKE CARE OF THIS TUITION DEFICIT WE HAVE BEEN GOING THROUGH. IT WOULD TAKE AT LEAST ONE YEAR TO REGROUP, RAISE MORE FUNDS AND FIND AN ALTERNATE LOCATION. SEVERAL GRANTS THAT ARE PENDING WOULD BE IN JEOPARDY. THIS COULD POSSIBLY SHUT US DOWN INDEFINITELY. THAT WOULD BE A TREMENDOUS LOSS TO THESE CHILDREN, TO THESE FAMILIES, AND TO THE AUSTIN COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE. I URGE YOU NOT TO LET THAT HAPPEN. THANK YOU.

GOOD EVENING MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBERS, MY NAME IS JULIAN JUERTA, I AM ONE OF THE FOUNDERS OF SAMMY'S HOUSE. I WANTED TO ADDRESS A COUPLE OF ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED BY THE APPEAL YANTS. FIRST OF ALL REGARDING THE STAFF, WHILE IT'S TRUE THAT SAMMY'S HOUSE WILL HAVE FOUR EMPLOYEES, ONLY TWO OF THESE WILL BE ON SITE AT ANY GIVEN TIME. REGARDING THE CARPORT PLAY AREA THAT WAS BROUGHT UP BY ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS, THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT'S PART OF THE SAMMY'S HOUSE PLAN. IT INITIALLY WAS BECAUSE WE THOUGHT THAT WAS REQUIRED BY ONE OF THE DPRS LICENSING REQUIREMENTS. BUT THAT TURNED OUT NOT TO BE THE CASE, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE ADDING TO THE HOUSE, SEVERAL PEOPLE HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO SAMMY'S HOUSE AS A BUSINESS. I JUST WANT TO STRESS THAT SAMMY'S HOUSE IS A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION. THAT EXISTS TO ACCOMPLISH A VERY IMPORTANT MISSION. THAT'S WHAT SAMMY'S HOUSE IS. IT'S VERY EASY AND CONVENIENT FOR OUR OPPONENTS TO SAY THAT SAMMY'S HOUSE IS A GOOD IDEA, BUT JUST NOT IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. WE ALL NOW THAT NIMBE ATTITUDES KEEPS WORTHWHILE PROJECTS FROM HAPPENING. IN CASE THERE'S ANY DOUBT THIS IS A NIMBY RESPONSE, SOME OF THOSE OPPOSED TO SAMMY'S HOUSE TODAY ARE ONCE SUPPORTERS AND CONTRIBUTORS UNTIL THEY FOUND OUT SAMMY'S HOUSE MIGHT LOCATE IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD. BUT IT NOT AS SIMPLE AS DOING THE CENTER SOMEPLACE ELSE. THE REALITY IS THAT SAMMY'S HOUSE CAME ABOUT BECAUSE SEVERAL FACTORS CAME TOGETHER AT JUST THE RIGHT TIME. WE HAD A COMMITTED BOARD OF PROFESSIONALS WHO DEVELOPED A DEBATE SERVICE MODEL FOR CARING FOR SPECIAL BABIES. WE HAD CONTRIBUTORS, BOTH INDIVIDUALS AND FOUNDATIONS WHO RECOGNIZED HOW BADLY A CENTER LIKE THIS WAS NEEDED AND WERE WILLING TO INVEST THEIR MONEY TO MAKE IT HAPPEN. WE HAD DOZENS OF VOLUNTEERS WHO COMPLETED ALL SORTS OF TASKS FREE OF CHARGE SO THAT — SO THAT OUR FUNDS COULD GO DIRECTLY TO MEETING THE NEEDS OF OUR KIDS. WE HAD A BEAUTIFUL, CENTRALLY LOCATED SITE AT A PRICE THAT WE COULD AFFORD AND WITH A LANDLORD WHO WAS WILLING TO DO WHATEVER WAS NECESSARY TO MEET OUR NEEDS. LET ME ASSURE YOU THAT IT IS NOT EASY TO BRING ALL OF THESE THINGS TOGETHER AT JUST THE RIGHT TIME. IF IT WERE, THEN THERE WOULDN'T BE SO MANY FAMILIES OUT THERE HAVING A HARD TIME FINDING DAYCARE FOR THEIR SPECIAL CHILDREN. WE HAVE A WONDERFUL OPPORTUNITY TO BRING A MUCH NEEDED SERVICE TO FAMILIES FROM ALL OVER TOWN. LET'S NOT LET FEAR OF SOMETHING NEW KEEP THAT FROM HAPPENING. THAT'S NOT WHAT AUSTIN IS ABOUT. NOR ARE WE A COMMUNITY THAT PUTS CONCERN FOR PROPERTY VALUES AHEAD OF THE NEEDS OF HUMAN BEINGS. ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE'S NO PROOF TO SUPPORT THOSE FEARS. SAMMY'S HOUSE WILL BE ADDING TO AN ECLECTIC AND DIVERSE NEIGHBORHOOD, PROVIDING A MUCH NEEDED SERVICE IN A NEW AND INNOVATIVE WAY. AND THAT IS WHAT AUSTIN IS ABOUT. LET'S NOT LET OUR WORST INSTINCT RE VEIL HERE. JUST ONE — PREVAIL HERE. ISABEL AND I DON'T LIVE IN HYDE PARK, WE CAN'T AFFORD TO. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE ARE NOT COMMITTED TO ENSURING THAT THE DAYCARE IS A GOOD NEIGHBOR. WE CREATED SAMMY'S HOUSE TO HONOR THE LIFE AND CONTRIBUTIONS OF OUR SON SAMUEL, ENSURING THAT THE CHILD CARE CENTER BEARING HIS NAME REMAINS AN ASSET TO THE COMMUNITY IS OF UTMOST IMPORTANCE TO US. WE WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT MAKING IT POSSIBLE FOR SAMMY'S HOUSE TO GO FORWARD WILL NOT BE A DECISION THAT YOU REGRET. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. [BUZZER SOUNDING].

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, THAT'S THE 45 MINUTE. I WILL NOW CALL ON THE APPELLATES. YOU HAVE 7 MINUTES AND 36 SECONDS FOR REBUTTAL.

THANK YOU, SIR. I WILL RIGHT PHOTO TAKE THE FULL 7:36. AGAIN, NO ONE IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD IS AGAINST SAMMY'S HOUSE, WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE LOCATION. THIS DAYCARE IS CLEARLY DEVOTED TO THE CARE OF VERY YOUNG, VERY MEDICAL MY FRAGILE CHILDREN. TWO EMPLOYEES FOR 12 HIGH NEEDS CHILDREN IS WORRISOME TO ME AS A NURSE. I'M NOT AFRAID OF THESE CHILDREN. I'M NOT AFRAID OF THEM BEING IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. MY EXPERIENCE AS A NURSE HAS BEEN SUCH THAT I CARE FOR PEOPLE WHO DIE IN THEIR HOMES. THEY HAVE VERY FRAGILE NEEDS AS WELL. IT'S NOT A NEW EXPERIENCE FOR ME. I DO WORRY ABOUT READY ACCESS TO CHILDREN FOR HOSPITALS, AMBULANCES, SO FORTH. NO ONE SUGGESTED THAT THE DAYCARE BE LOCATED TO A STRIP MALL. THERE ARE HOMES, CHURCHES, SCHOOLS IN HYDE PARK THAT ARE BETTER SUIT THE AND BETTER SITES TO ACCOMMODATE. IT SADDENS ME TONIGHT TO HEAR THAT 50% OF MY NEIGHBORS WHO RENT THEIR HOMES HAVE BEEN DISPAIR RANKED. PEOPLE WHO CAN'T AFFORD THEIR HOMES HAVE A RIGHT TO LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND HAVE A RIGHT TO HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE QUALITY OF THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. AS PLINGS BENEFIT HAIMSETH SAID WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE CITY'S ABILITY TO ENFORCE A CONDITIONAL USE PERM AND CONDITIONS THAT MAY BE IMPOSED ON THAT PERM. THE CITY CODE STATES THAT SUBSEQUENT MINOR REVISIONS TO APPROVE SITE PLANS CAN BE APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE WATERSHED PROTECTION AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DEPARTMENT, WITHOUT A PUBLIC HEARING. A MINOR REVIG IS ONE THAT THE APPLICANT SAYS WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT AFFECT ON THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, SUCH AS MINE OR THE PUBLIC. I DO NOT HAVE CONFIDENCE THAT CITY STAFF CAN EVALUATE THE EFFECT ON ME WITHOUT MY INPUT BASED ON MY RECENT EXPERIENCE. THIS RE VISION PROCESS AFFORDS US NO PROTECTIONS FOR SUBSEQUENT CHANGES OR GROWTH THAT MIGHT OCCUR. PARKING DOES REMAIN A CONCERN, THE THREE PARKING PLACES ON — UNDERNEATH THE NEW CARPORT IN THE BACK YARD WILL LIKELY BE SHARED WITH THE PROPOSED RENTERS WHO WILL LIVE IN THE APARTMENT ABOVE THE CARPORT. BUSES DO HAVE TROUBLE NAVIGATING THAT CORNER. IN FACT THE NIGHT AFTER THE PLANNING COMMISSION MET THERE WAS A TERRIBLE WRECK WITH A BUS RIGHT AT THAT CORNER. I CAN BELIEVE THAT THE DRIVEWAY ON 49TH HAS BEEN BLOCKED. I HAVE SEEN IT MYSELF. WHEN CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT PULLS UP TO WORK ON THE APARTMENT, THE DRIVEWAY IS BLOCKED. I BELIEVE THAT MS. ODEM WAS YOUROUS WHEN SHE — ERRONOUS WHEN SHE SAID THAT THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT STAYS WITH THE PROPERTY IF THERE IS NOT A LAPSE OF MORE THAN 90 DAYS, I DEFER TO THE CITY ATTORNEY ON THAT, PERHAPS I HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD. CASE MANAGER TOM BOLT DID TELL US THAT ANY — THAT THAT 90 DAY LAPSE PERIOD IS VERY DIFFICULT TO ENFORCE. WE DO BELIEVE THAT THIS PERMIT CANNOT BE GRANTED BECAUSE OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE CITY CODE IS THAT THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CAN HAVE NO ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I'M AFRAID THAT WE HAVE SEEN THAT HOME OWNER SYLVIA ODEM PUT THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE BY PREMATURELY LEASING HER PROPERTY TO THE DAYCARE CENTER. IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT SHE ALLOWED THIS TO OPEN BEFORE THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WAS APPROVE AND BEFORE IT WAS OBTAINED. I THINK IT WAS PROBABLY PASSION ABOUT ONE'S CAUSE. BUT KNIFE.........NIETE AND PATCHY FOG ARE NOT REASONS TO ALLOW IT TO CONTINUE. THE BURDEN OR POTENTIAL BURDEN OF RELOCATING THE DAYCARE CENTER SHOULD NOT BE THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S BURDEN. AS MS. JUERTA SHARED WITH US, THIS IS A LARGER COMMUNITY ISSUE. WE DO HAVE A MORAL OBLIGATION TO CARE FOR ALL OF OUR CITIZENS, INCLUDING BOTH THE VERY YOUNG AND OUR SENIORS. OUR NEIGHBORHOOD HAS MANY CURRENT RESIDENTS, SENIOR AND RETIRED, WHO DESERVE TO HAVE THEIR NEEDS RESPECTED AS WELL. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE AT THIS LATE HOUR. I APPRECIATE IT.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES AND 40 SECONDS IF ANYBODY ELSE WANTS TO — TO USE THAT FOR REBUTTAL.

THANK YOU, I JUST WANT TO SAY ONE THING. I DO NOT APPRECIATE ANYONE FROM THIS ORGANIZATION CLAIMING THAT BECAUSE THEY HAVE DECIDED TO LOCATE IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD, THAT I WHO WAS ONCE A FINANCIAL SUPPORTER OF THIS ORGANIZATION NOW OPPOSE THEM. THAT IS NOT TRUE. AND IN FACT THE OWNER SYLVIA ODEM AND THE DIRECTOR, MS. JUERTA, KNOW THAT MY INTENTION WAS TO COLLECT DONATIONS FROM OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AT FRIDAY MOVIE NIGHT THAT WE DO IN OUR YARD, LAST SUMMER AND I REPEATEDLY ASKED MRS. ODEM AND MR. GRIFFIS TO BRING INFORMATION ABOUT SAMMY'S HOUSE AS THEY WERE GOING TO BE OUR NEIGHBOR, I WANTED TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR. I THOUGHT IT WAS A BAD LOCATION FOR A DAYCARE, BUT THEY WERE ALLOWED TO BE THERE AND I WANTED TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR TO THEM. THE IMPLICATION THAT NOW THAT I DO NOT WANT TO SUPPORT THEM BECAUSE THEY ARE LOCATED IN MY BACK YARD IS UNTRUE. I ONLY OPPOSE THE PERMIT BEING GRANTED TO ALLOW MORE CHILDREN THERE. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT OTHER BETTER LOCATIONS, WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT STRIP MALLS. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A FEW FEET AWAY. MAYBE RIDGETOP ELEMENTARY. OR THE CHURCH DOWN THE STREET THAT HAS 6,000 SQUARE FEET THEY WANT TO LEASE TO A DAYCARE. THEY WANT A DAYCARE TO BE THERE. IT HAS PLENTY OF PARKING, NO PROBLEMS WITH TRAFFIC. WE ARE NOT ASKING THEM TO GET OUT OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. IT'S ABOUT THE LOCATION AT THIS SITE. THIS HOUSE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: TWO MINUTES.

I JUST ALSO WANT TO REITERATE MY DISPLEASURE IN THE FACT OF BEING ACCUSED OF NOT WANTING THESE CHILDREN IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD. I CHOSE A CAREER TO WORK WITH THESE CHILDREN. I WORK WITH CHILDREN ALL DAY LONG WITH DISABILITIES AND I WORK AFTER SCHOOL TO HELP CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES AND TO ACCUSE ME AND SEVERAL OF THESE OTHER PEOPLE TO NOT HAVING A HEART FOR CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES AND NOT WANTING THEM IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS JUST LUDICROUS. IT'S LUDICROUS. WE DON'T WANT A BUSINESS ON OUR RESIDENTIAL STREET. WE DON'T. WE SUPPORT THE SAMMY'S HOUSE. IF I DID NOT SUPPORT IT, I WOULD NOT HAVE A CAREER IN WORKING WITH DISABLED CHILDREN. I JUST — I HAVE WORKED VERY HARD FOR MY CAREER AND FOR MY HOUSE THAT I HAVE BOUGHT. I WAS A RENTER. IF ANYBODY TELLS ME THAT I DID NOT TAKE CARE OF MY PROPERTIES, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO GO TO EVERY PROPERTY THAT I HAVE RENTED AND — AND LOOK AT THE HOUSE THAT I HAVE RENTED. I HAVE RENOVATED SEVERAL HOUSES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND I HAVE PLANTED SEVERAL GARDENS AND I HAVE BEAUTIFIED THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I WAS A RENTER FOR 11 YEARS BEFORE BUYING MY PROPERTY I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE. AS FAR AS GOING AGAINST RENTERS, AS RUINING THE FABRIC OF A NEIGHBORHOOD, WE DON'T RUIN IT. WE BUILD IT BECAUSE WE ARE THE FUTURE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE ARE THE ONES THAT BUY THE HOUSES. THAT WE HAVE RENTED. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: 27 SECONDS.

REAL QUICK. I LIVE ACROSS THE STREET FROM A DAYCARE CENTER. ONE OF THE PERSONS WHO MADE A REMARK, HE LIVES THREE BLOCKS AWAY. THAT'S LIKE BEING ON THE MOON. YOU DON'T PUT UP WITH THIS DAY TO DAY TO DAY TO DAY. THAT'S WHAT YOU HAVE GOT TO LOOK AT AND THAT'S WHAT YOU HAVE GOT TO BASE YOUR DECISION IS THE ANNOYANCE, THE CONSTANT ANNOYANCE WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE CONTROL OF YOUR LIFE ANYMORE. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. [BUZZER SOUNDING]

MAYOR GARCIA: HOW ABOUT THAT FOR KEEPING TIME. I'M GOING TO READ INTO THE RECORD, LIKE I INDICATED LAST WEEK, THE NAMES OF PEOPLE THAT DID NOT SPEAK. BUT WHO SIGNED UP TO SPEAK AND — AND INDICATE THEIR PREFERENCES, BRYAN WORESHAM AGAINST THE APPEAL. WENDY — WRONG GLASSES. WENDY MACHALIK, OUT OF THE CUB.... COUNCIL, NOT APPEARING IN PERSON, THERE IS SOMETHING MUCH BIGGER AND UGLIER BEHIND THIS THAN PROPERTY VALUES AND TRAFFIC. I ASK THE COUNCIL TO VOTE TO ALLOW SAMMY'S HOUSE TO REMAIN. I ASK THOSE APPEALING WHAT THEY FIND WITHIN THEMSELVES IF THEY LOOK PAST THE SURFACE ISSUES OF TRAFFIC AND PROPERTY VALUES. MELISSA LEWIKI AGAINST THE APPEAL. BRUCE YOU SPOKE ALREADY. DAVID ZACH, AGAINST. TRISH CLIFFORD AGAINST, THERESA DONAHUE AGAINST. JESSIKA [INAUDIBLE] AGAINST. KAREN HASLAND AGAINST. JOHN DELBRIDGE AGAINST. I — WHEN I SAY AGAINST, THEY ARE AGAINST THE APPEAL. MARIAN OPPENHEIMER AGAINST. IF I'M WRONG, CORRECT ME. TOM BEST AGAINST, JEFFREY BELDIN AGAINST, CHRISTOPHER ROBINSON AGAINST, MIKE [INAUDIBLE] AGAINST. SARAH BERNSTEIN AGAINST, IN SUPPORT OF SAMMY'S HOUSE, DR. KAREN WRIGHT AGAINST, BRYAN BERNA AGAINST, JUERTA SPOKE. CHRIS MILLS FOR THE APPEAL. AGAINST. AGAINST THE APPEAL. THIS IS FROM — FROM SYLVIA ODEM. PAM MILLER AGAINST, CRYSTAL MILLS AGAINST. JOHN LEWEKI AGAINST. SCOTT OGLE, I THINK HE SPOKE. AGAINST. ROBERT GRIFFIS AGAINST. JENNIFER [INAUDIBLE], AGAINST. JULIA DONAHUE, AGAINST. ARLENE SANTA CRUZ, AGAINST. DR. JUERTA SPOKE, MICROBRITAIN AGAINST. MELANIE DELBRIDGE AGAINST. [INAUDIBLE] AGAINST. JOHN BERNIE AGAINST THE APPEAL. BRYAN FORD AGAINST. STACY YOUNG AGAINST. BECKY YOUNG, AGAINST. ROBERT CRUISE, AGAINST. MARTA RODRIGUEZ, AGAINST. ROBERT MILLS, AGAINST. BECKY ROAN, AGAINST. WALTER MERO, AGAINST. JOSH PULLMAN, AGAINST. JANET LENA, AGAINST, JANUARY NET LEWIKI, I THINK I ALREADY MENTIONED HERE. SUSAN BAKER, AGAINST. MALISA GARCIA, AGAINST. HEATHER ALDIN, AGAINST, SCOTT ALDIN AGAINST. LAURA GARCIA, AGAINST. MADELYN SOUTHER LAND, AGAINST. W SUTER LAND, AGAINST. CHRISTIE [INAUDIBLE], AGAINST. TINA [INAUDIBLE], AGAINST. NANCY [INAUDIBLE], AGAINST. ALAN [INAUDIBLE], AGAINST. HOMER JUERTA AGAINST, MEDICAL B. WEST, AGAINST. MEL B. WEST, AGAINST, SONIA TORRES, AGAINST. BEVERLY ZEKE AGAINST THE APPEAL. KATHY MILLS, AGAINST. [INAUDIBLE], AGAINST. CARY ODEM, AGAINST. GREG [INAUDIBLE], AGAINST, MEGAN [INAUDIBLE] AGAINST, YOLANDA DAVILA AGAINST. VICTOR BRUCE AGAINST, PAULA FORD, AGAINST. TREY HALTON AGAINST. MAX WERKENTHIN AGAINST, BARBARA MALLEN AGAINST THE APPEAL. D.J. DANDYKNACK AGAINST THE APPEAL. KELLY [INAUDIBLE], AGAINST. MARSHA WOLVERTON AGAINST. MIKE HALLEN AGAINST. [INAUDIBLE] AGAINST. ANGELA HALE, AGAINST. GLENDA LEE, AGAINST. JUAN GARCIA, AGAINST. DANA THOMPSON, AGAINST. EMMY MCLAUGHLIN, AGAINST. MICHELLE BIRAH, AGAINST. DENISEGER... GERRARD, I HAVE IT IN THE STRONG STACK, SHE'S FOR THE PERMIT — AGAINST THE PERMIT, I'M SORRY. ROBERT SORTMAN AGAINST THE APPEAL. AMBER ANDREWS, SHE SAYS FOR. THEN SHE DOESN'T INDICATE FOR WHAT. SO — SO I'M ASSUMING THAT SHE'S FOR THE APPEAL. RENEE —

MAYOR GARCIA: AGAINST. SHE'S AGAINST IT, OKAY. CHANGE THAT ONE. RENEE JANUARYKOWSKI, I THINK SHE SPOKE AGAINST, WALTER [INAUDIBLE] AGAINST, JUDITH LENA AGAINST. E2IKA [INAUDIBLE], AGAINST. GLORIA LEON, AGAINST. GRAVES NORSTRUP, AGAINST. SUSAN AGAINST. KATHRYN, AGAINST. MELISSA WERKENCONTINUE AGAINST. COUNCIL THOSE ARE ALL OF THE PEOPLE THAT SIGNED UP TO SPEAK THIS WEEK AND LAST WEEK. MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER GRIFFITH, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

OPPOSED, NO. MOTION CARRIES. COUNCIL, DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OF STAFF? OR OF THE APPELLATES? BREAK OR OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF SAMMY'S HOUSE?

GOODMAN: I HAVE A QUESTION OF STAFF.

MAYOR GARCIA: MAYOR PRO TEM.

GOODMAN: SOME OF THESE ARE PROBABLY — PROBABLY LEGAL QUESTIONS, TOO. BUT COULD YOU IN A NUTSHELL GO OVER WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION — I MEAN THE — YEAH, THE PLANNING COMMISSION, PUT INTO THEIR MOTION, WHAT — WHAT BEYOND JUST — BEYOND JUST — WHAT WAS SPECIAL? WHAT WAS PARTICULAR TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT THAT YOU WOULDN'T NORMALLY HAVE IN LIKE A ZONING.

WITH THIS PARTICULAR TYPE OF APPLICATION, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, THERE ARE NO COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS REQUIRED. AND — AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN THEIR DECISION CHOSE TO — TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PERMIT WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT STAFF HAD PROVIDED TO PROVIDE SOME MEASURE OF COMPATIBILITY TO THE — TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES. ONE OF THOSE WOULD BE THE 25 FOOT SETBACK TO ANY RECREATION AREAS TO THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH. IN ADDITION TO THAT THERE WAS VEGETATIVE SCREENING THAT WAS ASKED FOR FOR THIS SAME INTENSIVE PLAY AREA. THAT WOULD BE TWO ITEMS THAT — THAT WOULD NOT NORMALLY BE REQUIRED WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

GOODMAN: AND IS THERE A WAY TO TERMINATE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT OR HAS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT EVER BEEN TERMINATED FOR NON-COMPLIANCE?

AIM NOT AWARE OF ONE — I'M NOT AWARE OF ONE. I CAN'T ANSWER YES OR NO TO THAT. I'M JUST NOT AWARE OF THAT.

GOODMAN: DO YOU KNOW, MS. TERRY?

I DON'T KNOW IF ONE HAS EVER BEEN TERMINATED FOR NON-COMPLIANCE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT VIOLATIONS HAVE BEEN REPORTED AND WHAT HAS ACTUALLY HAPPENED. I WOULD DEFER TO TOM ABOUT HIS CONVERSATIONS CONCERNING THE 90 DAY LIMITATION AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. HE MIGHT WANT TO ELABORATE ON THAT FOR YOU.

THE QUESTION HAS BEEN ASKED ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS SHOULD SAMMY'S HOUSE CLOSE. AND THE INFORMATION THAT I HAVE RELAYED TO EVERYONE WHO HAS ASKED HAS BEEN THAT IF THERE'S A 90 DAY LAPSE IN TIME, THEN THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND ITS CONDITIONS GO AWAY. THERE IS DIFFICULTY ON THE CITY'S PART IN FIGURING OUT WHEN THAT 90 DAYS BEGINS. IN MY CONVERSATIONS WITH MS. ODEM SHE'S ADDRESSED THAT BY INDICATING SHE WOULD BE WILLING TO PROVIDE A LETTER BOTH TO STAFF AND TO NEIGHBORS OF WHEN SAMMY'S HOUSE ACTUALLY CEASED OPERATION. IT'S UNUSUAL. IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE — THAT I HAVE SEEN BEFORE.

GOODMAN: THAT COULD HAPPEN BY SAMMY'S HOUSE NOT HAVING ANY ENROLLMENT OR THAT COULD ONLY HAPPEN IF THERE WAS NO CHILD CARE OPERATION? SOMEBODY BESIDES SAMMY'S HOUSE, PER SE.

MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT THIS WAS GOING TO BE A DOCUMENT DRAFTED BY MS. ODEM ON BEHALF OF SAMMY'S HOUSE — ON BEHALF OF HERSELF ACTUALLY WAS THE — AS THE PROPERTY OWNER AND HER DECISION NOT WANTING THIS PROPERTY TO BE USED FOR A DAYCARE SUBSEQUENT TO —

GOODMAN: CHILD CARE.

CHILD CARE, I'M SORRY, I KNOW THAT.

GOODMAN: SO — WELL LET ME ASK LEGAL THEN. IN ZONING, YOU CAN CAN'T GO BY PERSON. YOU CAN ONLY GO BY USE. A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CAN YOU PREDICATE IT ON THE PARTICULAR OPERATION? THE D.B.A., SO TO SPEAK? THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS BASED UPON THE DESCRIBED USE IN THE PERMIT. AND THAT IS THIS PARTICULAR DESCRIBED USE, THIS — THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND THE REASON WHY I WAS PAUSING IS BECAUSE, AS I UNDERSTOOD THE OWNER, THE OWNER IS WILLING TO — TO HAVE THE COUNCIL IMPOSE AN ADDITIONAL — AN ADDITIONAL QUALIFICATION IN THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. THAT IN THE EVENT THAT THIS CONDITIONAL USE — THAT — THAT THERE — IN THE EVENT THAT THERE IS A TERMINATION OF THIS USE, THIS CONDITIONAL USE, WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, SHE WOULD BE WILLING TO PROVIDE THE KIND OF NOTICE THAT WOULD ALLOW A DETERMINATION OF WHEN THE 90 DAYS IS TO BEGIN. NOW, I CAN'T GO ANY FURTHER THAN TO MAKE IT RUN WITH SAMMY'S HOUSE. BECAUSE A CONDITIONAL USE PERM IS THE USE. — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS THE USE. BUT IF THE OWNER IS WILLING TO HAVE AS A PART OF ONE OF THE LIMITATIONS IN THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, THAT OWNER IS WILLING TO PROVIDE NOTICE TO THE CITY, WHEN THE CONDITIONAL — THE DATE UPON WHICH THAT CONDITIONAL USE WILL CEASE, THEN — THEN THAT CAN BE IN THE PERMIT, THAT COULD BE IN AS AN ADDITIONAL QUALIFICATION IN THE PERMIT, AN ADDITIONAL LIMITATION, BUT AGAIN THAT'S FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE, THAT'S FOR THE GEARED TO SAMMY'S HOUSE. SO THAT MAY BE A LITTLE BIT MORE LEEWAY THAN WHAT MS. ODEM IS OFFERING UP. BUT WHAT I AM SUGGESTING TO YOU IS THAT'S WHERE WE HAVE TO GO WITH THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. FRTION I........I HOPE THAT WAS HELPFUL.

GOODMAN: YES. CAN YOU DO IT IN A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT?

THE OWNER OF A PIECE OF PROPERTY CAN PUT ANY RESTRICTIVE COVENANT COVENANT ON A PIECE OF ROT THAT THEY WANT TO PUT ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY. BUT WE ARE ADDRESSING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. WE HAVE TO OPERATE WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF WHAT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS. WHAT WE CAN AND CAN'T DO WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. MS. ODEM WANTS TO OFFER A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT THAT SATISFIES HER NEIGHBORS, IF SHE WANTS TO OFFER, BEYOND WHAT WE CAN DO AS PART OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SHE IS FREE TO DO THAT.

GOODMAN: AND IF THAT RESTRICTIVE COVENANT WERE TO BE WRITTEN, COULD WE MAKE IT AS A PART OF THE RECORD, DEFACT TO PART OF OUR — DE FACTO PART OF OUR ACTION ON A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

NO, MA'AM. THE REASON WHY IS I HAVE TO GO BACK TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND WHAT WE CAN AND CANNOT DO UNDER OUR CODE ON A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, IT IS AKIN TO WHEN WE HAVE ZONING CASES AND WHEN THE STAFF SAYS WHAT IS APPROPRIATE FOR A PRIVATE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT VERSUS WHAT IS APPROPRIATE FOR A CITY RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, VERSUS WHAT IS APPROPRIATE FOR A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY. WE CAN ADDRESS CONDITIONAL USES THROUGH QUALIFIERS, BUT IF — BUT ARE — OUR CODE PROVISIONS ADDRESS CONDITIONAL USES BY THE USE, NOT BY THE INDIVIDUAL.

GOODMAN: OKAY. BUT THROUGH THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, WHAT WE COULD DO ARE THINGS LIKE WHAT WAS MENTIONED IN ENRON...... ENROLLMENT. CAN THAT BE THINGS LIKE THE PERCENTAGE OF SPECIAL NEEDS CHILDREN OUT OF THE TOTAL 12 CHILD ENROLLMENT? IS THAT LEGAL?

YES, MA'AM, I BELIEVE THE STAFF IN FACT HAD AN ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION ALONG THAT LINE. IN TERMS OF AGE GROUPINGS. TOM WHY DON'T YOU SPECIFY WHAT YOU WERE RECOMMENDING, IT MAY NOT BE WHAT THE MAYOR PRO TEM IS GOING AFTER.

WHEN WE MADE OUR RECOMMENDATION, WE BASED IT ON INFORMATION WE HAD RECEIVED FROM THE — FROM THE SAMMY'S HOUSE FOLKS THAT LICENSING FOR MORE THAN 12 WOULDN'T OCCUR AND SINCE THAT WAS A LIMIT ESTABLISHED BY THE STATE, THAT WAS CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT WE COULD PUT INTO OUR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THAT WOULDN'T BE — WOULDN'T HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THEIR OPERATION. BUT WOULD YET REDUCE THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN THAT MIGHT NORMALLY BE ALLOWED UNDER THIS PARTICULAR TYPE OF APPLICATION. THE FIRST INFORMATION THAT WE RECEIVED WAS THAT THE PROJECTED ENROLLMENT WOULD BE ABOUT 25% INFANT AND 75% THE BALANCE UP TO THREE YEARS IN AGE. THERE WAS SOME CONCERN RAISED ABOUT — ABOUT THE STRICTNESS OF THOSE PERCENTAGES. IF — IF A — IF A SPECIAL NEEDS CHILD NEEDED TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE SERVICE AND THEY WERE AT THE 25% OR 75% AND COULDN'T ACCEPT THEM, THAT IT COULD BE — COULD PUT THE CHILD AT A DISADVANTAGE. SO WE TOOK THE PERCENTAGES OUT AND JUST LEFT THE — LEFT THE 12 YEARS OR END ROLLMENT TO 12 AND THEN UP TO THREE YEARS IN AGE.

GOODMAN: OKAY. THANKS. OKAY. THE PARKING ISSUE THAT WAS BROUGHT UP. IS IT TRUE THAT THEY ONLY HAVE ACCOMMODATIONS TO FOR TWO PARKING PLACES BUT THAT THEY WILL HAVE A LOT MORE STAFF OR VISITING STAFF AND SO — THEY WILL HAVE A NEED FOR A GREAT MANY MORE SPACES THAN WHAT THEY HAVE?

THE APPLICATION THAT WE RECEIVED ON THE SITE PLAN THAT WE RECEIVED INDICATED TWO PERMANENT EMPLOYEES. AND WITH THAT WE — WE DETERMINED THERE TO BE A REQUIREMENT FOR TWO PARKING SPACES. BOTH OF THOSE SPACES COULD BE ACCOMMODATED IN THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY OFF OF RED RIVER. WE ALSO KNEW THAT THERE WOULD BE SPECIAL CARE AIDES COMING TO AND FROM THE SITE AT DIFFERENT TIMES AND BECAUSE OF THE TRAFFIC CONCERNS, NOTED THAT WE WOULD AND SHOULD PROVIDE ONSITE PARKING FOR THOSE PEOPLE. THE — THE CARPORT THAT'S UNDER CONSTRUCTION RIGHT NOW HAS TWO SPACES UNDERNEATH IT. AND TWO SPACES BEHIND IT. AND WE WERE COMFORTABLE IN OUR RECOMMENDATION THAT THOSE SPECIAL CARE AIDES BEING SCHEDULED AFTER TYPICAL PICKUP AND DROPOFF, THAT WE COULD ACCOMMODATE THE PARKING WITHOUT HAVING TO SPILL OVER ON TO THE STREET.

GOODMAN: THE OTHER — THE OTHER QUESTION WAS ABOUT — ABOUT THE SECOND BUILDING, THE GARBAGE APARTMENT.

YES.

GOODMAN: IS THAT ALLOWED?

IN THE ZONING DISTRICT, THE S.F. 3 DISTRICT, YES. AND THE PERMIT WAS OBTAINED TO CONSTRUCT A GARAGE APARTMENT. PRIOR TO THE APPLICATION FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. SO THERE WERE PERMITS ISSUED FOR THAT. WE THEN A COUPLE OF MONTHS LATER LOOKED AT THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION.

GOODMAN: OKAY. SO YOU HAD A DIFFERENT RECOMMENDATION NOT KNOWING THAT WAS IN THE PIPELINE?

WELL, THE ORIGINAL PLAN THAT WE GOT IN SHOWED ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES FOR THE USE. AND ANOTHER — A REVISION TO THAT PLAN CAME IN AND INDICATED STORAGE AND THERE MAY HAVE BEEN SOME CONFUSION ON THE ARCHITECT'S PART. WHAT IT WAS TO BE USED FOR. AND SINCE WE WEREN'T THINKING RESIDENTIAL, WE WERE LOOKING AT STORAGE AS OPPOSED TO ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES. AGAIN, IN ORDER TO — TO CONFINEE THE USE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, WE ADDED THE CONDITIONAL THAT IT BE USED FOR STORAGE ONLY. WE LEARNED LATER ON THAT THE INTENTION HAD BEEN FOR RENTING IT OUT. AND DIDN'T STRENUOUSLY OBJECT. IN FACT DIDN'T OBJECT TOO MUCH AT ALL WHEN THE PLANNING COMMISSION REMOVED THE STORAGE REQUIREMENT. BECAUSE IT WAS A PERMITTED USE. [ONE MOMENT PLEASE FOR CHANGE IN CAPTIONERS]NO CARRIERRINGCONNECT 1200

ALVAREZ: YES. UNDER SF-3, IF YOU HAVE A HOME-BASED BUSINESS, TYPICALLY IT COULD HAVE, IS IT ONE EMPLOYEE?

I BELIEVE IT'S ONE EMPLOYEE. I'M NOT A ZONING EXPERT, SO I'M WINGING THIS A LITTLE BIT, BUT I BELIEVE THAT'S TRUE.

ALVAREZ: SO THEN WHEN IT COMES TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT OR THE DAY CARE — I'M SORRY, CHILD CARE FACILITY, WOULD — I MEAN, I GUESS WE DEAL WITH STAFFING ISSUES AS PART OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DOESN'T REALLY ADDRESS STAFFING. IT ADDRESSES THE TYPE OF FACILITY, WHETHER IT'S UP TO SIX CHILDREN OR FROM SIX TO 20 OR FROM 20 OR GREATER. BUT STAFFING IS NOT A PART OF THAT.

ALVAREZ: OKAY. AND I THINK THE MAYOR PRO TEM MENTIONED THE RENTAL UNITS IN TERMS OF THE GARAGE APARTMENT BEING ALLOWED IN SF-3.

YES.

ALVAREZ: IS THAT ONLY FOR PARTICULAR SIZE LOTS? I THOUGHT THAT WAS ONE OF OUR SMART GROWTH —

IT'S WHERE IT'S DERIVED FROM, YES.

ALVAREZ: SO I DON'T THINK THAT THIS AREA IS IN AN APPROVED NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN OR IS IT?

IT'S WITHIN AN APPROVED NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN BOUNDARY, YES.

ALVAREZ: IS IT HYDE PARK?

RIGHT ON THE VERY CORNER.

ALVAREZ: I THOUGHT SOMEBODY MENTIONED IT WAS NOT PART OF THE HYDE PARK. SO THAT'S HOW IT WAS? I KNEW IT WAS A SMART GROWTH TOOL. AND NOW, ONE ISSUE THAT WAS RAISED IS THAT THE LIST OF CONDITIONS THAT YOU HAD READ, THERE WAS ORIGINALLY SEVEN AND THEN THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED IT AND THEY REMOVED ONE OF THE CONDITIONS.

THEY REMOVED THE CONDITION THAT LIMITED THE SPACE ABOVE THE CARPORT TO BE USED FOR STORAGE, WHICH IN TURN WOULD ALLOW IT TO BE USED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES.

ALVAREZ: AND THEN THERE WAS AN ITEM, ORIGINALLY IT WAS STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, THERE WAS AN ITEM 6, RECOMMENDATION NUMBER 6, WHICH IS DIFFERENT FROM THIS PARTICULAR CONDITION NUMBER 6?

RIGHT. IT HAD TO DO WITH THE PERCENTAGES FOR INFANTS VERSUS OLDER.

ALVAREZ: DID IT DEAL WITH THE ISSUE OF HOW MANY CHILDREN?

NO, THAT WASN'T CHANGED. THE 12 LIMIT WAS NOT DISCUSSED OR ALTERED, IT WAS JUST THE PERCENTAGES WITHIN THAT 12.

ALVAREZ: SO WHEN YOU DID YOUR ANALYSIS OF HOW THIS APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MET THE CONDITIONS, THEN YOU WERE ASSUMING IT WAS GOING TO BE 12 AS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT?

THAT'S CORRECT.

ALVAREZ: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I THINK THAT'S IT FOR NOW.

MAYOR GARCIA: FURTHER QUESTIONS? MAYOR PRO TEM? DID YOU HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR —

GOODMAN: RELATIVE TO HOW MANY SPACES YOU NEED FOR STAFF AT ANY GIVEN TIME OR ANY OTHER CAREGIVERS OR PROVIDERS WHO ARE AT THE SITE, HOW MANY SPACES WOULD YOU NEED AT ANY GIVEN TIME AND HOW MANY SPACES — HOW MANY VEHICLES PARKED CONCEIVABLY WOULD THERE BE WHEN THE MOST PEOPLE YOU CAN IMAGINE WOULD BE THERE? WHERE THEY'RE OVERLAPPING.

WE HAD TWO DAYS WHEN WE INCORRECTLY SCHEDULED. BECAUSE WE'RE STILL WORKING IT ALL OUT. AND WE HAD — THE MOST THAT WE'VE EVER HAD WAS FOUR CARS THERE AT ONE TIME. AND IT WAS DIFFICULT THAT DAY BECAUSE WE WERE BLOCKED. WE COULDN'T GET INTO THAT AREA. BUT EVEN WITH THE FOUR VEHICLES THERE, THE RED RIVER, IT'S A REALLY LONG DRIVE AND THE EMPLOYEES — IT WAS JUST MYSELF AND MY OTHER FULL TIMER BE AND WE PULLED ALL THE WAY OFF AND WE FIT ALL FOUR CARS THERE.

GOODMAN: SO WITH 12 CHILDREN — AND I MAY BE WRONG IN REMEMBERING, THREE WITHOUT SPECIAL NEEDS?

WELL, WE ACTUALLY — BECAUSE OF THE EARLY CHILDHOOD INTERVENTION RULES, WE CAN'T ACTUALLY LIMIT. ALL CHILDREN ARE WELCOME. BECAUSE OUR CURRICULUM IS SUCH THAT IT IS THAT IT ATTRACTS SPECIAL NEEDS MORE SO AND IT'S BEEN AVERAGING ABOUT 75-25, 75% BEING SPECIAL NEEDS. AND ALL ENROLL LEASE THAT ARE WAITING TO COME IS 75 TO 25. BUT THE OTHER THING TO REMEMBER IS THAT THEY ALL DON'T HAVE THERAPISTS COME THERE. A LOT OF THEM HAVE PRIVATE THERAPY THAT THEY LEAVE TO GO TO. AND SO, FOR INSTANCE, I CAN ONLY TELL YOU THE SIX THAT WE'RE RUNNING NOW, THREE OF THEM HAVE OUTSIDE THERAPY, ONE HAS NO THERAPY, SO THREE OF THEM HAVE THERAPY THERE. OF THOSE THREE THERE WAS THE SAME ECI PROVIDER, SO THEY USED THE SAME THERAPIST. AND WHAT WE ASKED THEM TO DO IS SEE ALL THE CHILDREN AT THE SAME VISIT. AND IT'S BEEN WORKING OUT. IT TOOK A LITTLE WHILE TO GET IT ORGANIZED, BUT IT'S WORKING OUT.

GOODMAN: OKAY. WHAT I WAS MORE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, THOUGH, WAS FROM INFANTS TO AGE APPROXIMATE, AND YOU CAN HAVE 12 CHILDREN WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE SPECIAL NEEDS OR NOT, ALTHOUGH I HEARD YOU WERE TRYING TO MAINSTREAM TO SOME DEGREE SO THAT THERE WOULD BE ROLE MODELS. AND YOU'RE ONLY GOING TO HAVE TWO STAFF THERE FOR 12 KIDS.

NO, BECAUSE WE HAVE THERAPISTS COMING IN AND OUT AND THAT'S USUALLY THE RATIO, BUT OUR CHILDREN AREN'T THERE ALL THE TIME. AND SO WE HAVE — WE HAVE THE TWO FULL TIME STAFF AND THEN WE HAVE THE TWO PART-TIMERS THAT COME IN. THEY OVERLAP ABOUT 30 MINUTES WHEN THEY'RE DOING THE SHIFT CHANGES. AND YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER IN THE AFTERNOON THEY'RE ASLEEP FROM ABOUT 1:30 UNTIL 4:00, ALMOST OUT COLD. AND — THE ENTIRE DAY CARE, AT LEAST ON THE SIX THAT WE'VE HAD SO FAR. AND SUCH IS THE WAY IN REGULAR — WITH TYPICALLY DEVELOPING CHILDREN, EXCEPT FOR THE INFANTS. AND THE RATIO OF THE STATE ONLY REQUIRES ONE TO SIX. AND IT'S ONE TO SIX IN THE CENTER, AND IT'S MORE THAN ENOUGH. BECAUSE OUR CHILDREN AREN'T RUNNING AROUND, OUR CHILDREN AREN'T — THEY'RE NOT THAT MOBILE.

GOODMAN: I'M GOING TO CONTINUE TO CALL IT CHILD CARE AND NOT DAY CARE SINCE THEY CAN TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES AND CHILDREN CAN'T. LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT THE SHIFT AND TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHEN THE PEAK TIMES ARE THAT YOU ENVISION. DO YOU HAVE EVERYONE COME AT BASICALLY THE SAME COUPLE TIMES A DAY OR AFTER SCHOOL OR AFTER SOME OTHER PROGRAM?

ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE CHILDREN OR THE STAFF?

GOODMAN: WELL, BOTH.

THE WAY IT'S WORKING RIGHT NOW, AND IT DEPENDS ON THE ARRIVAL TIME. I OPEN UP, AND UNTIL WE GET THREE CHILDREN THERE, THEN THE SECOND FULL TIMER COMES IN. THEN SHE COMES IN, SHE STAYS UNTIL ABOUT 3:00 AND THEN OUR PART TIMER COMES IN. AND THEN THE OTHER PART TIMER COMES IN AND CLOSES DOWN. JUST AS IT IS IN THE MORNING, THEY'RE NOT ALL THERE AND THEY TRICKLE IN. SO IT IS IN THE AFTERNOON. PICKUP STARTS AROUND 3:00 O'CLOCK IN THE AFTERNOON, 3, 3:30. AND 5:30. WE USUALLY HAVE JUST ONE CHILD AT 5:30 AND REST IS CLEANING UP.

GOODMAN: DO YOU HAVE ANYBODY COMING FROM A VAN FROM SOME OTHER PROGRAM.

YES. WE HAVE ONE LITTLE GIRL THAT ARRIVES AT 12:30 FROM THE TEXAS SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF. AND WE'VE ARRANGED FOR THEM NOT TO DROP OFF AT RED RIVER, BUT TO DROP OFF NEAR WHERE THE PARENTS ARE ON THE STREET. AND ALL THE TIMES THAT WE'VE TAKEN HER OUT OF THE BOWS BUS, ONLY THREE CARS HAVE HAD TO STOP FOR THE BUS. BECAUSE IT'S AT A TIME, 12:30, EVEN ON RED RIVER, THERE'S ALWAYS TRAFFIC GOING ON, BUT IT'S NOT REAL HEAVY AT 12:30MENT.

GOODMAN: AND CONCEIVABLY YOU COULD BREAK THAT UP A LITTLE BIT BY ASKING PARENTS, RIGHT?

YOU MEAN LIKE DROP OFF AND PICKUP TIMES? YES. IN FACT, IT'S JUST — WE HAVEN'T HAD TO BECAUSE ONLY TWO DAYS WHEN WE CLOSED EARLY TO COME HERE DID THEY COME ALL AT THE SAME TIME. THEY SELDOM COME AT THE SAME TIME. SELDOM.

GOODMAN: I WOULD FIGURE, AND WITH SIX TO 12 YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT MORE THAN SOMEPLACE WITH A TYPICAL 30 OR SO.

AND THE THING IS, WHEN OUR PARENTS SIGN UP WITH US, THEY KNOW WE'VE GOT A PARKING PLAN AND THEY HAVE TO SIGN OFF ON IT AND SAY I AM FULLY AWARE. AND YOU UNDERSTAND YOU WILL HAVE TO STACK. AND THEY ALL SAY YES. AND THAT MEANS PATIENCE. AND IF IT'S FULL, YOU MAY HAVE TO EITHER CIRCLE OR WAIT. AND THAT HASN'T HAPPENED YET WITH SIX. AND THEY ALSO KNOW THAT WE HAVE A BACKUP PLAN, WHICH, YOU KNOW, THE PARKING PLAN THAT WAS RECOMMENDED DIDN'T ACCOUNT FOR EVERY SCENARIO. FOR INSTANCE, WHEN IT'S BLOCKED FOR WHATEVER REASON. SO WE QUICKLY PUT IN THE BACKUP PLAN THAT THEY COULD GO AHEAD AND DROP OFF OR PICK UP AT RED RIVER RATHER THAN STOP ON THE STREET. AND THAT'S BEEN WORKING OUT, THAT PACKUP PLAN. — BACKUP PLAN.

GOODMAN: LET ME ASK YOU ONE MORE THING IF I COULD, ALTHOUGH THIS MAY BE A MRS. ODOM QUESTION. RELATIVE TO WHAT I WAS ASKING CITY LEGAL ABOUT AWHILE AGO, WHICH IS A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, WHICH IS A TOTALLY SEPARATE AND EXTRA SORT OF AGREEMENT WHERE IN THE TIE IS TO SAMMY'S HOUSE VERY SPECIFICALLY. AND IF OPERATIONS OF SAMMY'S HOUSE WERE TO END, THAT WOULD BE THE END OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, NOT SIMPLY IF SAMMY'S HOUSE WERE TO MOVE SOMEWHERE ELSE AND ANOTHER CHILD CARE WERE TO ENTER IN. THIS WOULD PRECLUDE THAT. CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THAT?

I WILL ONLY HAVE IT FOR SAMMY'S HOUSE. I HAVE NO INTENTION NOR DESIRE TO HAVE ANOTHER DAY CARE THERE. I'M MORE THAN WILLING TO DO SOMETHING THAT WOULD MAKE THE NEIGHBORS FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE IF THEY NEED MORE THAN WHAT I'VE ALREADY PREPARED IN ADDITION TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

GOODMAN: OKAY. THANK YOU. THOSE ARE ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE.

WYNN: MAYOR PRO TEM? I'M SORRY WE KEPT SO MANY PEOPLE UP SO LATE ON THIS, BUT OBVIOUSLY THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE. NEIGHBORHOOD PROTECTION IS VERY IMPORTANT TO US, AS IS CHILD CARE, AND PARTICULARLY CHILD CARE FOR CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS. AND I'M ALSO SORRY THAT PERHAPS SOME FEELINGS GOT HURT OR, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF ANGER INVOLVED IN THE EMOTIONS. AND I'M GOING TO ANGER A LOT OF MY FRIENDS, BUT I NEED TO MOVE THAT WE DENY THE APPEAL AND UP HOLD THE PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL USE PERMIT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

GOODMAN: ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?

GRIFFITH: I HAD ONE QUESTION FOR MS. TERRY, BUT MAYBE I BETTER WAIT UNTIL SHE GETS THROUGH WITH THE ADVICE SHE'S GIVING.

YES, MA'AM?

GRIFFITH: IF SAMMY'S HOUSE DECIDED THAT THEY NEEDED 14 OR 16 KIDS INSTEAD OF THE 12, WHAT WOULD BE THE PROCESS THAT THEY WOULD GO THROUGH TO GET THAT DONE?

I'M NOT GOING TO ADDRESS THE STATE LICENSING REQUIREMENTS.

GRIFFITH: JUST IN TERMS OF THE CITY.

IN TERMS OF OUR REQUIREMENTS AND OUR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, BECAUSE OF THE LIMITATION THAT WE HAVE, THAT IS — AND I WANT TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO CREATE PERHAPS A MISIMPRESSION. THIS IS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. IT IS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SITE PLAN. REVISIONS TO THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MUST BE HEARD BY THE — IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE THE PLANNING COMMISSION BECAUSE IT IS PART OF THE HYDE PARK NCCD NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. IT IS CORRECT THAT WHEN YOU HAVE AN ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN, REVISIONS ARE APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVELY, BUT THIS IS NOT AN ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN. THIS IS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SITE PLAN. ANY CHANGES, REVISIONS, AMYS, MODIFICATIONS MUST BE HEARD BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. AND IT WOULD BE A FORMAL AMENDMENT PROCESS AND THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK IN THIS INSTANCE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO BE HEARD, AGAIN WITH AN APPEAL TO THIS BODY.

GRIFFITH: THANK YOU. THAT'S WHAT I NEEDED CLARIFIED.

WYNN: THERE'S A MOTION ON THE TABLE. DO I HAVE A SECOND?

GOODMAN: SORRY. WOULD YOU REPEAT YOUR MOTION?

WYNN: I MOVE THAT WE DENY THE APPEAL.

GOODMAN: THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND, MAYOR, TO DENY THE APPEAL. I WOULD LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THE QUESTIONS THAT I'VE BEEN ASKING ABOUT RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, WHICH ACCORDING TO LEGAL I THINK WOULD HAVE TO BE TOTALLY OUTSIDE THE CITY PROCESS HERE ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMITTING, ALTHOUGH MS. ODOM HAS SEEMED TO BE PERFECTLY OPEN TO THAT, BUT IT WOULDN'T BE SOMETHING THAT WE COULD OVERSEE. IT WOULD HAVE TO BE DONE WITH AN ATTORNEY AND AGREED UPON, I SUPPOSE, SINCE THERE IS A PLANNING AREA IT COULD BE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION ITSELF WITH SPECIAL PARTIES BEING THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS. SO WE CAN'T DO IT HERE. AND WHAT I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU ALL KNOW, WHICH SOME YOU DO AND SOME OF YOU DON'T, IS THAT FOR MANY, MANY, MANY YEARS I WAS A TEACHER IN EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT WITH SPECIAL NEEDS KIDS. AND WE TRIED TO MAINSTREAM WITH THOSE WHO DIDN'T HAVE THAT FIND OF SPECIAL NEED, THEY WERE JUST REGULAR KIDS, AND THEY HAD THOSE KIND OF SPECIAL NEEDS. AND WE WERE IN A HOUSE AS WELL ON THE EDGE OF A NEIGHBORHOOD AND WE HAD MANY, MANY MORE CHILDREN THAN 12. WE HAD 31, I THINK, AND EXPANDED A LITTLE BIT. AND THERE WAS IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD. NOW, WITH 12 CHILDREN, OF COURSE, — AND CERTAINLY WITH NOT MAINSTREAMING THE WAY WE WERE, THE IMPACT IS NOT AT ALL LIKE THAT WAS. IT REALLY DID AT PEAK TIMES, AT PEAK DROPOFF AND PICKUP TIMES THERE WAS A TRAFFIC IMPACT, ALTHOUGH NOTHING LIKE WHAT PEOPLE IMAGINED IT WOULD BE. BUT IT WAS A LITTLE ROCKY AND YOU HAD TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO BE LESS BURDENSOME FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND PARENTS WERE VERY GOOD ABOUT TRYING TO MAKE THAT DIFFERENT. SO WITH SIX TO 12 YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE THAT KIND OF IMPACT, BUT YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE AN IMPACT. AND IF THE FOLKS WHO RUN THE PROGRAM CAN TRY TO MITIGATE THAT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE SO THAT THERE'S NOT A PEAK TIME, PER SE, ALL AT ONE TIME WITH EVERYBODY PICKING UP, IT MAKES AN ENORMOUS DIFFERENCE ON QUALITY OF LIFE. AND I'M HOPING TOO THAT THERE ARE EFFORTS TO BUFFER VEGETATIVELY AND SO ON, BECAUSE THERE ARE GOING TO BE MORE CARS THAN YOU WOULD NORMALLY HAVE AT THE HOUSE, UNLESS YOU HAVE A BUNCH OF TEENAGERS. IT'S SORT OF LIKE THE SAME IMPACT WITH THEIR CARS IN THE DRIVEWAY. AND SO I CAN'T NOT SUPPORT THE SCHOOL BECAUSE I KNOW HOW IMPORTANT IT IS AND HOW DIFFICULT IT IS TO FIND A PLACE FOR THOSE KIDS TO GO. BUT I DO ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DO AS MUCH AS WE CAN TO MITIGATE THE IMPACT SO THAT IT IS A VERY SMALL BURDEN ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND I'M NOT QUITE SURE HOW WE CAN DO THAT UP HERE ON INDICT AS BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE MECHANISM TO DO IT.

MAYOR PRO TEM, IF I CAN, I MAY NOT HAVE MADE MYSELF CLEAR. MS. ODOM WAS GOING ONE STEP FURTHER THAN I INDICATED I THOUGHT — I BELIEVE THAT WE CAN GO, THAT YOU ALL CAN GO. SHE IS OFFERING TO PROVIDE SOME NOTICE OF THE CESSATION OF SOMETHING. AND A LESSER NOTICE IS A CONDITION OF THIS PERMIT, IF THIS COUNCIL WANTED, IT IS AUTHORIZED UNDER THE CODE. SINCE THAT HAS BEEN OFFERED UP, WHAT THE COUNCIL COULD DO AS PART OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CONDITION, REQUIRE A NOTIFICATION WHEN THE USE — AND FOR THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION THAT DOESN'T MEAN SAMMY'S, THAT MEANS THE USE WHICH IS THE CHIDE CARE USE, IS GOING TO CEASE. SO YOU CAN DO THAT AS A CONDITION, AS A MODIFICATION OF THE GRANTING OF THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. YOU CAN INCLUDE THAT. WHAT MY CONDITION WAS THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT WHICH SAYS THE CESSATION OF SAMMY'S. THAT'S NOT THE CESSATION OF THE USE OF THE PREMISES. SO IT'S NOT THAT YOU'RE COMPLETELY FORBIDDEN FROM GOING WHERE YOU WANT TO GO, IT'S JUST THAT WE CAN'T TIE IT SPECIFICALLY TO SAMMY'S, YOU CAN SAY TTY IT TO THE CESSATION. AND YOU CAN DO THAT ON THE PERMIT ITSELF.

GOODMAN: THEN I WOULD OFFER THAT IN A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, NOTING THAT MS. ODOM HAS SAID SHE DIDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH GOING FURTHER THAN THAT AND IN GOOD FAITH I WOULD EXPECT HER AND THE NEIGHBORS TO GET TOGETHER ON THAT SEPARATELY FROM THIS PROCESS.

WYNN: IT'S ACCEPTED.

MAYOR GARCIA: [ INAUDIBLE ] THERE'S A MOTION. FURTHER DISCUSSION? COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER?

SLUSHER: I WOULD SUGGEST CAN WE GET TRACY WATSON INVOLVED IN THIS AT LEAST FOR ONE MEETING BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORS AND THE SCHOOL? THIS IS I THINK ONE OF THE WORST DECISIONS WE'VE EVER HAD TO MAKE AS A COUNCIL TO CHOOSE BETWEEN VALID NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS ABOUT COMMERCIALIZATION OF RED RIVER, OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND — EXCUSE ME?

MAYOR GARCIA: IF YOU ALL WOULD — IF Y'ALL COULD REFRAIN FROM COMMENTING. WE HONORED YOUR COMMENTS AND YOU CAN HONOR COMMENTS BY THE COUNCILMEMBERS AND I'D APPRECIATE IT VERY MUCH.

SLUSHER: I WOULD THINK THAT PEOPLE — THAT PEOPLE WOULD BE WILLING TO MEET. I WAS ACTUALLY INTERESTED IN WHAT YOU WERE TRYING TO TELL ME. NORMALLY I TRY TO IGNORE PEOPLE TELLING ME WHAT TO DO FROM THE AUDIENCE. BUT I WOULD HOPE — I MEAN, I THINK SOMEONE SAID SOMETHING — I THINK YOU, MA'AM, IN FRONT HERE, TALKED ABOUT THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE SAMMY'S HOUSE BECOME AN ACCEPTED PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, GO TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD EVENTS. AND THAT'S THE — THAT'S WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE COME OUT OF THIS. IT LOOKS LIKE THE APPEAL IS GOING TO BE DENIED. AND I DON'T THINK THAT THE NEIGHBORS HAVE ANYTHING AGAINST THE KIDS, LIKE HAS BEEN CHARGED. I THINK THAT'S VERY UNFORTUNATE. I MEAN, THINGS GET HEAT AND WE SEE THAT A LOT. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT FOR A MINUTE. I THINK THAT THEY ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE PRESENT, THE TRAFFIC. SO I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO SEE FOLKS GET TOGETHER AND TRY TO WORK OUT AN AMICABLE AGREEMENT. I'D LIKE TO SEE THE FOLKS AT THE SCHOOL LISTEN TO THEIR CONCERNS AND SEE WHAT CAN BE DONE ABOUT THOSE CONCERNS. AND I THINK THAT — AND THE NEIGHBORS, VICE VERSA. FOR THE NEIGHBORS, I REALLY THINK THAT THEY SEEM LIKE GOOD FOLKS TO ME THAT WOULD — THAT WOULD NOT JUST BASED ON THE KIDS THAT THEY WOULD TURN IT AWAY. I JUST DON'T SEE THAT. SO I THINK THAT IT'S POSSIBLE — I FORGOT YOUR NAME, BUT I WOULD BE HOPEFUL ANYWAY THAT ONE DAY IT MIGHT BE LIKE YOU DESCRIBED AND WHAT I THOUGHT WAS A VERY GOOD AND MOVING SPEECH. SO THAT'S WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE HAPPEN. SO IF WE COULD — I WOULD HOPE THAT — MS. HUERTA, WOULD YOU BE OPEN TO THAT?

[ INAUDIBLE ]

SLUSHER: YOU CAN COME UP HERE.

I WOULD BE OPEN TO AN ONGOING RELATIONSHIP, BUT CERTAINLY NOT ANY MORE TIME IN MAKING A DECISION. WE HAVE FAMILIES WAITING. WE NEED TO TELL THEM YES OR NO.

SLUSHER: I DIDN'T SAY THAT NOW, DID I?

OKAY. THERE'S MEDIATION, BUT A DECISION BEING MADE THIS EVENING, THAT WOULD BE WONDERFUL. AS LONG AS A DECISION WAS MADE. BECAUSE I HAVE TRIED TO TALK TO THEM. AND THE ONLY THING I EVER GOT WAS YOU CAN MOVE OR WE CAN BUY THE HOUSE. THAT WAS IT. YOU CAN GET RID OF THE PLAYHOUSE AND YOU CAN PUT A SCREEN, BUT WE STILL WANT YOU TO MOVE.

SLUSHER: OKAY. WHY DON'T WE TRY TO GO INTO IT WITH A DIFFERENT KIND OF ATTITUDE AT THIS POINT THAT MAYBE SOMETHING COULD BE WORKED OUT, IF YOU ARE GOING TO BE NEIGHBORS.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. COUNCILMEMBER, ARE WE READY? COUNCILMEMBER ALVAREZ?

ALVAREZ: YEAH. I KIND OF WANT TO ECHO WHAT COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER SAID TOO. IT'S A VERY DIFFICULT SITUATION AND IT'S KIND OF SURPRISING THAT WITH THE DIFFERENT PLAYERS INVOLVED, HOW MANY HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS AND OTHER FOLKS WHO HAVE THEIR OWN BUSINESSES THAT OPERATE OUT OF THEIR HOMES, AND, I MEAN, WITH THE PRETTY OVERWHELMING OPPOSITION TO THIS PROPOSED USE. AND REALLY I HAVEN'T SEEN VERY MUCH WILLINGNESS TO GIVE ON THE SIDE OF THE DAY CARE, AND THAT'S ALWAYS TROUBLING TO ME — CHILD CARE, SORRY, MAYOR PRO TEM. BECAUSE I MEAN, I'M JUST LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, JUST ONE CRITERIA HERE ON THIS CRITERIA FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT THAT SAYS THAT THE CONDITIONAL USE SITE PLAN MAY NOT MORE ADVERSELY AFFECT AN ADJOINING SITE THAN WOULD A PERMITTED USE. JUST THAT ONE PROVISION, WE ALREADY SEE THAT THE EXISTING — THE EXISTING USE IS DOING THAT TO A CERTAIN DEGREE AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS SUPPORTIVE OF, BUT IF YOU DO YOU BELIEVE THAT, THEN CERTAINLY THAT'S GOING TO BE MORE ADVERSE. AND SO, I MEAN, IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE CRITERIA WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE USING TO EVALUATE THIS, I THINK THERE SHOULD BE MORE WILLINGNESS TO GIVE HERE. AND IT'S SUCH A SENSITIVE ISSUE. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE ALSO A MEETING OF THE MINDS AS WELL. I WOULD HOPE THAT THAT'S POSSIBLE AND THAT IT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED BY NOW, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE PEOPLE DIG IN THEIR HEELS AND THEN WE'RE FORCED TO LOOK AT THE CRITERIA AND EVALUATE IT AND FIGURE OUT WHAT WE THINK IS BEST. AND PERSONALLY, AGAIN, JUST LOOKING AT THE CRITERIA MYSELF, I THINK THAT THIS USE WOULD HAVE MORE OF AN ADVERSE EFFECT THAN WOULD A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, PERMITTED USE. SO I REALLY WISH THAT THE CHILD CARE PROVIDERS HERE WOULD BE MORE WILLING TO COME TOGETHER. AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT HAPPEN STILL, BUT IT MAY HAVE TO COME DOWN TO A VOTE TONIGHT. THAT'S A VERY DIFFICULT DECISION, AND THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR PATIENCE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. I REALLY WANT TO THANK EVERYBODY FOR THE MANNER IN WHICH YOU HANDLED THIS DELICATE SUBJECT, AND I APPRECIATED EVERYBODY'S KINDNESS AND THE CONCERN FOR THE YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY, ESPECIALLY THOSE WITH SPERNL NEEDS. IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ARE YOU READY FOR THE VOTE?

WYNN: MAYOR? IF I CAN, JUST TO HELP THE CITY ATTORNEY JUST TO BE A LITTLE MORE SPECIFIC ON THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT THAT I ACCEPTED EARLIER FROM THE MAYOR PRO TEM, THIS WAS BASED UPON MS. ODOM VOLUNTEERING SEVERAL THINGS. THAT IS, NOTIFICATION — VOLUNTARY NOTIFICATION OF ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300 FEET, THE CITY THROUGH THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE. AND THIS IS IN THE EVENT THAT THE EXISTING CHILD CARE FACILITY, SAMMY'S HOUSE, CEASES TO BE HER TENANT OR TO OPERATE THERE, THEN WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THAT SHE WILL GIVE NOTIFICATION AND IN EFFECT BE DECLARING THE PENDING EXPIRATION OF THE SPECIAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

IF I MIGHT, COUNCILMEMBER, IT IS THE CESSATION OF THE CHILD CARE USE. IT'S 30 DAYS ADVANCE NOTICE. BECAUSE WE CAN'T TIE IT SPECIFICALLY TO SAMMY'S, WE TIE IT TO THE CONDITIONAL USE. SO IT IS THE CHILD CARE USE, 30-DAY ADVANCE NOTICE.

WYNN: OKAY. THANK YOU.

GOODMAN: BUT, MS. ODOM SEEMED OPEN TO A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT OUTSIDE THIS PROCESS THAT IS TIED TO SAMMY'S HOUSE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

MAYOR GARCIA: OPPOSED NO. MOTION CARRIES ON A VOTE OF SEVEN TO ZERO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COUNCIL, THAT'S ALL THE ITEMS TO COME BEFORE THIS MEETING. IS THERE A MOTION TO ADJOURN?

THOMAS: SO MOVE.

MAYOR GARCIA: MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMAS, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. OPPOSED NO. MOTION CARRIES.

GOODMAN: MAYOR, I KNOW WE OI AJOWND, BUT BACK WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING, I HAD FORGOTTEN THAT I MIGHT HAVE ONE THAT CAME OUT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS YESTERDAY, SO FOR WHOEVER IS LISTENING, THIS HAS TO DO WITH THE TOWER SIGHTING, TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER SIGHTING AND REVIEW OF THE ORDINANCE.

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU WILL BE SETTING THAT? BECAUSE WE'RE ADJOURNED.

GOODMAN: YES, I KNOW. BUT IT — AND IT HAS TO DO WITH THE LAST TIME WE DID THIS THERE WAS A PROCESS AND WE TOOK A SHORT MORATORIUM SO THAT WE COULD REVIEW SIGHTING AND SAFETY ISSUES, ETCETERA, ETCETERA. SO THAT MAY BE AN ITEM THAT I BRING BACK NEXT WEEK.

MAYOR GARCIA: THAT'S GOOD.

End of Council Session Closed Caption Log