Closed Caption Log, Council Meeting
Thursday, July 11, 2002, Part C

Part A | Part B | Part C

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.

... AND THIS IS BECAUSE OF THE -- THIS IS BECAUSE OF THE IMPERVIOUS COVER ON THE RECHARGE ZONE. IF YOU COVER IT WITH CONCRETE, THE RAIN IS NOT GOING TO SOAK IN EVENLY FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME, IT'S GOING TO COME FLUSHING THROUGH AND AUTOPSY THE EFFLUENCE FROM THE AFFLUENT PEOPLE THAT LIVE THERE ARE IN MY SWIMMING WATER AND I RESENT THAT. I WANT TO SWIM IN BARTON SPRINGS. I FEEL LIKE I CAN'T DO THAT. I DON'T WANT TO GO THERE ANYMORE, YOU KNOW, IT'S CLOSE. THERE'S MERCURY IN IT. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WILL CAUSE PERMANENT NERVE DAMAGE TO FETUS. IT TAKES ONE GRAM IN A 20 AREA ACRE OF WATER TO DO THAT. I DON'T WANT TO RISK THAT, YOU KNOW. I CONSIDER MYSELF CONSERVATIVE. I'VE BEEN PEPPER MACED, I WAS ARRESTED, KICKED OUT OF THE SENATE LAST YEAR, I WAS PUT IN JAIL, I WAS BEET, I'VE BEEN IN A LOT OF PLACES WHERE PEOPLE THINK I'M RADICAL, BUT, MAN I WANT TO RAISE MY KIDS SOMEWHERE AND DRINK SOME SAFE WATER AND IT'S NOT FOR YOU TO PUT THAT AT RISK. ALL RIGHT? [ APPLAUSE ] AND I PUT SOME OF YOU IN OFFICE, RAUL, YOU REMEMBER ME, GOING DOOR TO DOOR CAMPAIGNING FOR YOU. I DID THAT FOR YOU FOR US BECAUSE YOU REPRESENTED THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY. OKAY. I HAVE THIS WHOLE FILE ON WHAT CRIMINALS FREEPORT MCMORAN ARE AND I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT THAT TONIGHT. DOES ANYBODY WANT TO GIVE ME THREE MINUTES? I HEARD A YES. THANKS, TERESA. I REALLY APPRECIATE IT. OKAY. I WAS SAYING I CONSIDER MYSELF REALLY CONSERVATIVE AND I CONSIDER JIM BOB MOFFIT AND THAT CREW OF CRIMINALS REALLY A FREAKING RADICAL. YOU KNOW, CONSERVING OUR AIR AND WATER IS CONSERVATIVE. THAT'S ME. OKAY, BUT YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT REPUBLICAN PRACTICAL ISSUES. OKAY? BECAUSE OF THE FLOOD IT'S CAUSING THE CITY HUNDREDS IF NOT MILLIONS, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO REPAIR THE BARTON SPRINGS, PUT GRAVEL IN THERE AND IT'S GOING TO COST US A LOT MORE MONEY FOR THE MORE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S GOING IN THERE, SO NOT ONLY SHOULD WE NOT DEAL WITH STRATUS, WE SHOULD TAKE OUT THE IMPERVIOUS COVER THAT IS ALREADY THERE. GO BACK AND TAKE IT OUT. YOU KNOW, RETROFIT IT. [CHEERING AND APPLAUSE] UNDO WHAT IS ALREADY THERE. BESIDES, STRATUS, IF YOU MAKE A DEAL WITH THEM AND A CONTRACT WITH THEM, THEY'RE GOING TO SUE YOU FOR NOT BEING ABLE TO UPHOLD THE CONTRACT BECAUSE WE ARE GOING TO STOP THEM. WE'RE NOT GOING TO LET THEM DO IT. WE'RE NOT GOING TO LET THEM DEVELOP OUR MOST VALUABLE RESOURCE IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN. WE WON'T STAND FOR IT. [ APPLAUSE ] OKAY. FREEPORT MCMORAN, SOME OF THE WORLD'S WORLD CLASS CRIMINALS. THE PEOPLE ARE LIKE KISSINGER WAS ON THE BOARD. FREEPORT MCMORAN COMMITTED GENOCIDE. THE FREEPORTS NEAR [INAUDIBLE] RESISTED ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION OF THEIR LAND BY BLOWING UP A COPPER SLURRY PIPE. YOU KNOW THE FREE MOVEMENT OF WEAPON POPLAR, THEY'RE FIGHTING AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT AND NOT ONLY FREEPORT MCMORAN. THE GOVERNMENT RETALIATED WITH BOMBINGS, ACCORDING TO THE INDONESIAN GOVERNMENT... ACCORDING TO THE AUSTRALIAN COUNCIL FOR OVERSEAS AID, THEY WERE ASSISTED BY THE U.S. FREEPORT MCMORAN WHEN THE ARMY ARRIVED AT THE SCENE AND GOT OUT AND SHOT DOWN THOSE PEOPLE THEY GOT OUT OF TRUCKS THAT SAID FREEPORT ON THEM. I DON'T WANT THEM IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN. I HELPED PUT YOU IN OFFICE, I'LL HELP TAKE YOU OUT. YOU KNOW LIKE THAT GOOD ALLUDED TO EARLIER, IT USED TO BE ILLEGAL TO POINT SOMEBODY. IT USED TO BE A HANGING OFFENSE TO POINT SOMEONE'S WELL. [ APPLAUSE ] SO LET'S BRING THAT BACK! [ APPLAUSE ] THESE ARE GENOCIDE-COMMITTING PEOPLE. THEY MOVED -- WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE [INAUDIBLE] WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE MAMIKA, THE [INAUDIBLE] PEOPLE, I DON'T CRY FOR MY BABY, I CRY FOR THOSE PEOPLE TOO. FREEPORT MOVED THEM OFF OF THEIR SACRED MOUNTAIN AND INTO MALARIA INFESTED AREAS AND HUNDREDS OF CHILDREN ARE DYING FROM THERE. LET'S NOT BRING THEM TO AUSTIN. [ APPLAUSE ] [CHEERING AND APPLAUSE]

MAYOR GARCIA: JEFF BROWERS, AFTER HIM IS SCOTT ROUDERS.

THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS. I JUST WANTED TO SAY, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT IS A BAD IDEA TO DEVELOP OVER THE AQUIFER, YOU KNOW, OUR WATER IS OUR MOST IMPORTANT RESOURCE. IT MAKES NO SENSE TO ME WHY THESE GUYS CAN'T FIND ANOTHER PLACE TO DEVELOP, MAYBE YOU GUYS COULD SET UP SOME KIND OF LAND SPOT WITH THEM OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO WHERE THEY CAN DEVELOP IN ONE OF THESE OTHER AREAS, YOU KNOW, LIKE THE STATE SCHOOL THAT IS ABANDONED OUT EAST OF TOWN THAT'S JUST SITTING THERE. THERE'S NOTHING GOING ON THERE. THEY COULD DEVELOP IN THE INTEL BUILDING LIKE SOMEONE MENTIONED EARLIER. WHY DO THEY HAVE TO DEVELOP ON THE AQUIFER? MAYBE YOU GUYS COULD SET UP A DOLE WITH THEM TO WHERE YOU COULD JUST SWAP LAND, YOU KNOW, LEAVE THAT AREA UNCOVERED, YOU KNOW, DON'T DEVELOP ON IT, YOU KNOW, AND AS FAR AS THE POISONS AND THINGS GETTING INTO THE WATER SYSTEM NOW CURRENTLY, MAYBE YOU COULD SET UP SOME KIND OF ORDINANCE THAT WOULD NOT ALLOW PEOPLE WHO LIVE OVER THE WATERSHEDS TO PUT POISONS ON THEIR YARD AND PESTICIDES AND FERTILIZERS AND THOSE THINGS THAT GET INTO OUR WATER SYSTEM AND DESTROY THE -- OUR LIFE FORCE, YOU KNOW. THAT JUST MAKES NO SENSE TO ME WHY YOU WOULD ALLOW SUCH A THING TO HAPPEN. SOMEBODY -- EXCUSE ME. SOMEBODY SAID EARLIER THAT OUR VOICES ARE GETTING SMALLER. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IS TRUE. I THINK OUR VOICES ARE BEING SILENCED BY THESE CORPORATIONS TAKING OVER ALL OF OUR RADIO STATIONS AND AIR WAVES AND NOT ALLOWING ENOUGH INPUT FROM OUR SOCIETY AND IF THERE'S ANYTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT THAT, YOU KNOW, CHECK INTO IT AND SEE IF THERE IS ANYTHING THAT CAN BE DONE. BUT I -- I WOULD STRONGLY URGE YOU NOT TO SUPPORT A COMPANY SUCH AS THIS THAT HAS DONE SUCH TERRIBLE THINGS TO MANY DIFFERENT SOCIETIES AROUND THE WORLD, YOU KNOW. I JUST DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE WISE OF YOU TO SUPPORT SUCH A COMPANY WHEN EVERY PERSON -- WELL, NOT EVERY PERSON. ALMOST EVERY PERSON THAT HAS BEEN SPEAKING HERE, WHICH IS JUST A SMALL REPRESENTATIVE OF OUR SOCIETY, IS AGAINST WHAT IS GOING ON. MAYBE -- MAYBE YOU CAN JUST STAND UP TO THEM AND MOVE THEM ON TO ANOTHER BIT OF PROPERTY THAT IS NOT QUITE SO... [BUZZER SOUNDING] ... IMPORTANT TO EVERYBODY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. [ APPLAUSE ]

MR. SCOTT ROUDER. MR. SCOTT ROUDER AND FOLLOWING MR. ROUDER IS STEPHAN RAY.

THANK YOU. I JUST WANTED TO FOLLOW UP A LITTLE BIT ON SOMETHING THAT PETER STEPHENS MENTIONED, AND SINCE I HAD A LITTLE BIT OF EXPERIENCE DEALING WITH THE TEXAS PARKS AND WILD WITH LIFE DEPARTMENT IN THE FIFTEEN YEARS I WORKED FOR THE SIERRA CLUB BEFORE I LEFT AUSTIN FOR THE FIRST TIME, I HAD TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE CODE HERE, SUB CHAPTER B, PROPERTY OF THE STATE, SECTION 1.011, SUB CHAPTER A, AND IT'S ALL WILD ANIMALS, IF YOU ARE BEARING ANIMAL, WILD BIRDS AND WILD FOWL INSIDE THE BORDERS OF THIS STATE ARE THE PROPERTY OF THE PEOPLE OF THIS STATE AND SUB SECTION B, ALL FISH AND OTHER ADEQUATE TICK -- AQUATIC ANIMAL LIFE IN THE LAKES SUBJECT TO OVERFLOWS FROM RIVERS OR STREAMS WITHIN THE BORDERS OF THIS STATE ARE PROPERTY OF THE PEOPLE WITHIN THIS STATE. I'VE BEEN AWAY FROM AUSTIN ABOUT THREE YEARS AND A LOT HAS CHANGED SINCE I'VE BEEN AWAY. BUT SOME THINGS HAVEN'T CHANGED AND WHILE I'VE SEEN AFTER THINKING THAT OUR CITY MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT SAFER AFTER PUTTING A REALLY GREEN COUNCIL IN THAT WE THOUGHT WE WORKED SO HARD TO PUT IN, THAT COMPROMISES AND DEALS CONTINUE TO BE MADE AND WE CONTINUE TO LOSE THE HILL COUNTRY. AND ESPECIALLY WHEN WE STEP BACK AND LOOK AT WHAT IS GOING ON AROUND US. I THINK WE ALL KNOW WHAT TERRIBLE -- WHAT A TERRIBLE SITUATION WE'RE IN RIGHT NOW. ECOLOGICALLY AND SOCIALLY. BASICALLY, WE'RE IN REAL TROUBLE. AND WE CAN'T -- AND WE -- AND WE REALLY CANNOT CONTINUE TO MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO BECAUSE IF WE DON'T DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT, WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE GOING IN THE DIRECTION WE'RE GOING, SO WHAT DO WE DO? I'M HERE TO ASK YOU TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT. AND YOU KNOW, I'M ASKING YOU TO STEP OUT OF THE STATUS QUO COMPROMISE, PLACE OF COMPROMISE, THIS SERIOUS STATE OF DENIAL AND FEAR AND BEGIN TO MAKE DECISIONS TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON AROUND US. I'M ASKING YOU TO MAKE DECISIONS THAT WILL FAVOR THE 7TH -- GENERATION FROM NOW INSTEAD OF FAVORING THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE DESTROYING THE RESOURCES THAT WE DEPEND ON TO SURVIVE. [ APPLAUSE ] IT'S TIME TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT AND SAY NO AND I MEAN NO. WHAT GEORGE COFFER SAID WAS NOT A NO. I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS A POLITICAL NO. BUT THAT WAS NOT A NO, I'M TALKING ABOUT A NO TO PROTECT THE GENERATIONS YET TO COME. LET'S STOP POISONING OURSELVES AND OUR COMMUNITY. LET'S INSTEAD FINALLY BEGIN TO REDISTRIBUTE THE WEALTH -- I THINK I HAVE THREE MINUTES, MAYBE? [BUZZER SOUNDING]

MAYOR GARCIA: DOES ANYBODY WANT TO CONTRIBUTE? BRING YOUR CARD TO THE CLERK, PLEASE.

LET'S INSTEAD FINALLY BEGIN TO REDISTRIBUTE THE WEALTH IN WAYS THAT WILL EMPOWER COMMUNITIES AND THOSE CULTURES WHO KNOW AND PRACTICE EARTH SUSTAINING LIVING AND CEREMONIES, WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO DEPEND ON THIS CORPORATELY CONTROLLED SYSTEM AFTER WE START GIVING THEM OUR MONEY TO DESTROY AND POINT. WE CAN SEE WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING, COMPROMISING AWAY BIT BY BIT OF OUR LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEM IS NOT GOOD FOR ANYBODY OR ANYTHING ANYWHERE. IF WE DON'T STOP NOW, WHEN ARE WE GOING TO STOP? WE CANNOT AFFORD TO CONTINUE TO SUPPORT A FAILING SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT THAT WE KNOW REQUIRES OUR MONEY AND OUR FEAR IN ORDER TO CONTINUE POISONING OUR LAND, AIR, WATER, WILDLIFE BODIES AND SPIRIT. EVERYTHING WE DO, EVERYTHING WE SAY, EVERYTHING WE EAT, EVERYTHING WE BUY, EVERYTHING WE VOTE FOR SHOULD BE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE SEVENTH GENERATION. LET'S STOP GIVING OUR POWER TO THE CORPORATIONS AND THE SYSTEM THAT IS NOT WORKING. LET'S START GIVING TO IT THE PEOPLE. WE CANNOT CONTINUE TO GIVE OUR MONEY TO THOSE THAT ARE ALREADY RICH AND THOSE THAT ARE EXPLOITING THE PEOPLE THAT DON'T HAVE ANYTHING. WE NEED TO START GIVING OUR MONEY TO THE COMMUNITIES OF COLOR, THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLE AND THE ELDERS AND THE WISDOM OF THE EARTH THAT ALREADY KNOW HOW TO TAKE CARE OF THE EARTH AND WE NEED TO STEP ASIDE AND LET THEM LEAD US OUT OF THIS MESS THAT WE'VE GOTTEN IN BY MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO AND CONTINUING TO GIVE OUR MONEY TO THE PEOPLE WHO ARE TEARING UP THIS WORLD AND WHO THINK IT'S OKAY TO GO TO OTHER COUNTRIES TO KILL PEOPLE IN ORDER TO EXTRACT THEIR RESOURCES FOR OUR BENEFIT. SO I HOPE THAT YOU WILL CONSIDER AND -- AND THINK ABOUT THIS EVERY TIME YOU TAKE A VOTE AND EVERY TIME YOU FEEL LIKE YOUR HANDS ARE TIED AND THERE'S NO DOUBT THAT WE'RE ADDICTED TO THIS SYSTEM AND IT'S GOING TO TAKE SOME TIME TO BREAK THIS ADDICTION. THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT WE HAVE TO BE DEALING WITH A LONG TIME EVEN AFTER WE MAKE THE DECISION TO BREAK THESE ADDICTIONS WITH THIS CORPORATELY CONTROLLED SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT THAT IS NOT WORKING. SO PLEASE TAKE A STAND NOW AND EVEN IF IT'S JUST ONE PERSON, YOU KNOW, ONE PERSON THAT CAN STAND UP AND SAY FROM NOW ON I'M VOTING AND I'M WORKING FOR THE SEVENTH GENERATION, THAT'S WHERE IT STARTS AND I HOPE THAT ONE OF YOU OR ALL OF YOU OR SOME OF YOU WILL CONSIDER THESE THINGS VERY CAREFULLY BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE GOT TO PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT IS GOING ON AROUND US AND WE'RE IN TROUBLE AND WE NEED SOME CHANGE AND WE NEED BIG CHANGE NOW. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. [ APPLAUSE ]

STEPHAN RAY IS THE NEXT SPEAKER SO THAT WE CAN FIND OUT IF ANYBODY WANTS TO CONTRIBUTE TIME IN CASE YOU HAVE MORE THAN 3-MINUTE PRESENTATION, MR. RAY? YOU DON'T NEED MORE THAN 3 MINUTES? OKAY, YOU'RE NEXT. YOU'RE NUMBER 33. >>

MY NAME IS STEPHAN RAY, I'M WITH A PROJECT CALLED ICON MEDIA AND WE ARE WORKING ON A VIDEO PROBABLY ABOUT THE LONGHORN PIPELINE. I'VE WALKED QUITE A FEW SECTIONS OF THE LONGHORN PIPELINE IN TRAVIS COUNTY, ESPECIALLY IN SOUTHWESTERN TRAVIS COUNTY, AND I'VE SEEN QUITE A NUMBER OF THE AREAS WHERE EXISTING HOMES ARE WITHIN 100 FEET OF THE PIPELINE AND IN SOME CASES EVEN WITHIN 50 FEET AND IN SOME CASES BASICALLY RIGHT UP AGAINST THE PIPELINE. THE -- THE REGION VERY CLOSE TO THE PIPELINE IS WHAT IS KNOWN AS THE KILL ZONE IF THERE WERE TO BE AN ACCIDENT. AN EXPLOSION OF THE GAS PIPELINE, EVEN A NEW PIPE, IS NOT OUT OF THE QUESTION. SEVERAL YEARS AGO A NEW SECTION OF LONGHORN EXPLODED IN HOUSTON DURING A TEST. FORTUNATELY NO ONE WAS KILLED. BUT IN WASHINGTON STATE SEVERAL YEARS AGO A PIPE CARRYING GAS DID EXPLODE, BURN AND LEAVE VICTIMS. PART OF THE STRATUS PLAN INCLUDES DEVELOPMENT CLOSE TO THE LONGHORN PIPELINE. EVEN THOUGH THE CITY IS ENGAGED IN A LAWSUIT CONCERNING LONGHORN PIPELINE, WE ARE NOT SEEING THOSE CONCERNS REPRESENTED IN ZONING CONSIDERATIONS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT ALONG THE PIPELINE ROUTE; INSTEAD, WE HEAR THAT THE CITY'S HANDS ARE TIED, THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY CONTROLS SAFETY ISSUES AND THE CITY CANNOT MAKE RULES OR ZONING BASED ON PIPELINE SAFETY CONCERNS. THIS THEME OF THE CITY BEING LIMITED IN ITS ACTION BECAUSE OF STATE LAW OR FEDERAL REGULATION RUNS STRONG THROUGHOUT THIS DISCUSSION. I CAN'T ACCEPT THAT ARGUMENT. IT SEEMS THE COUNCIL SHOULD BE MORE WILLING TO TAKE RISKS AND TO BE LESS FRIGHTENED BY EXTERNAL CONSTRAINTS. PUTTING THAT ASIDE LET'S TURN TO WHAT THE COUNCIL THINKS IT HAS CONTROL OVER, THE EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC MONIES. IN THIS POST 9-11 ENVIRONMENT, IT'S HARD TO JUSTIFY THE $15 MILLION SUBSIDY TO STRATUS. SALES TAX REVENUES ARE DECREASING, COSTS FOR SECURITY SUCH AS POLICE AND FIRE ARE INCREASING, REDUCTION IN SOCIAL SERVICES ARE ON THE HORIZON. HOW CAN WE RATIONALIZE THIS CORPORATE WELFARE STRATUS DEAL IN THE TIME WE ARE IN? I DON'T THINK WE CAN. THE COUNCIL SHOULD ISSUE A MORATORIUM ON ALL NEW DEVELOPMENT OVER THE RECHARGE ZONE UNTIL A COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS COMPLETED. I THINK AS A PART OF THAT DEVELOPMENT AND A PART OF THAT STUDY, I THINK THE CITY SHOULD SERIOUSLY EXAMINE THE FEASIBILITY OF ANNEXING ALL REMAINING UNDEVELOPED LAND OVER THE AQUIFER. I WOULD LIKE THE STAND SILENT IN THE REMAINDER OF MY TIME IN SOLIDARITY OF THOSE WHO ARE UNABLE TO SPEAK THIS EVENING AND HAVE A MOMENT OF SILENCE TO CONSIDER THE SPRINGS.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, SIR. [BUZZER SOUNDING]

MAYOR GARCIA: NEXT SPEAKER IS PAM THOMPSON AND FOLLOWING MS. THOMPSON... [ APPLAUSE ] FOLLOWING MS. THOMPSON IS FRANCIS HANLIN. MS. THOMPSON IS NUMBER 34. WELCOME.

I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY SOME THINGS. THIS IS A PROPOSED -- THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE FIRST READING OF A PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE ON A NUMBER OF PARCELS IN DIFFERENT WATERSHEDS, AND SOME YOU MAY AGREE WITH AND SOME NOT, BUT YOU ONLY GET ONE CHANCE TO SPEAK. ANY NEW PRESENTATION OR CHANGES MEAN THAT PEOPLE SHOULD BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE AGAIN AND SIGN UP TO SPEAK AND... [ APPLAUSE ] ... GENERALLY SPEAKING WHEN THE TIME CHANGES FOR A PUBLIC HEARING, THE CARDS ARE READ AND PUT ON THE BOTTOM AND THE NAME IS CALLED AGAIN AS A MATTER OF COURTESY AND LAST WEEK IT WAS RAINING HORRIBLY AND ALSO THE TIME OF THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CHANGED AND I WAS TOLD TO LISTEN TO THE RADIO TO SEE WHEN IT WOULD ACTUALLY COME UP. I'D LIKE TO SAY THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT ASSUMES THAT THE ZONING IS A DONE DEAL, THE DISCUSSION OF THIS DEVELOPMENT. $15 MILLION IN FEES REDUCTION ISN'T FAIR TO OTHERS. WAIT FOR THAT LAWSUIT IF YOU WANT A LAWSUIT. SUBSIDIZE STRATUS DEVELOPMENT AND THEY GET CITY APPROVAL AND THEN GO TO THE BANK AND GET FINANCING THAT THE MARKET MIGHT NOT BEAR AT THIS TIME. THE CONDITIONS MAY CHANGE. IF LAND IS SOLD THIS APPROVAL DEVELOPMENT WILL DEMAND A HIGHER PRICE AND A NEW OWNER MIGHT NOT AGREE TO THE CONDITIONS AND THEY DON'T HAVE TO. CREATING GRANDFATHERED DEVELOPMENT RIGHT HERE AFTER WE'VE ARGUED SO STRONGLY AGAINST IT, STRATUS IS BLACKMAILING THE CITY OF AUSTIN. THE STAFF IS GIVEN GOOD ADVICE AND THEY HAVE TO PAY $15 MILLION IN FEE REDUCTIONS TO STRATUS TO DO THE RIGHT THING WHICH IS FOLLOW STAFF'S ADVICE. LOTS OF THESE THINGS ARE ON THE DEED RESTRICTIONS WHICH YOU SAY RESOLVED WITH THE MUD AGREEMENT. WHY? THESE RESTRICTIONS SHOULD BE REVIEWED AND FOLLOWED WITH TITLE TO PROTECT THE PROPERTY OWNERS THAT ARE CONCERNED AND CARE ABOUT THEIR COMMUNITY. STRATUS DOESN'T. IF YOU ARGUE 245, THEN WHAT ABOUT DEED RESTRICTIONS? STRATUS SAYS HERE IS WHAT WE CAN DO UNLESS YOU PAY US NOT TO. IF THERE'S A MORATORIUM, THIS DEVELOPMENT, IF YOU APPROVE IT, STANDS. THE CHALLENGE LAWS NOW CHANGE, THIS DEVELOPMENT IF IT'S APPROVED WILL STAND. IF IT'S WRONG, LET'S JUST SAY NO. THE CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT INITIALLY SET A PRECEDENT FOR DENSE DEVELOPMENT. IF THE GREEN SPACE IS LOST, THEN WILL THE REST OF THE GREEN SPACE BE DEVELOPED IN THE SAME DENSITY? THE THIRD PARTY ENFORCEMENT FOR THE CIRCLE C HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION IS RIDICULOUS. IT'S LIKE HAVING THE FOX MIND THE HEN HOUSE. IF THE CITY COUNCIL CHANGES, WILL THE NEW COUNCIL SELL THE PROPERTY? YOU MIGHT NOT ALWAYS BE THERE. AND WE WANT TO PRESERVE THIS. THAT'S THE GOAL. IF WE GIVE UP SO MUCH AND PAY THEM SO MUCH MONEY, WHAT IF SOMEBODY DOWN THE PIKE DECIDES TO CHANGE. THE WILDFLOWER CENTER IS THE MOST TRUSTED, I GUESS, AND THEY DO GET THE MOST PARCELS BUT STILL IN ALL... [BUZZER SOUNDING] ... STRATUS HAS SCREWED US BEFORE. [CHEERING AND APPLAUSE]

MAYOR GARCIA: FRANCES HANLIN AND FOLLOWING MS. HANLIN, MICHAEL ZAKES. MS. HANLIN, WELCOME.

I'M FRANCES HANLIN, ALSO KNOWN AS NUMBER 35. >>[INAUDIBLE]

NO, LAST TIME I WAS 150, I THINK.

AND I WANT TO START BY SAYING SOMETHING YOU NEED TO HEAR AT LEAST ONE MORE TIME TONIGHT. I LOVE BARTON SPRINGS AND THAT'S WHY I'M HERE. I WANT TO ALSO READ SOMETHING THAT APPEARED IN THE AUSTIN CHRONICLE IN 1991. IT SAYS, "HERE WE GO AGAIN, BARTON CREEK, THE PUD BOYS, THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, AN INDECISIVE CITY COUNCIL, THINGS ARE EERILY SIMILAR TO THE WAY THEY WERE. WILL IT TAKE DIRECT ANGRY DEMOCRACY AGAIN TO STOP THESE GUYS? A MASSIVE UPRISING, CITY HALL PARALYZED WITH THOUSANDS OF PHONE CALLS, THE COUNCIL CHAMBER PACKED TO OVERFLOWING WITH HUNDREDS MORE PEOPLE OUTSIDE CHANTING IN THE STREET. IT VERY WELL MAY TAKE THAT AGAIN AND MORE. BUT IT SHOULDN'T. THIS IS WHY WE ELECT LEADERS." THAT WAS WRITTEN BY DARRYL SLUSHER IN 1991. [CHEERING AND APPLAUSE] [CHEERING AND APPLAUSE] I WAS HERE IN 1991. I WAS ALSO HERE IN '89 AND '90 AND '92. I COLLECTED SIGNATURES FOR THE S.O.S. PETITION TO GET IT ON THE BALLOT AND WE'RE ALL HERE AGAIN. AND WE'RE ALL HERE BECAUSE WE ALL FEEL THE SAME WAY. WE ALL WANT THE SAME THINGS, THE VAST MAJORITY OF US. FOR ALL OF THE HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN HERE OVER THE LAST FEW WEEKS, THERE'S THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT HERE FOR WHATEVER REASON, PARTLY BECAUSE THE PROCESS IS SO ENCUMBERING THEY JUST CAN'T FIND THE TIME TO GET DOWN HERE. [ APPLAUSE ] BUT ALL OF THOSE PEOPLE, IF THEY WERE HERE, WOULD TELL YOU WHAT THEY'VE TOLD YOU TIME AND TIME AGAIN AND WHAT I PERSONALLY HAVE COME DOWN HERE AND TOLD YOU TIME AND TIME AGAIN. INSTEAD OF DOING DEALS WITH DEVELOPERS TO FURTHER DESTROY BARTON SPRINGS, LET'S DO A DEAL TO PROTECT THE SPRINGS. [ APPLAUSE ] WHY CAN'T WE HAVE A MEETING AND LET IT GO ON FOR HOURS, FOR DAYS, TO TALK ABOUT WHAT WE CAN DO TO STOP THE DESTRUCTION OF BARTON SPRINGS. THAT'S WHAT WE WANT. AND IT'S VERY SIMPLE. WE WANT YOU TO PROTECT THE SPRINGS. WE WANT YOU TO ENFORCE S.O.S. AND WE'RE NOT GOING AWAY. THANK YOU. [ APPLAUSE ]

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, MS. HANLIN. MICHAEL ZAKES AND FOLLOWING MR. ZAKES IS ROGER [INAUDIBLE] . MR. ZAKES IS NUMBER 36.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR, I'M THE OWNER OF WATERLOO CYCLE, I WOULD LIKE TO READ FROM THE LAST MONTH'S ISSUE OF BIKE MAGAZINE WHICH RATED AUSTIN AS ONE OF THE TOP FIVE MOUNTAIN BIKING CITIES IN THE U.S. A DIP IN THE BARTON SPRINGS FED POOL IS THE PERFECT POST RIDE REFRESHER. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN VERY EASILY LOSE HERE IF THIS GOES FORWARD. YOU KNOW, YOU LOOK AT THE DEGRADATION THAT HAS GONE ON, YOU LOOK AT THE DEGRADATION THAT WILL HAPPEN IF THEY GO IN AND BUILD OVER THE S.O.S. AGREEMENTS THAT IS ON THE TABLE RIGHT NOW. OTHER FACTORS THAT I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'VE BEEN CONSIDERED BUT YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS COVER THAT IS GOING TO GO IN AND HOW THIS IS GOING TO INCREASE THE RUNOFF ANY TIME WE GET A HEAVY RAIN. WHEN I LEFT HOUSTON, WHICH WAS GOING THROUGH A LOT OF SPRAWL AT THE TIME, THEY'RE RUNNING INTO SERIOUS PROBLEMS WITH FLOODING BECAUSE OF THE GROWTH THAT WAS GOING ON. ANY TIME THEY GOT A HARD RAIN, INSTEAD OF WATER SEEPING INTO THE GROUND, IT WOULD RUN OFF AND CAUSE MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF FLOODING. WE'RE ALREADY SEEING THAT THE RAIN WE HAD LAST WEEK WAS A HARD RAIN BUT WE'VE SEEN A LOT HARDER. THINK OF WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE. THERE'S NO WAY THAT WE CAN BACK OUT OF THIS ONCE THEY'VE GONE IN AND PUT ALL OF THIS PROPERTY IN. THEY CAN'T SAY, OH, MY GOD, WE'RE FLOODING, TAKE IT ALL UP. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO ALLOW US TO GO BACK TO WHERE WE ARE, SO WE HAVE TO STOP THIS NOW. ANOTHER THING IS THAT, YOU KNOW, RIGHT NOW, YOU'VE GOT SEVERAL ZONING PROPOSALS ON THE BOARD. ZONING IS A VERY POWERFUL TOOL, YOU CAN USE THIS TO STOP THE DEVELOPMENTS. WHEN THESE PROPERTIES WERE ORIGINALLY ZONED AS RR, YOU KNOW, THE PEOPLE THAT BOUGHT THEM WERE SPECULATING, THEY WERE, YOU KNOW, HOPING THEY SHOULD CHANGE THE ZONES ON THIS AND PUT IN HEAVIER DEVELOPMENT. NOW, IF EVERY TIME SOMEBODY WANTED TO SPECULATE AND BE REWARDED FOR IT, SIGN ME UP, YOU KNOW, I OPENED MY OWN BUSINESS SEVERAL YEARS AGO. I'VE BEEN A TAXPAYING MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY. I HAVEN'T GONE BANKRUPT AND GOTTEN OUT OF MY DEBTS LIKE GARY BRADLEY HAS, AND QUITE HONESTLY I WOULD LIKE TO SIGN UP RIGHT BEHIND PETER STEPHENS IF YOU'RE GIVING THE MONEY AWAY. THAT'S NOT THE WAY DEMOCRACY SHOULD WORK. YOU SHOULD NOT REWARD PEOPLE FOR BREAKING THE LAW, THEY'RE BREAKING S.O.S. AND WE SHOULD STOP THEM. [CHEERING AND APPLAUSE] I WOULD LIKE TO READ ONE MORE THING FROM BIKE MAGAZINE. AND THIS IS ONCE AGAIN THE THING THAT THIS ARTICLE IS WRITTEN JUST BEFORE VALENTINE'S DAY AND SAID WE CONSIDER MID RIDE REST STOPS OUR HONEY BUNCH PERKS. [INAUDIBLE] ... ABOVE A MAJESTIC VISTA WATCHING THE WORLD WITHOUT CIVILIZATION, NASTY FRAME, DOORS, WINDSHIELDS OR TV SCREENS OBSTRUCTING THE VIEW. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. [ APPLAUSE ] [INAUDIBLE] AND MARCIA CIRQUE. WELCOME, SIR.

MR. MAYOR, THANK YOU. ROGER [INAUDIBLE] PUBLISHER OF EAGLE SPEAKER SPEAKING IN STRONG OPPOSITION TO THE STRATUS PROPOSAL. JUSTICE NEED NOT BE AN IMPOSSIBLE DREAM AND YET IT OFTEN IS. I'M AN INDIAN AND AMONG OUR PEOPLE IT'S SAID THAT WE MUST CONSIDER EVERY CHANGE IN SOCIETY UNTIL THE SEVENTH GENERATION AND I WONDER WHAT OUR SEVENTH GENERATION WILL THINK OF WHAT WE DO HERE TONIGHT. [INAUDIBLE] ONE OF OUR GREAT LEADERS SAID ONLY WHEN THE LAST TREE IS CUT, THE LAST FISH IS TAKEN, THE LAST STREAM RUNS DRY, THEN WILL YOU KNOW THAT MONEY CANNOT BE EATEN. [ APPLAUSE ] THAT IS WHAT WE SAY. 12 YEARS AGO A GREAT MOVEMENT WAS BORN AT A MARATHON CITY COUNCIL MEETING, S.O.S., A MOVEMENT DEDICATED TO THE PEOPLE. TONIGHT IT SAD DENS ME TO SEE FORMER FRIENDS AND ALLIES OF THAT MOVEMENT DESERT THEIR LONG CHERISHED PRINCIPLES AND FOR WHATEVER REASON CAST THEIR LOT WITH THE SOUL OF AN UNETHICAL CORPORATION. WHY? WHAT HAS LED YOU TO THIS TERRIBLE THING? IT SADDENS ME TO SEE THE MEDIA PROCLAIM THE DEATH OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT AND S.O.S. AND I SAY TO THEM, THE RUMORS OF THAT DEATH ARE GREATLY EXAGGERATED. [CHEERING AND APPLAUSE] LOOK AROUND YOU. [CHEERING AND APPLAUSE] IF YOU SEEK THE MONUMENT OF S.O.S., LOOK AROUND YOU, HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE HERE LATE INTO THE EVENING NIGHT AFTER NIGHT JUST SAYING NO TO STRATUS, JUST SAYING NO TO CORPORATE WELFARE AND ALL OVER AMERICA PEOPLE RISING UP AGAINST THESE CORPORATIONS, AGAINST THIS EXPLOITATION OF PEOPLE. IN SAN ANTONIO TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE HAVE SIGNED PETITIONS AGAINST THE P.G.A. VILLAGE. IN LUBBOCK PEOPLE ARE SPEAKING OUT AGAINST THE MCDOUGAL PROJECT, BUT HERE IN AUSTIN, OUR SUPPOSEDLY GREEN CITY COUNCIL IS READY TO JUMP IN BED WITH THE DEVELOPERS. SHAME. SHAME. [CHEERING AND APPLAUSE] IF YOU DO THIS SHAMEFUL THING, YOU WILL GET WHAT YOU DESERVE; LAWSUITS AND A RECALL ELECTION. [ APPLAUSE ] AND YOU WILL DESERVE THAT RECALL ELECTION BECAUSE IN YOUR LEATHER -- IN YOUR HEART YOU KNOW WHAT IS RIGHT, AND THAT IS TO SAY YES TO THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE AND JUST SAY NO TO STRATUS. SAY NO TO CORPORATE WELFARE. SO NO TO CORPORATIONS AND DO NOTHING WITH YOUR HORRIBLE OBSCENE PROPOSAL THAT IS BEFORE YOU. YOU KNOW WHAT IS RIGHT, JUST DO IT. JUST SAY NO! [CHEERING AND APPLAUSE]

MAYOR GARCIA: CIRQUE, AND FOLLOWING MS. CIRQUE IS TONI BELL.

ACTUALLY THE NAME IS MARGA CINQUE.

MAYOR GARCIA: IF YOU COULD HOLD A MINUTE, WE'VE GONE BEYOND 10:00, WE NEED A MOTION TO SUSPEND THE RULES. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. OPPOSED, NO. MOTION CARRIES. YOU'RE ON.

MAYOR GARCIA, AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBER, MY NAME IS MARGA CINQUE. THANK YOU, THAT IS A HARD ORATION TO FOLLOW BUT DO MY BEST. I'M A RESIDENT OF HAYS COUNTY, 1826 CORTER, I'VE BEEN IN THE AUSTIN AREA FOR 8 YEARS AND IN HAYS COUNTY FOR 6. I'M A GRANDMOTHER OF TWO, A PEDIATRIC NURSE, I'M A REGISTERED VOTER AND I DO VOTE AND I TRY TO STAY INFORMED OF THE ISSUES. I'VE COME HERE TONIGHT TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION WITH ANY KIND OF DEALS WITH STRATUS FREEPORT AND TO ENCOURAGE YOU ALL TO HONOR THE S.O.S. ORDINANCE AND TO SAVE BARTON SPRINGS AND PROTECT OUR LIFEBLOOD THE EDWARDS AQUIFER. I'VE THREE TIMES BEFORE MET IN MEETINGS WITH THE STRATUS FREEPORT PEOPLE THAT WERE HERE, OH, YES, THEY'RE STILL HERE, I GUESS, AS A MEMBER OF THE FRIENDSHIP ALLIANCE, WE'VE BEEN MEETING TO TALK ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT, THAT STRATUS IS PROPOSING ALONG THE 1826 CORRIDOR. I'VE ATTENDED THE CITY OF AUSTIN ZONING COMMISSION WHICH STRATUS WAS PETITIONING TO HAVE THE ZONING CHANGED FROM ONE ACRE -- ONE UNIT PER ACRE TO ONE HALF UNITS PER ACRE. UNFORTUNATELY WE LOST IN THAT VOTE. SO WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SAY IN PRINCIPLE IS I OPPOSE ANY SUBSIDY OR USE OF TAXPAYER MONEY TO SUPPORT CORPORATION, PARTICULARLY CORPORATIONS THAT ARE GOING TO BE DEVELOPING IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT WILL DESTROY THE HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH WE LIVE. SO JUST AS I WOULD URGE YOU TO NOT SUBSIDIZE STRATUS FREEPORT, I WOULD ALSO SPEAK OUT AGAINST ANY OTHERS GLOBALLY LIKE RJ REYNOLDS AND EXXON MOBILE, IT'S ALL IN THE SAME CAMP AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED. DARRYL SLUSHER, HE SAID IN THE LAST MEETING THAT WE ATTENDED THAT AUSTIN IS IN A FINANCIAL CRUNCH, I HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS WHOLE THING. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AUSTIN BEING IN A FINANCIAL CRUNCH AND MAKING THESE DEALS WITH STRATUS FREEPORT. [ APPLAUSE ] I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SAY THE BARTON SPRINGS SALAMANDER, EVEN THOUGH IN AND OF ITSELF IT SEEMS LIKE SOMETHING INCONSEQUENTIAL TO SOME PEOPLE, BUT IF YOU COULD LOOK AT IT AS MERELY A BAROMETER OF OUR HEALTH AND WATER OF BARTON SPRINGS, WHATEVER HAPPENS TO THE SALAMANDER, IF IT'S GOING TO BE INJURED OR GOING TO BE DESTROYED AND CANNOT LIVE IN ITS OWN WATER, OWN ENVIRONMENT, OWN MICROCOSM, WE CANNOT LIVE AS WELL, SO I URGE YOU TO NOT MAKE ANY DEALS WITH STRATUS AND SAVE OUR AQUIFER. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU. TONI BELL? TONI BELL? FOLLOWING MR. BELL IS MARK GOODRICH. MR. BELL, WELCOME, SIR.

THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, CITY COUNCIL. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A FEW OBSERVATIONS FROM THE LAST MEETING THAT I ATTENDED HERE REGARDING THIS SUBJECT. FIRST OF ALL, JUST LIKE TODAY I SAW THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE TOTALLY AGAINST -- MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE AGAINST THE PROPOSED AGREEMENT WITH FREEPORT MCMORAN, I ALSO SAW A CITY COUNCILMAN ACT DEFENSIVE AND SHOW DISINTEREST IN THE SPEAKERS TALKING, OFTEN TIMES LEAVING THE ROOM FOR EXTENDED PERIODS AND I THINK THAT PERSON IS MISSING AGAIN TONIGHT. I SAW CITIZENS BEGGING FOR THE RIGHT... [ APPLAUSE ]

... AND I UNDERSCORE THE TERM BEGGING BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT MADE ME SAD. I SAW CITIZENS BEGGING FOR CLEAN WATER AND BEGGING FOR A POLICY TO HELP THEM RESIST DEVELOPMENT. I'M NOT AGAINST DEVELOPMENT, BUT I'M AGAINST WRONG DEVELOPMENT AND THIS DEVELOPMENT IS WRONG. THE CITIZENS PRESENTED MANY ARGUMENTS, EVIDENCE, PROOF, SHOWING NEGATIVE RULES WITH CURRENT DEVELOPMENT. I DON'T WANT TO SPEND MY TIME REMINDING YOU OF ALL OF THE ARGUMENTS BECAUSE I SUGGEST YOU REMEMBER THEM. I WOULD ASK THAT YOU TAKE A STAND AND FORCE FREEPORT MCMORAN TO BUILD UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING ORDINANCE IN AGREEMENT OR SIMPLY DON'T ALLOW THEM TO BUILD ANYTHING ELSE. I THINK THAT IS PROBABLY THE BEST THING TO SUGGEST, BUT IT'S UP TO YOU. I MOVED TO AUSTIN 8 YEARS AGO FROM DALLAS AND THAT IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF A DEAD CITY, IF YOU WANT TO PROGRESS IN THAT DIRECTION, JUST LOOK AT DALLAS FOR AN EXAMPLE. [APPLAUSE] I MOVED HERE BECAUSE I WANTED TO IMPROVE MY QUALITY OF LIFE BY MOVING TO A CITY THAT CARED ABOUT ITS AIR, WATER, LAND AND CITIZENS. I'VE SEEN ALL COME UP UNDER ATTACK SINCE I MOVED HERE. THE LAND IS MORE DENSELY POPULATED, THE CITIZENS ARE LESS ACTIVE EXCEPT TONIGHT I FEEL THAT CITIZENS ARE ACTIVE AND IT MAKES ME PROUD TO BE PART OF THAT MOVEMENT. DEVELOPMENT CAUSED THIS AND MORE DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT CHANGE ANY OF THIS, IT WILL ONLY ADD TO THE CURRENT PROBLEMS. THIS IS A FACT. ANOTHER FACT THAT WATER IS THE MOST IMPORTANT RESOURCE TO THIS PLANET AND TO US. IT MAKES IT AN ISSUE OF LIFE OR DEATH. IT GIVES ME THE CREEPS TO THINK THAT YOU MIGHT BE WILLING TO THINK DIFFERENTLY OR BE WILLING TO GAMBLE WITH OUR WATER SUPPLY IN THIS COMMUNITY THAT WE LIVE IN. I GET SOME COMFORT IN IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH ME YOU WOULD BE OBLIGED TO VOTE ON BEHALF OF THE MAJORITY OF THE CITIZENS OF AUSTIN. OR WOULD YOU? I INCEST THAT YOU NOT APPROVE THE AGREEMENT WITH STRATUS FREEPORT MCMORAN. I INSIST THAT YOU REPRESENT THE MAJORITY OF AUSTIN CITIZENS AND THEIR WISHES CONCERNING SAFE, CLEAN, ABUNDANT WATER SUPPLY. THANK YOU. [ APPLAUSE ]

MAYOR GARCIA: MARK GOODRICH. MARK GOODRICH? FOLLOWING MR. GOODRICH, CHRISTIAN DOUGLAS. MR. GOODRICH. MR. GOODRICH, WELCOME, SIR.

MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBERS, MY NAME IS MARK GOODRICH, I WORK AT AUSTIN COMMUNITY COLLEGE, I'VE LIVED IN AUSTIN SINCE 1978. I VOTED IN EVERY COUNCIL ELECTION SINCE I MOVED TO THIS CITY. THIS IS A RARE COUNCIL WHERE I'VE ACTUALLY VOTED AT ONE TIME OR ANOTHER FOR A MAJORITY OF YOU. KIND OF FUNNY THAT PEOPLE COME HERE TONIGHT AND AREN'T ABLE TO SPEAK BECAUSE OF THE VARIOUS RULES THAT THE PAPER I BELIEVE SUGGESTED TODAY, THAT IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER AND WHAT THE PEOPLE HAVE TO SAY DOESN'T REALLY MATTER. PHILOSOPHICALLY I'M OPPOSED TO SUBSIDIES OF TAXPAYER MONEY FOR SITUATIONS THAT THE TAXPAYERS DO NOT APPROVE OF AND THAT DAMAGE OUR ENVIRONMENT. AND THAT'S ABOUT ALL I HAVE TO SAY TONIGHT. YOU KNOW WHAT TO DO -- OH, THE MORATORIUM, I THOUGHT WAS A GREAT IDEA. WHEN I READ ABOUT LAKE TAHOE I THOUGHT ABOUT WHY CAN'T WE DO THAT? WELL, WHY CAN'T WE DO THAT? [CHEERING AND APPLAUSE]

MAYOR GARCIA: CHRISTIAN DOUGLAS.

HE JUST GAVE ME THE REMAINDER OF HIS TIME.

MAYOR GARCIA: I'M SORRY, I COULDN'T HEAR YOU.

HE WOULD LIKE TO YIELD THE LAST TWO MINUTES TO ME.

MAYOR GARCIA: IF YOU TURN IT OVER TO THE CITY CLERK THEN SHE'LL GIVE IT TO ME.

HE'S YIELDING HIS LAST TWO MINUTES TO ME.

MAYOR GARCIA: IT WAS 1:45.

THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: OH, OKAY. PUT 5 MINUTES UP SO THAT HE CAN HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO ...

MY NAME IS BUD LANGLEY AND I REPRESENT THE --

MAYOR GARCIA: SORRY, THE PERSON -- ARE YOU ON THE LIST SOMEWHERE?

NO, AGAIN --

MAYOR GARCIA: THE 1:45.

THAT'S RIGHT.

MY NAME IS BUD LANGLEY, WE REPRESENT ALMOST 2,000 HOMEOWNERS THAT BORDER THESE PROPERTIES. WE WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE BOOK DOOR NEGOTIATIONS THAT STARTED TWO YEARS AGO. WE WERE NOT INCLUDED. WE WERE NOT INCLUDED. YOU DID NOT INCLUDE US. BECAUSE OF THAT, WE, OUR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION GOT A BUM DEAL. CIRCLE C HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, PIPER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, THEY HAVE A SCHOOL ZONE, THEY HAVE ALL KINDS OF FANCY RADAR GUNS TO PROTECT THEIR CHILDREN. OUR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, NOTHING. WE DON'T EVEN GET A SCHOOL ZONE. LET ME SAY THAT AGAIN. [ APPLAUSE ] MILLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL WHERE OUR CHILDREN GO TO SCHOOL DO NOT EVEN GET A SCHOOL ZONE FROM THIS DEAL. THAT IS HOW MUCH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD HAS BEEN OVERLOOKED. WHEN I WENT TO MEETINGS AND PARTICIPATED IN THEIR STAKEHOLDER PROCESS I HAD TO GET UP AND SHOW THE COMMISSIONERS WHERE MILLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL WAS. THEY HAD NO IDEA. OUR CHILDREN HAVE TO WALK ACROSS ESCARPMENT BOULEVARD AND RISK THEIR LIVES SO THAT STRATUS, SITTING RIGHT HERE, LYNN SWAN, LORI SWAN, TAKE A GOOD LOOK AT HER, SHE'S ONE OF THE PEOPLE DOING THIS TO THE CITY OF AUSTIN SO THAT THEIR COMPANY CAN MAKE A BUCK.

AUDIENCE: BOO.

MAYOR GARCIA: SIR, CAN YOU TALK TO US INSTEAD OF POINTING TO PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE.

CERTAINLY.

MAYOR GARCIA: GO AHEAD.

OUR CHILDREN ARE AT RISK. THAT IS NOT THE ONLY ISSUE WE BROUGHT UP... [BUZZER SOUNDING] AND... NEXT WEEK I INTEND TO TELL YOU THE REST OF THE STORY. IF ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO YIELD THEIR TIME I WOULD BE WILLING TO SPEAK MORE ON THIS ISSUE.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU, SIR. CHRISTIAN DOUGLAS. [CHEERING AND APPLAUSE] CHRISTIAN -- CHRISTIAN DOUGLAS. MR. CHRISTIAN DOUGLAS.

MAYOR, THE NEXT SPEAKER MAY OR MAY NOT BE COMING UP, I SEE THE CITY MANAGER GOING OVER TO TALK SCHOOL ZONES ARE NOT DEPENDENT ON ANYBODY'S ZONING CASE. THAT IS A CITY THING.

MAYOR GARCIA: YES. KIMY ALLEN MARLO AND THE LAST SPEAKER IS JANET HAMPLE. IS CHRISTIAN DOUGLAS HERE? MR. MARLO, WELCOME, SIR.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. IT'S MY BIRTHDAY TODAY.

AUDIENCE: HAPPY BIRTHDAY.

WELL, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED BARTON SPRINGS IS MY CHURCH. [ APPLAUSE ] I SAY THE WHOLE WATERSHED IS MY CHURCH AND IT'S THE TEMPLE WHERE I GO TO PRAY. YOU KNOW, YOU CAN BUILD ALL YOU WANT OUT THERE, JUST BUILD IT OKAY. YOU CAN BUILD UP THE WITHHOLD AQUIFER. IF YOU WANT TO MAKE IT LIKE THIS BUILDING? I WANT TO SEE GRAVEL ALL OVER THE TROPES OF THE ROOFS, I WANT TO SEE WATER TRICKLING DOWN FROM EVERYBODY'S ROOF. I WANT TO SEE XERISCAPING OVER THE ENTIRE AQUIFER. I DON'T WANT TO SEE ANY POISON PUT ON ANYBODY'S YARD. THIS IS ME LIVING HERE. I DROVE A CAR. I DID THIS TOO. YOU KNOW. MINIATURE AQUIFERS ON EVERYBODY'S HOUSE. I LIKE THAT. AS MUCH RAIN WANTS TO COME, SITS THERE AND TRICKLES DOWN REAL SLOW, REAL SLOW. YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T NEED A RUNOFF LIKE THAT. YOU CAN DO YOUR STREETS, YOU CAN DO YOUR GUTTERS, YOU CAN DO YOUR STREAM, HAVE A LITTLE LAKE ON TOP OF YOUR ROOF JUST LIKE THAT, 2 OR 3 FEET OF WATER WHEN IT RAINS LIKE THIS. YOU KNOW IT WILL GET DEEP. YOU KNOW HOW THE WATER COLLECTS LIKE THAT. YOU KNOW. I WANT TO APOLOGIZE TO THE NEXT GENERATION FOR THE WAY WE TREATED OUR LAND. YOU KNOW, I'M SORRY THAT WE DIDN'T TEACH OUR CHILDREN HOW TO TAKE CARE OF THIS LAND. IT'S NOT JUST HERE, IT'S ALL OVER THE PLACE, AROUND THE WHOLE WORLD, THE WHOLE COUNTRY, WE'VE TAUGHT OUR CHILDREN THAT MONEY IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING. YOU KNOW, GROWTH, WE BASE OUR LIVES ON GROWTH AND PROFIT, YOU KNOW. I WANT TO APOLOGIZE TO THE NEXT GENERATION OF CHILDREN WHO MIGHT LOOK AT THIS BARTON SPRINGS, THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO SPRING OVER THERE. MCKINNY FALLS STATE PARK, YOU CAN'T GO SWIM THERE ANYMORE. FIFTY YEARS AGO, YOU COULD. [BUZZER SOUNDING. [ APPLAUSE ]

IS CHRISTIAN DOUGLAS HERE? OKAY. COME ON UP. FOLLOWING MR. DOUGLAS IS JANET HAMPLE. MR. DOUGLAS IS SPEAKER NUMBER 41. WELCOME, SIR.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I MOVED TO AUSTIN NEARLY 12 YEARS AGO AND FIVE MONTHS BEFORE THAT I HAD MOVED FROM SANTA CRUZ CALIFORNIA TO PORTLAND, OREGON, WAS PLANNING TO SETTLE THERE, BUT A GOOD FRIEND OF MY ATTENDING THE UNIVERSITY INVITED ME TO COME VISIT, I NEVER HAD A BIG POSITIVE IMPRESSION OF TEXAS, I THOUGHT IT WAS FILLED WITH A BUNCH OF RED NECK, HONESTLY, BUT I EXPECTED TO LIVE THE REST OF MY LIFE ON THE WEST COAST WITH THE MOUNTAINS AND THE BEAUTY. WHEN I CAME TO AUSTIN I WASN'T OFF THE PLANE MORE THAN AN HOUR AND MY FRIEND HAD ME IN BARTON SPRINGS. IT BLEW ME AWAY. THE CLARITY OF THE WATER WAS STUNNING. IT AFFECTED ME. SOMETHING SHIFTED INSIDE ME. IT WAS DRAMATIC. AND -- AND WHEN I GOT IN THE WATER IT WAS EVEN MORE PROFOUND. SO THERE WERE CERTAINLY OTHER THINGS THAT DREW ME TO AUSTIN, THE MUSIC AND THE WONDERFUL PEOPLE AND THE BRIGHT FRIENDLINESS, BUT IN ALL HONESTY BARTON SPRINGS WAS A MAJOR DRAW. AND IT'S ESPECIALLY TO MOVE HERE AFTER SO FEW MONTHS IN PORTLAND, YOU MAY ALSO REMEMBER ABOUT FOUR YEARS AGO THERE WAS SOME TIBETAN MONKS HERE. THEY CAME DOWN, THEY LEFT HALF OF THEM DOING SANMANDELA. THE REST CAME DOWN TO BLESS BARTON SPRINGS. WHEN HE SAW BARTON SPRINGS HE IMMEDIATELY RECOGNIZED IT US A SACRED PLACE AND DECIDED TO GO BACK, GET THE OTHER MONKS, GET THEIR MORE ELABORATE GOWNS AND TO TREAT THIS AS HE SAW IT, AS A SACRED PLACE. IS ANYBODY UP THERE LISTENING? AM I BORING? EVERYBODY IS LOOKING AT THEIR COMPUTERS. [CHEERING AND APPLAUSE] IT DOESN'T FEEL RESPECTFUL. [ APPLAUSE ]

MAYOR GARCIA: WE'RE ALSO GETTING E-MAILS FROM PEOPLE ON THIS PARTICULAR SUBJECT AND WE'RE TRYING TO KEEP UP.

OKAY. I APPRECIATE THAT. BUT IT'S NICE TO GET SOME EYE CONTACT, TOO. I MEAN IT IS FACING THIS DIRECTION.

E-MAIL PEOPLE... [INAUDIBLE]

IT'S MY THREE MINUTES. I MEAN THIS WAS SIGNIFICANT TO ME TO SEE HOW THIS IMPACTED TIBETAN MONKS THAT HAVE PERCEPTION BEYOND WHAT WE SEE IN OUR CULTURE. I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG WITH MAKING MONEY. MY BROTHER IS A DEVELOPER. HE TELLS ME EVERYBODY NEEDS HOMES. EVERYBODY NEEDS TO LIVE SOMEWHERE. AND THAT IS TRUE. THE TRUTH OF THE MART IS DEVELOPERS DON'T BUILD DEVELOPMENTS AND HOUSES TO HOUSE PEOPLE, THEY DO IT TO MAKE MONEY, AND IT'S UPSETTING TO ME TO SEE SUCH -- WE LIVE IN A VERY SPECIAL PLACE. THIS AQUIFER IS SOMETHING THAT EO WILSON, ONE OF THE DISTINGUISHED SPEAKERS AT THE UNIVERSITY.

MAYOR GARCIA: LET ME SEE IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO GIVE YOU THREE MINUTES. DOES ANYBODY OUT THERE HAVE A CARD THEY WANT TO GIVE -- LET ME GIVE YOU ONE MINUTE TO CLOSE.

THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU. AND HE WAS AN EXPERT IN THE ENVIRONMENT. HIS SHOW WAS SOLD OUT, HIS TALK WAS SOLD OUT AT UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS. I HEARD HIM ON KUT. HE WAS MENTIONED A FEW THINGS AROUND THE COUNTRY, ONE OF THE THINGS HE MENTIONED THAT WAS A ENVIRONMENTAL GEM THAT WAS BEING THREATENED WAS THE EDWARDS AQUIFER AND BARTON SPRINGS. OF ALL THE THINGS THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE NATION THAT WAS ONE OF THE KEY AREAS THAT HE WAS FOCUSING ON. THIS IS A GEM, THIS IS A TREASURE. I KNOW THAT YOU'VE GOT A LOT UP AGAINST YOU. I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF FORCES WORKING TOWARDS THIS DEVELOPMENT, BUT MY GOD, WE HAVE TO FIGHT FOR WHAT IS IMPORTANT AND WHAT ELSE COULD BE MORE IMPORTANT THAN PURE WATER AND A BEAUTIFUL GEM LIKE BARTON SPRINGS? [CHEERING AND APPLAUSE]

MAYOR GARCIA: YOU'RE ALSO USING UP HIS TIME.

THEY SAY THAT ENVIRONMENTALISTS MAKE DIFFICULT NEIGHBORS... [BUZZER SOUNDING] ... AND THAT COULD BE TRUE, BUT ENVIRONMENTALISTS MAKE GREAT ANCESTORS AND I THINK WE SHOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT WE LEAVE BEHIND. [CHEERING AND APPLAUSE]

MAYOR GARCIA: JANET HAMPLE. JANET HAMPLE. JANET HAMPLE.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL, MY NAME IS JANET HAMPLE.

MAYOR GARCIA: THERE YOU ARE. WELCOME.

THANK YOU. I'M HERE TO URGE YOU TO VOTE AGAINST THE STRATUS DEAL AND ANY OTHER DEAL THAT COMES ALONG THAT HAPPENS TO BE IN THE MOST SENSITIVE PART OF THE RECHARGE ZONE. IT'S JUST A MISTAKE TO EVEN CONSIDER IT. THEY'RE AN UNETHICAL CORPORATION. WE SHOULDN'T BE GIVING THEM ANY DEALS. WE SHOULD BE MAKING IT REALLY DIFFICULT FOR THEM TO DO WHAT THEY'RE DOING. I MEAN WE SHOULD BE A REAL PAIN IN THE BUTT FOR THEM. [CHEERING AND APPLAUSE] WE DON'T WANT TO GIVE THEM ANY DEALS. WHAT I WANT TO SAY IS ALL DEVELOPMENT HAS CONSEQUENCES. IT'S UNAVOIDABLE AND WHAT EVERYONE NEEDS TO KNOW IS S.O.S. PROTECTION IS NOT JUST HAVE. IT'S A REALLY GOOD START. IT'S WHAT WE HAVE, AND WE SHOULD USE IT TO THE GREATEST EXTENT THAT WE CAN. AND ESPECIALLY SINCE THIS IS RIGHT OVER THE MOST SENSITIVE PART OF THE RECHARGE ZONE, WE REALLY NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE VERY CAREFUL. WE DON'T GIVE THESE PEOPLE ANY DEALS THAT ARE GOING TO HURT OUR ENVIRONMENT, BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY IN BAD SHAPE. AND I WANT TO SHOW YOU SOME FILM FOOTAGE THAT WE BROUGHT ALONG TONIGHT. IT WAS TAKEN LAST WEEK WHEN WE HAD HEAVY RAINS AND FLOODING. AND THIS WAS SHOT IN THE PARKING LOT OF BARTON SPRINGS POOL. THESE ARE OPEN SEWER LINES THAT FLOWED ACROSS THE PARKING LOT INTO THE POOL AND THIS IS JUST ONE OF THE HORRIBLE DISASTERS THAT HAPPENS. I MEAN IT'S -- IT'S NOT -- YOU CAN BLAME PEOPLE FOR IT, BUT THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN IN MUCH GREATER -- WHAT'S THE WORD -- FREQUENCY, IF MORE DEVELOPMENT IS PUT UP OVER THE AQUIFER.

AUDIENCE: THAT'S RIGHT. [CHEERING AND APPLAUSE] ACTUALLY THOUGHT THERE WAS GOING TO BE SOME DIALOGUE WITH THIS, BUT I GUESS THERE'S NOT. MANMADE CONTROLS AND ARTIFICIAL PROTECTIONS WILL MOST CERTAINLY FAIL AGAIN. AND WE JUST -- WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING... [BUZZER SOUNDING] ... LEFT TO SPARE. WE REALLY HAVE TO BE CAREFUL. IT'S JUST A DELICATE BALANCE.

MAYOR GARZA: THANK YOU. ROSINA NEWCOME? [CHEERING AND APPLAUSE] ROSINA NEWCOME?

MAYOR GARCIA: PLEASE. PLEASE TAKE YOUR SEATS. [CHANTING]

MAYOR GARCIA: ROSINA NEWCOME.

YES, SIR.

MAYOR GARCIA: I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO PLEASE KEEP ORDER IN THESE CHAMBERS. THANK YOU, MS. NEWCOME WELCOME.

THANK YOU. THANKS FOR GIVES US THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE THANKS TO OUR CREATOR FOR THE BEAUTY OF BARTON SPRINGS AND EVERY SPEC THAT IS NATURAL SPACE THAT IS LEFT TO US ON THIS EARTH. I HARDLY EVER GIVE THANKS TO CONCRETE. I GIVE THANKS FOR CLEAN WATER AND ALL THE PEOPLE HERE WHO HAVE THE GUTS AND THE GENEROSITY AND THE WISDOM TO SPEAK UP FOR DOING THE RIGHT THING. I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO GIVE EVERYONE THANKS. [ APPLAUSE ] YOU MIGHT HAVE GUESSED I ALREADY -- YOU MIGHT HAVE GUESSED ALREADY I OPPOSE THE STRATUS FREEPORT MCMORAN DEVELOPER TO DEVELOP OVER OUR AQUIFER. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'VE BEEN IN THIS PROCESS. I'M AWE STRUCK BY THE WISDOM OF THESE PEOPLE SPEAKING HERE. THESE PEOPLE HAVE DONE THEIR HOME WORK. THESE ARE WISE PEOPLE WHOM YOU SERVE. I'VE WORKED AT THE NATURAL GARDENER FOR OVER FIVE YEARS NOW. THIS IS A NURSERY IN SOUTH EAST AUSTIN. IT'S AN AUSTIN INSTITUTION, NOT TO BE COMPARED WITH BARTON SPRINGS. BARTON SPRINGS IS THE GRAND INSTITUTION. BUT I DO GIVE MR. COUNCILMAN SLUSHER CREDIT FOR RECOGNIZING THAT WE CITIZENS DO HAVE THE POWER TO CHOOSE WHETHER OR NOT WE PUT WEED AND FEED OR SCOTTS TURF BUILDER OR ANY OTHER POISONS IN OUR YARD WHICH WILL END UP IN THE AQUIFER. I HAVE A FEELING HERE THAT THESE FOLKS WHO SPOKE IN FAVOR OF BARTON SPRINGS USE THESE PRODUCTS. I DO APPRECIATE COUNCILMEMBER SLUSHER ENCOURAGES US TO AVOID THESE POISONS. WE'RE SWIMMING IN A WHOLE LIST OF THINGS THAT PROBABLY CAUSE THE CANCERS THAT ARE IN AUSTIN RIGHT NOW. THE POWER IN THIS PROPOSAL IS IN YOUR HANDS NOW, THOUGH. I HAVE A FEELING THAT IF ALL OF THESE CITIZENS TONIGHT WHO ARE SPEAKING FOR BARTON SPRINGS HAD THE POWER TO SIGN OFF YEA OR NAY TO THIS PROPOSAL THE ANSWER WOULD BE NAY. IT WOULD BE YES OR NO, IT WOULD BE NO.

AUDIENCE: NO!

I HAVE A FEELING IT WOULD BE NO. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE ELECTED YOU AND I ENCOURAGE YOU TO DO THE RIGHT THING AND SPEAK UP FOR THE CITIZENS AND -- AND WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR. THANK YOU.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU. CHRIS [INAUDIBLE] CHRIS [INAUDIBLE] ?

MAYOR GARCIA: FOLLOWING IS STEVE NEIMYER ACOSTA. THANK YOU, SIR.

PLEASE SPEAK TO THE COUNCIL.

MAYOR GARCIA: OKAY.

LET'S SEE. I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THIS, YOU LOOK AT THE TV RIGHT UNDERNEATH ME WHEN I'M TALKING IT STAYS STRATUS PROPERTIES AND HOPEFULLY NOBODY CONFUSES THE SPEAKERS IN FAVOR OF STRATUS PROPERTIES THERE. I JUST WANTED TO TALK AGAIN ABOUT WHO STRATUS PROPERTIES IS. SOME PEOPLE KNOW IT, BUT THEY USED TO BE CALLED FM PROPERTIES AND BEFORE THAT THEY WERE FREEPORT MCMORAN PROPERTIES, AND SUPPOSEDLY THEY'RE NOT THE SAME PEOPLE ANYMORE, BUT...

AUDIENCE: THEY ARE.

YEAH. EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT THEY'RE STILL LINKED TOGETHER AND THAT FREEPORT MCMORAN IS A HUGE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION THAT COMMITS GENOCIDE IN OTHER COUNTRIES. SOME OTHER PARTNERS THEY'VE WORKED WITH IS HENRY KISSINGER WHO ENGINEERED WAR IN INDONESIA AND LIKE I SAY THEY HAD EXPLOITATION IN PAPA NEW GUINEA IN COUNTRIES LIKE THAT WHERE THEY DID THE GOLD MINING. A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO A LARGE CITY OF TORONTO, ONTARIO, AND THERE WERE A FEW INTERESTING THINGS THERE. FIRST OF ALL, THEY HAD A REALLY NEED PARK SYSTEM. THERE'S SOME MAJOR RIVERS THAT FLOW THROUGH THERE TO LAKE ONTARIO THERE, AND I BIKED DOWN A COUPLE OF THEM. I WENT UP THERE TO SEE -- I MEAN, FOR ONE TO GO SEE CANADA, AND ALSO TO SEE THIS TOWN THAT SUPPOSEDLY HAD SOME REALLY COOL BICYCLING GOING ON AND THERE'S SOME CRAZY THINGS I SAW THERE, LIKE ALONG THESE RIVERS YOU COULD GO DOWN THE TRAILS AND YOU DIDN'T EVEN KNOW YOU WERE IN A CITY OTHER THAT A COUPLE OF LITTLE SIGNS SAY YOU WERE WERE IN TORONTO. YOU COULDN'T SEE THESE STUPID MANSIONS YOU SEE OUT HERE IN WEST AUSTIN FROM THE RIVER. A LONG TIME AGO TORONTO REALIZED THEY HAD TO DO SOME RESPONSIBLE CITY PLANNING. THEY EVEN HAVE A MUSEUM THERE ABOUT SPRAWL. AN ENTIRE MUSEUM ABOUT SPRAWL IS PRETTY AMAZING AND Y'ALL SHOULD GO SEE IT SOME TIME BECAUSE IT -- I HAPPENED TO BE RIDING MY BIKE AND I SAW THIS MUSEUM AND I CHECKED IT OUT AND I WAS AMAZED THAT SOMEBODY HAD STUDIED THAT MUCH AND REALIZED I WAS THAT IMPORTANT. ANOTHER THING I WAS DOWNTOWN, I SAW PEOPLE IN SUITS BICYCLING TO WORK, I SAW THE MAJOR CORPORATIONS WITH TEN SETS OF BIKE RACKS FILLED WITH BIKES AND ANOTHER THING I WANTED TO SAY I SAW A SOUVENIR SHOP THERE WITH JOKES ABOUT FREEPORT MCMORAN BECAUSE FREEPORT MCMORAN TRIED TO SCAM -- THEY DID SCAM A LOT OF INDONESIA --

MAYOR GARCIA: WOULD YOU PLEASE CONFINE YOUR REMARKS...

AND MADE IT... [CHEERING AND APPLAUSE]

MAYOR GARCIA: MR. ACOSTA, WELCOME, SIR.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH., MR. MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBERS, AND MAYOR GARCIA, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK TONIGHT. I ORIGINALLY SAID I WAS JUST OPPOSED BUT YOU GRACIOUSLY ALLOWED ME TO SPEAK LAST WEEK SO I APPRECIATE IT. I ALSO WANT TO TELL YOU THAT I'M PROUD TO HAVE YOU AS OUR FIRST LATINO ELECTED MAYOR IN AUSTIN AND I WANTED TO TELL YOU... [ APPLAUSE ]

I FIGURED THIS MAY BE THE ONLY CHANCE I GET TO SUCK UP IN PUBLIC SO I'M GOING TO DO THAT [LAUGHTER] I'M ONLY GOING TO SPEAK TO ONE ISSUE. AND I HAD A PROFESSOR IN SCHOOL ONE TIME, SHE WAS A PRETTY GOOD SPEAKER. HERE IS WHAT SHE SAID ONE TIME IN A SPEECH. EARLIER TODAY WE HEARD THE BEGINNING OF THE PREAMBLE TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. WE THE PEOPLE. IT'S AN ELOQUENT BEGINNING BUT WHEN THAT DOCUMENT WAS COMPLETED ON THE 17TH OF SEPTEMBER IN 1877. I WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THAT WE THE PEOPLE. I FELT SOMEHOW FOR MANY YEARS THAT GEORGE WASHINGTON AND ALEXANDER HAM MILTON LEFT ME OUT BY MISTAKE, THROUGH THE PROCESS OF AMENDMENT, INTERPRETATION AND COURT DECISION I'VE FINALLY BEEN INCLUDED IN WE THE PEOPLE. THAT WAS BARBARA JORDAN IN THE HOUSE JUDICIARY IMPEACHMENT SPEECH IN 1973. [ APPLAUSE ] . I LIVE IN THE NEW VILLAGE AT WESTERN OAKS AND WHEN I BOUGHT MY HOUSE OUT THERE I WAS NOT PART OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN. THROUGH ANNEXATION I BECAME A PART OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND I KNOW AT LEAST TWO OF THE FOLKS UP HERE TONIGHT WERE AT THE ANNEXATION HEARING WE HAD IN AUSTIN WHEN Y'ALL CAME OUT IN THAT COLD TENT IN THE WINTER. LIKEWISE, WHEN THESE HEARINGS, THESE PROPOSALS BEGAN WITH STRATUS, WE WERE NOT INCLUDED IN NEGOTIATIONS. WE WERE INCLUDED VERY LATE. SORT OF A RULE OF THUMB OF NEGOTIATIONS IS IF YOU DON'T HAVE ALL THE STAKE HOLDERS IN THE PROCESS, THEY AREN'T VERY GOOD -- IT ISN'T A VERY GOOD NEGOTIATION. WE WERE LEFT OUT. TO PUT IT MILDLY, WE WERE CHUMPED, AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE DEVELOPMENT THE WAY IT'S PLANNED, IT'S ALL STUCK UP RIGHT NEXT TO MY NEIGHBORHOOD. ALL OF IT. ALL THE FREE STUFF, ALL THE UNCOVERED STUFF IS IN CIRCLE C'S AREA. I WONDER WHY. IN A DEMOCRACY, IT'S IMPORTANT TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF A MINORITY. I AM A MINORITY IN THIS PROCESS. I'M A MINORITY, PERIOD. I THINK TO THE EXCLUSION OF MY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND THIS PROCESS UNTIL VERY LATE A TRAGEDY AND I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE CITY COUNCIL TO STAND UP FOR MINORITY RIGHTS SO THAT WE THE PEOPLE IN THIS PROCESS COULD INCLUDE MY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THANK YOU. [ APPLAUSE ]

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU. I'M GOING TO -- I'M GOING TO READ A LIST OF PEOPLE THAT UNDER THE RULES THAT THE COUNCIL PASSED HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SPEAK TONIGHT. IF YOU'RE HERE, PLEASE COME UP. MARCO [INAUDIBLE] . REGISTERED AGAINST. MIKE AVEDA, REGISTERED AGAINST. CHRIS BARKER, REGISTERED AGAINST. STEPHEN BELL, REGISTERED AGAINST.

AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]

YOU ALREADY SPOKE? OKAY. TOM BOSEMAN, REGISTERED AGAINST. I'M READ FROM THE LIST GIVEN TO ME. RUTH CHAFFIN, REGISTERED AGAINST. ELAINE CHAMBERS REGISTERED AGAINST. LEE DANEA, REGISTERED AGAINST. GRIFFIN DAVIS, REGISTERED AGAINST. MICHAEL GRISH, REGISTERED AGAINST. AISHA GANNELL, REGISTERED AGAINST. BRIAN HAMMER, REGISTERED AGAINST. JANET HAMPLE -- I'M GOING TO READ THE NAMES, AND IF THEY'RE FOR IT, I'LL LET YOU KNOW. [LAUGHTER] [ APPLAUSE ] FRANCIS HANLIN, MICHAEL HANLIN, NICOLE HOLT, TOM HORR, DAN KELLY HOLT, HAL HORWITH. JULIE HORWITH, JAY ADAMS KIRKPATRICK, LARRY LANE. KEVIN LEWIS. ANNA MARTIN, JENA MARTIN. RANDI MARTINEZ. CATHEDRAL MCWORTER. JAMIE MITCHELL. A AMANDA MOORE. READ MURRAY. I THINK ROSINA NEWCOME SPOKE. JEFF SPOKE. HE SPOKE. ROBERT [INAUDIBLE] . PENNY ROGALLA. DANNY ROJLA. JASON SAKO. SHELLEY SALLY. SONIA SANTANA. PAUL SHIRLEY. MICHAEL CEANO. DARRYL SMITH. JOHN SOULE. KARIN SOULE. ALITHA ST. ROMAINE. PAUL TRESKY. JOAN WAGNER. HELENA WILL KINS. ALLEN WINGS. R. ALLEN YOUNG. MR. YOUNG IS REGISTERED IN FAVOR OF. AND MICHAEL ZAKE SPOKE. AT THIS TIME I'M GOING TO CALL ON THE APPLICANT ON THE BEAR LAKE PUD, MR. DRENNEL FOR REBUTTAL.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. I'M STEVE DRENNER SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF STRATUS PROPERTIES. YOU KNOW, WE'VE HAD OVER 11 HOURS OF PUBLIC COMMENT AND I'VE HAD LOTS OF TIME TO THINK ABOUT HOW TO USE MY FEW MINUTES ON REBUTTAL AND I GET MY OVERRIDING THOUGHT IS AUSTIN IS NOT EASY. YOU'RE TOLD THAT YOU DON'T DO ENOUGH TO SAVE THE SPRINGS BY MANY WELL-MEANING PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN NEIGHBORHOODS WITH HIGH IMPERVIOUS COVER DIRECTLY OVER THE AQUIFER WITH NO WATER QUALITY CONTROLS. THOSE VERY NEIGHBORHOODS BEING THE BIGGEST CONTINUING THREAT TO THE SPRINGS.

MAYOR GARCIA: HOLD IT JUST A SECOND.

YOU'RE TOLD YOU MUST ENFORCE THE --

MAYOR GARCIA: JUST A SECOND, MR. DRENNER. COMMON COURTESY SAYS YOU ALLOW THEM TO SPEAK. THEY DID NOT INTERRUPT YOU WHEN YOU SPOKE. PLEASE ALLOW TO SPEAK. MR. DRENNER.

AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]

YOU'RE TOLD THAT YOU MUST ENFORCE THE S.O.S. ORDINANCE BECAUSE IT'S THE SOLUTION FOR SAVING THE SPRINGS EVEN THOUGH THE PROPOSAL THAT IS IS BEFORE YOU GOES FAR BEYOND THE S.O.S. ORDINANCE IN CREATING PROTECTIONS FOR THE SPRINGS. YOU'RE TOLD YOU MUST TURN DOWN THE PROPOSAL BECAUSE THE $15 MILLION FINANCIAL PACKAGE IS TOO PENSIVE EVEN THOUGH THAT FINANCIAL PACKAGE WAS PUT ON THE TABLE TO BUY DOWN DENSITY THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED UNDER THE CITY'S STRICTEST ORDINANCE, THE ORDINANCE THAT PEOPLE POINT TO AS THE PANACEA FOR THE ILLS OF THE SPRINGS, THE S.O.S. ORDINANCE. THOSE SAME PEOPLE COMPLAIN ABOUT THE FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF THIS PROPOSAL BECAUSE IT -- AND IGNORE THE FACT THAT IT PURCHASES DENSITY THAT WAS VALUED AT $25 MILLION AND IT PURCHASES IT FOR $15 MILLION IN FOREGONE FUTURE REVENUE. THOSE SAME PEOPLE WHO COMPLAIN ABOUT THE FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF THIS DEAL FOLLOW THE LEAD OF BILL BUNCH WHO ADVOCATES SPENDING MORE MONEY IN FIGHTING AT THE COURTHOUSE AND IN FIGHTING AT THE LEGISLATURE AND THEN... [CHEERING AND APPLAUSE] -- AND THEN PROPOSES THAT THE CITY PURCHASE THE PROPERTY OUTRIGHT. [CHEERING AND APPLAUSE] THOSE SAME PEOPLE ACCUSE STRATUS, A COMPANY WHAT HAS SPENT IN EXCESS OF TWO YEARS AND IN EXCESS OF $2 MILLION TO FORMULATE A PROPOSAL THAT BALANCES THE COMPLICATED NEEDS OF THIS COMMUNITY AND ALL THOSE THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED BY THE DEVELOPMENT ACCOMPANY THAT RIGHT OFF THE TOP EXPERIENCES A $10 MILLION WRITE DOWN AGAIN FROM THE VALUE THAT COULD BE ACHIEVED UNDER THE CITY'S STRICTEST ORDINANCE AND ACCUSES THAT COMPANY OF BEING A BULLY AND A PREDATOR AND A CRIMINAL AND A PIRATE AND WORSE. [ APPLAUSE ] WHEN FACED WITH A PROPOSAL THAT IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO ATTACK ON ITS MERIT, THOSE SAME PEOPLE RESORT TO BRINGING UP GUESTS OF DEVELOPERS PAST EVEN THOUGH GHOSTS HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS PROPOSAL OR THIS COMPANY. [BUZZER SOUNDING] SO, NO, AUSTIN IS NOT EASY. I WOULD SUGGEST TO YOU THAT A CLOSE INSPECTION OF THIS PROPOSAL WILL LEAD YOU TO CONCLUDE -- LEAD YOU TO THE SAME CONCLUSION THAT WAS REACHED BY THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION AND THE CITY'S ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD AND THIS IS THAT THIS PROPOSAL MERITS YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU, MR. DRENNER. HOLD IT. THERE'S ONE MORE SPEAKER THAT I NEED TO RECOGNIZE. WOULD YOU ALLOW ME RECOGNIZING SOME OF THE LISTS THAT COME DOWN. MS. HENDERSON DIDN'T HAVE YOUR NAME. SO BARBARA ANDERSON, WHO IS NUMBER 16, I SKIPPED YOU BUT THEN.

THANK YOU SO MUCH, MR. MAYOR.

MAYOR GARCIA: THANK YOU FOR REMINDING ME.

THANK YOU, COUNCIL, FOR YOUR ATTENTIVENESS TONIGHT. (ONE MOMENT, PLEASE, FOR CHANGE IN CAPTIONERS...)

mayor garcia: The next item are questions for staff or for our attorneys. Let me go back here. Items 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 -- 2, those are the agreement items -- 29, those are the agreement items. Are there any questions for staff on the agreement items? There were some -- during the time between the last time that we met, which was in -- on June the 11th -- I mean July 11th and this meeting -- wait a second. Today is July 11th. It's late. From the last meeting to now, there has been some discussions about some possible changes that could be made to the agreement, so let me invite councilmembers to put those items on the table so we can talk about it. Anybody want to --

Slusher: Mayor, I'm going to have some stuff like that. I think the mayor pro~tem has some questions, and I have some questions of the city manager.

Mayor Garcia: Okay. We're going to go into the question and answer period. Mayor pro~tem.

Goodman: I have a lot. Some are probably short and some are probably long. Why don't I just kind of list the ones that were more important to me and let staff figure out how they want to prioritize these or sort of consolidate maybe. There have been a lot of questions about the pipeline, and if we have the map, I think that will help on most of my questions as well. I think what we need to see, number one, is where the pipeline is and what the setbacks are here in this proposal, with the relative setbacks for the people who have this stuff going to their backyards and things like that so we can get a good handle on why this is different. I wanted to look at the specific tracts and look at exactly where the setbacks are for the Circle~C folks as opposed to the -- so I could tell the difference. If there is a clearer definition of option tracts, I would like to know that. Environmentally, what we're talking about here is S.O.S., but with the clustering provision. And so I would like the specific environmental features to rain or conditions of the tracts that have been chosen for clustering. And I'm told that there is specific language or has been proposed specific language preceding 1704/245 rights, and I don't have my agreement draft with me so I would like to know about that. And if there is a planning definition of regionally -- well, let me try to change that. Regional magnet development, if you understand the concept I'm trying to get at, versus captured land use so we can talk about real traffic generation and what the potential is for different kinds of land use. There is also the issue of a funding mechanism to guarantee perpetual performance, maintenance and so on through third-party administration and enforcement, and that I know is a question for the developer. And I think those are good to start.

Slusher: Mayor?

Mayor Garcia: Councilmember Slusher. Put your Mike on.

Slusher: I think it is now. I was going to ask the mayor pro~tem's permission tore indulgence that her questions are very detailed in nature, and I've got some that are broader about the -- any potential alternatives that some of the speakers have brought up. I was wondering if she would let me take staff through them while they get ready to answer detailed questions.

Goodman: That's fine with me.

Slusher: What I've heard is don't do any incentives. Rural residential, potential land swap. And hope for a miracle, I think I heard that too. So Ms. Futrell, could you talk about the incentives first? Because I think the $15 million we hear people talk about because one thing I've heard a lot and read in some ads and e-mails, quite a few e-mails, is that we're paying Stratus to develop over the Edwards Aquifer. That we're paying them with city tax dollars and utility funds to build over the aquifer, subsidizing development over the Edwards Aquifer where city policy is we don't want it. Could you or someone on your staff address that issue?

Futrell: Vicky, I think I'll ask for to you follow-up and I'll give an overview. That way we can also do a Claire fire on one of the questions raised about the $1.5 million annual cap. It's really not different than what many of you have said, and I don't know how else to describe it to you. The -- obviously the reason we went to the table was to try to find a way to reduce what we thought was the potential threat of the development. And it was in particular the density. That was the primary goal. There are many other things in the proposal, but if you cut to the chase, went to the bottom line, it was trying to reduce the square footage, the density. Overall the impervious cover is about the same and there are other smaller things in the agreement. We took the density that was possible based on the fish consultation, not the grandfathered rights, but the fish consultation. And maybe -- actually Vicky, let me reverse this. Unless I know I'm going to -- let's at least show what we're talking about on the three benchmarks of density. Then we'll go back to the finances. Instead of working some grandfathering we tried to work from the fish consultation possibilities. And we took comp of appraised values in the area. We had our appraisers -- in fact, we had three different appraisers take a look at those comps and tell us if they were legitimate, in a range of what the market would bear. In all except for one area where we had a difference of less than a dollar on the units, we were able to validate those values. That's where you've heard the $25 million figure. Then we did a discounted model based on risk and building out over time and dropped it down to 15.

Slusher: Ms. Futrell, if you will forgive me for interrupting, I do want to hear the detail on this, but the first -- first off, I want to make it clear, are we paying Stratus city money to develop over the aquifer, or are these incentives to lower the amount of development?

Futrell: Obviously what we're trying to do is buy down the density we believe can occur from these state grandfathered claims with the fish consultation overlaid out. So it was proposed as a buy-down.

Slusher: And the fish consultation is that S.O.S. levels of development with the clustering we discussed previously?

Here's where I'll let Les walk you through the three different benchmarks. We're going to need Les' Mike on.

Mayor Garcia: Can you give some volume to that Mike?

Is it on now?

Yes.

The bar charts I have here display comparisons of office, retail, multi-family and single-family development under three different scenarios. Officially when we began looking at -- initially when we began looking at this development we started with what was considered the S.O.S. fish and wildlife consultation numbers, what development we believed could be constructed, what could be built on the Stratus tracts give ten level of impervious cover, the development agreement that had been worked out with the fish and wildlife service. Under that agreement, on the Stratus properties, we saw that somewhere between 1.8 to 2.1 million square feet of office space could be constructed. While under the agreement, we now have limited that to 750,000. For retail space, under S.O.S. and fish, approximately 310,000 square feet of office space could be constructed under the agreement, that is 250,000. 1200 multi-family units could be constructed under the fish consultation while the agreement is limited to 900. And 1100 single-family units could have been constructed while under the agreement it's limited to 830. I should say that in each of these case or in the case of S.O.S. fish consultation that's based on the assumption the zoning would be in place for these particular land uses. As a comparison, the bar charts on the bottom show what was originally conceived under the M.U.D. land plan, again based on the types of land use, the fares and density ratios that were shown.

Which were maximum, which has been brought up.

Clearly were indicated as the maximum possible under the original M.U.D. agreements. If you have questions.

Slusher: What were those maximums? I'm sorry, Ms. Futrell.

Under the M.U.D. plans provided for -- M.U.D. land plans and I should say the preliminary plans for the two tracts that were in Circle~C west, which were tract 115 and 114, approximately 8 million square feet of office, then almost 1.7 million square feet of retail, 2800 units, multi-family units, and at that time there were no single-family units identified in the original M.U.D.

Slusher: Okay, so go through those, if you would, and compare it to then what came out of the -- what fish and wildlife approved for Stratus. 8 million of office.

Then down to approximately 1.8 to 2.1 million square feet of office.

Slusher: So about a fourth.

For the retail, about 1.7 million to about 3-point -- excuse me, 310 to 320,000 square feet.

Slusher: About a fifth of that.

And a total of 2800 multi-family units, and under the combined fish it was approximately 2300 units. So roughly, again, probably about a fifth.

Slusher: And then I think there wasn't single-family in the M.U.D. land use plan, not on these properties.

That is correct, no single-family identified in the M.U.D. agreements.

Slusher: And what about in the fish?

In the fish agreement, because of the, if you will, the conversion of the two tracts that were in Circle~C west or the one tract 115 from office research development uses to single-family, there were 1100 single-family units.

Slusher: Okay, now would you then compare what fish approved to what is in the proposal before us?

Okay. Again, approximately 2.1 million square feet of office space is approved. Could have been built, we believe, under the fish agreement with those impervious cover, with 750,000 under the proposed agreement of office space. Retail, 310,000 square feet compared to 250,000 square feet of retail. 1200 multi-family units compared to 900 under the agreement. And 1100 single-family compared to 830 under the agreement.

Slusher: Okay.

Futrell: The focus of the density buy-down, and I think at this point because of what question was raised and almost every one of the speakers who came forward has to do with the zoning. The difference between the grandfathering and zoning and how and why they are overlapped as we talk bit. And Greg, do I have you out there? Greg, I want you to kind of correct me or add to this, but we really had two issues with the zoning. One, the new version of 1704, the one that was repassed by the state legislature after the inadvertent repeal that had happened two years of about. They passed it a new and improved version of it that included a zoning reference. In fact, a zoning reference very much tailored to these particular tracts. In addition to that -- and this is real aprocess question. -- really a process question. When we annexed these M.U.D.s in 1997, Circle~C was annexed the same time the village of western oaks and southland oaks where cherry creek at Brodie lane is, so all three of these. The city initiated zoning, which is our practice, on the M.U.D.s based on the M.U.D. land use plans for both the village of western oaks and southland oaks not any different than this. And they were virtually passed very, very small changes, in fact I think in particular in the village of western oaks, based on the M.U.D. land use plan. Something else that is important to understand because I've heard the word "upzoning" a great deal, when you annex -- when you annex tracts of land, you don't give permanent zoning. You put the land -- or we do in our practice for 20-plus years, put the land in a holding category. So for example primarily if it's commercial, retail or multi-family, it will go into a holding category called interim rural residential. In almost no case is that land permanently zoned rural residential. It is a holding pattern. In fact, it doesn't even give the owner zoning petition rights. It is not permanent zoning. You are really zoning for the first time when you take these lands from the interim category into the zoning category. And in the case of all the other M.U.D.s in this area, also over the Barton Springs zone, they were zoned according to their M.U.D. land use plan. You layer that on top of this new and improved clause in house bill 1704 that ties grandfathering to zoning, that part of the risk factor that we took into consideration as we evaluated the strength of their claims versus whether or not we should try to find a compromise. What was the risk, what was the gain. Is there anything, Greg, to add to that?

I guess I would say in 1997 when we annexed the village of western oaks, some of those tracts ended with less density that was shown in the original M.U.D. land plan even though it might have been initiated that way and it had to do with the village of western oaks, the residents in those areas negotiating I think at that time with Lumbermen's investment. And actually having some of the tracts that may have been higher in height, may have been negotiated to be lesser in height. And some of the actual density and some of those tracts to be reduced. Also there was some tracts that actually came to the City of Austin to preserve some of the --

It was a [INAUDIBLE] preserve if I remember correctly that we spent a lot of time working on in that area. But overall, the general practice --

That's correct, the general practice was that we did initiate the zoning on the village of western oaks on southland oaks M.U.D. and some other M.U.D.s in that same time period in the 90s. The city -- and the zoning that ended up on mostly those tracts is very similar if not identical to the M.U.D. planned plans that were originally approved prior to annexation.

So now you have fish consultation that comes in and they've lowered it even further. They've become sort of the overriding bench marks. We started from there -- what people were telling us that the largest concern was was the level of office. What kind of a primary employer or what kind of a draw would that level of office be, 2 million square feet of office. So we focused with looking for buying down that density primarily on office. You will see a much less reduction on retail, but we worked through no big box retail, trying to avoid something the mayor pro~tem asked about in her question, which was a regional draw. In other words, no home depots or a large shopping facilities that would draw people. Instead retail that would serve the people who live in the area. And then there's a different mix obviously between the multi-family and single-family. From that let me move to the financial. Vicky, if you can just walk through the financial package.

Good evening, mayor and council. Just to cover quickly the incentive package itself, then the estimated revenue that we would bring in as a result of this development and kind of the net impact to the city. As we talked about last week, the total incentive package is about 15.37 million. 5.4 of that is in development and other fee waivers. And that would not be money we are paying out but rather money we are not collecting. 1.5 million is for a chiller that Austin energy would install if Stratus chooses not to install that chiller they would be entitle to do additional fee waivers. Additional in water and water and wastewater fee waivers, money we would not be taking in rather than we would be paying out. 3.6 million in on and off-site water extensions. And that is money that we would pay as a reimbursement as various extensions to the water systems are built out.

And just to clarify on this, we also spent a great deal of time trying to make sure that the water improvements would not be something that would further additional development. In other words, increase the capacity for centralized water in the area. The two issues that these water improvements are tied to is a second waterline, basically a fire flow requirement for 110, not a capacity improvement. That's where almost all of it is. The second had to do with water pressure problems, issue on one corner of the tract land.

The last piece is .37 million for reimbursement for right-of-way for south bay lane. That will be money that is coming out of our C.I.P. program and one of the action items that you have as a budget amendment moving money from a completed project where we had excess funds into this project so that we can spend it.

I saw -- I'm going to try to do some clarifying. I saw an E-mail the other night that said we were buying the right-of-way and building the road. We are not building the road. Stratus is building the road. We are buying the right-of-way for the road and that's the 327 --

371.

71,000.

Thousand, I'm sorry. Bottom line is no property or sales tax is used to fund the 15 million. We have attempted to mitigate the impact of some of the fee waivers by setting a cap of $1.5 million per year on those fee waivers that the developer could use or sell in the desired development zone.

Explain that a little more because that was also something that we tried to put in in order to encourage this to be used in the desired development zone rather than where these properties are, which is in the drinking water protection zone over the Barton Springs aquifer.

If Stratus as they choose to build out their properties in the water quality protection zone, they can use those fee waivers as the economy supports their buildout. Anything -- any fee waivers beyond that can be used in the desired development zone to help steer the development in that direction. And we limited them to $1.5 million per year of those that they could sell in the desired development zone to help spread it out over a number of years so we didn't take a large reduction in fees in any one year over the next few years. Finally just to talk about it, because this will be drawn out over several years, have to take the time value of money into account, the net present value. If you look at net present value of the deal, you can reduce the out -- I guess the 15 million by about a million and a half dollars. And so that is just knowing that because we're not allowing all the fee waivers to occur in the first year, we hold on to the money, we're able to earn interest on that and it kind of offsets some of the fees that we don't get in future years.

So councilmember, that's the -- those are the density scenarios. That's the short explanation, the connection to zoning. The practice of what we've done with the M.U.D. land use plans, and then the financial package and how it's tied with the buy down density.

Slusher: On office it started about 8 million under the M.U.D., land use plan it went down to around 2, a little less than 2. Under the fish approval, and then it went down to 750,000 under the agreement with the buy-down from the incentive package. Okay. Now I have another question along the line of the alternatives that has to do with what would the city gain, what would be gained for aquifer protection if the city or let's just say if 245 were ruled to not apply? Or chapter 245, house bill 1704, if it was ruled by a court that that didn't apply in this case, and if I'm going to look at this two ways. The first one is going to assume the zoning. And then we'll go into if it was rural residential after that. But assuming the M.U.D. land use zoning, Ms. Futrell, could you answer that question?

Question, based on the analysis that I've done, looking at a tract by tract compliance strict S.O.S., we would anticipate that the amount of development that could occur on these tracts was very, very similar to what could have been accomplished with the clustering proposal under the fish and wildlife agreement. Over 2 million square feet on office on combined tracts, 326,000 square feet of retail, over 800 multi-family and almost 1300 single-family homes could have been constructed within S.O.S. impervious cover limits. And complying with S.O.S. water quality controls.

What was in that analysis, just so we're clear on what scenario you talked about, what was the assumption on zoning.

The assumption in that case was that the zoning would have been in accordance with what we have today, M.U.D. land plan type zoning.

Slusher: And would you go through those one by one and what's -- what you would get under S.O.S. tract by tract and then -- which would be S.O.S. tract by tract if 245 did not apply, and what then with the agreement.

Would it be better to put the map up and walk through the tracts? So people can see a visual?

[INAUDIBLE].

Well, the question that is being raised is give you a minimum. And obviously the M.U.D. land use plans laid out the plan for these tracts. In these M.U.D. land use plans, unlike any other I've seen, they were very unique in a number of ways, one of which is they actually had notes and restrictions that talked about density per acre. They also talked about floor to area ratio. I can't think of another M.U.D. plan that had those definitions. Because of those features you actually get to a square foot of use. The further you go down on what your minimum is is the closer and closer you get is your risk factor. I guess is the best way to talk about it. It's at what point have you taken it past what the grandfathering locked you into on zoning. I think a lot of people, we all want to believe that we have local control over local development. And the fact of the matter is these state grandfathering laws strip that from us. They can actually strip zoning from home rule cities. And -- and as we've talked about before, the city's record on fighting bracketed and regulations that take away local control is probably the best in the country, and I know it's the best in the state. But we also do a risk analysis on each and every thing as we move forward. And each of you will have to make up your own mind as you find the facts of whether or not the risk is worth it to you.

[INAUDIBLE].

And that's true. We've heard what you said.

Slusher: And keeping in mind that this right here is if the risk were taken that chapter 245 were declared to not apply in this case, then what could Stratus build there assuming this zoning, and in a few minutes we'll go into if it was zoned rural residential. Would you go through each category and state both the figures?

Let me just clarify and make sure I'm going to answer the right question. You are asking to a tract by tract basis what could be built under strict S.O.S. compliance and then what is proposed as the limits or what would be built under the agreement?

Slusher: Not tract by tract, category by categoriment and the difference between the -- well, there's one difference between tract by tract compliance and the agreement or between -- tract by tract, strays S.O.S. and et cetera -- straight S.O.S. and the agreement, that is the clustering where they are allowed to build more on some tracts and that gets other tracts freed up totally undeveloped in perpetuity. And we can talk about that, we talked about that last week, what are the benefits, what's the debate over that. But what I wanted to get right now, then I was going to ask you, I was talking about what is gained or not gained, and then I want to talk about is in this agreement that we wouldn't get if we -- if it was just straight tract by tract S.O.S. compliance.

All right. So in terms of the total amount of development that we estimate would be built under a tract by tract analysis, we estimate there would have been almost 2.05 million square feet of office agreement compared to the agreement which is 750,000. 326,000 square feet --

Mayor Garcia: Could we have more volume on that Mike, please. Okay.

326,000 square feet of retail space compared to 250,000 under the agreement. S.O.S. strict compliance would have given 8 -- a little over 800 multi-family units. In case there are 9 ununder the agreement. 1288 single-family residences while 830 under the agreement.

Slusher: So everything is higher under the tract by tract S.O.S. except the apartments?

That's correct.

Slusher: Okay. What about if we say we're not going to do it? That we get the -- I'm sorry, we get the tract by tract -- [APPLAUSE]

Slusher: You all listen to what we have to say here. We don't do the agreement, 245 is ruled to not apply, and that's -- there's some big hurdles to get over, let's just say that happens, okay, we still make them go tract by tract S.O.S. and get more development of everything except apartments. You get 100 more under the agreement than tract by tract S.O.S. Everything else is higher. But what do you not get under the tract by tract that's in the agreement?

A number of things. First of all, staff believes there are benefits to getting the 148 acres of open space.

Slusher: Could you point to those?

Those tracts are tracts 104 and 105 at Escarpment adjacent to the metropolitan park.

Which were -- Les, if you can remember, weren't those originally office in the M.U.D. land --

Both of those tracts were originally indicated as office in the M.U.D. land use plan. Tracts 109, which is within Circle~C. Tract 111, tract 112, and tract 113.

On tract 112, because on the old M.U.D. land use plans there were some questions about whether that was green space or critical water quality, we did not strip the impervious cover as part of the overall calculation. But it is less green.

That is correct. In terms of other benefits, there are the variety of setbacks that have been proposed, in many cases far exceeding what the city minimum code standards would have been adjacent to neighborhoods. We are getting green builders, there are green builder standards including native plant pallets, a number of other things including guaranteed funds for maintenance which are being developed, and also -- I'm not sure how far the list goes. A number of other things.

Trail connections.

Yes, trail connections across 102 to our prop 2 tracts. There is negotiated trails along with 112. To reiterate, some of these -- madame city manager, no big box, the donation of an elementary school, option for middle school on another tract. Those sum up the majority of the other positive benefits.

Slusher: Okay. Now, let's say that that hurdle were cleared, 245 doesn't apply. I'm not going to ask [INAUDIBLE] to come up again tonight, but -- and then there was another pretty serious hurdle there to -- if the city were to try to zone this rural residential, okay? When we've talked about some of the risks involved in that. But what would you get under rural residential? Would there be, for instance, less impervious cover under rural residential than under the straight tract by tract S.O.S. with the zoning or under the agreement, would there be less impervious cover?

The estimates we have done where rural residential requires a minimum lot size of one acre on the area zoned. Looking at that and calculating what would be the estimated amount of square footage on lot along with making estimates with regard to roadways, we would anticipate there would be somewhere from 700 to 1100 houses on the 1200-plus acres. And those would utilize all of the impervious cover that is allocated to this. So they would be at S.O.S. levels of impervious cover.

Slusher: Well, now, in order to do that, to get to 15% in the parts over the recharge zone, so that would be 15% of an acre with impervious cover. And that impervious cover of course includes driveways, if they had a pool, anything that is not natural cover. But how big -- let's make sure we're being realistic when we say that. How big would a house have to be to when you count the house and the driveways and that sort of thing, what kind of house are we talking about?

In general what would probably be a home in the 3,000 square foot range.

Slusher: Okay. So one thing you would have -- you wouldn't have all this commercial development, but you would still have the same amount of impervious cover most likely.

That's -- we would estimate that under a situation where you zoned rural residential, the natural thing would be for a developer to maximize the building potential in that situation and utilize every bit of the impervious cover.

Slusher: Okay. What about -- seems like the native plants agreements, what about people not being able to put chemicals on their lawns? How would that compare to in the agreement?

In in case, there would be the standard S.O.S. requirements, which through the subdivision process there would be an overall ITM plan developed. It would not be the specific plant pallet, the plant list that is being incorporated into the agreement, in this case limited on these commercial properties. That would be the -- pretty much the sum total of what the city can do in terms of limiting pesticide applications.

Les, say what IPM is.

Integrated pest management.

Slusher: I just have -- I think I'm down to one more question and I'll turn it over the the mayor pro~tem. Ms. Ma Carolinian to come, would you talk about clustering? MCCLINTOCK. That's the Stratus under the agreement is developing it S.O.S. minus what is taken off by the incentive package, but they do get to, as I said before, cluster where the tracts Mr. TULL showed are preserved undeveloped in perpetuity, but they get to build more on some other tracts. So Ms. MCCLINTOCK, the city's biologist, could you talk about how you see clustering and how it does or doesn't protect water quality?

The important thing that clustering does in any scenario is to leave some areas of open space completely undeveloped. That's important for a number of reasons. Perhaps the most important is that it eliminates the construction -- eliminates the construct exact, the loads of suspended solids that result in construction. It's probably the most -- at least one of the most significant impacts of development. So with clustering, the total area disturbed ground significantly decreases. The other thing that you get of course with the open space is that you get a lot of tangential benefits like wildlife habitat that is not fragmented and the preservation of the natural and traditional character of the hill country. Those are other city goals that are further back. Additional open space. I guess since we've spent our 65 million in prop 2 funds and there's no easy money -- funds and there's no easy money laying around for open space acquisition, I'm really convinced that we need to start thinking about clustering as a way to preserve open space for Austin and for the aquifer. Those are the high points, but I think that clustering is something that across the country people are -- planners and environmentalists are looking more and more to for the same reasons I just mentioned. And I think the city should take a second look at it.

Slusher: So I see you working to save the springs and take a number of other bodies of water, all the waterways in Austin, I see you working hard on that really every day. And I know you really believe in what you are doing. Do you think that clustering in this agreement protects Barton Springs and protects water quality?

I do. I mean I think in particular the two important things -- the clustering with the additional density decreases that we're seeing with the 15 million incentive package are what I think is going to result in a total -- in the water quality benefit that you are looking for.

Slusher: Okay. And you think it protects the water quality at least as well as S.O.S., which is -- has long been said to be a non-degradation ordinance.

Yes, sir, I do.

Slusher: Thank I. I just want to point out and then I'll turn it over to Mayor Pro Tem Goodman, since S.O.S. and it was pass odd this presumption, this non-degradation ordinance, meaning if a development complies with S.O.S., then water quality doesn't degrade as a result of that development. But what we have here is Stratus developing under strict S.O.S. except for the clustering that she just discussed. Now, there are some that disagree with us, but on a -- on a 245 challenge, where if it was ruled -- well, let's say the argument would be that they need to comply, Stratus needs to comply with S.O.S. That's something I've said over and over again for the last ten years since S.O.S. passed. That Stratus needs to comply with S.O.S. So they are complying with it in every way except that they cluster, which we've seen means we get to have tracts that are adjacent to our preserves that the city spent 65 million to purchase 15,000 acres, they are adjacent to our city parks in this area. And also there's one setback from the neighborhood. So you get those areas preserved in perpetuity, and then you have the clustering as a result of that Ms. MCCLINTOCK says protects the aquifer taken springs. In order to argue, saying they are not complying strictly with 245 and this will be the death of the aquifer, what they are saying is clustering could kill the aquifer. Because that's the only difference between strict S.O.S. compliance and what's on the table right now. And that would also be a high hurdle to clear in court, frankly, to go in there and say, you know, they need to comply with S.O.S. Well, they are complying with it except for the clustering.

[INAUDIBLE]

What about traffic?

Slusher: We've had about 13 hours of testimony. I would appreciate if the elected representatives would deliberate on this very important topic. If we're going to make a decision based on what we think is in the best interest of the springs, we'll probably do it quicker if we get to discuss this without the -- everybody talking at once, let's say. Mayor pro~tem, I'm done for now.

Goodman: Okay. And let me say that because of my inability to read my own notes, there are actually three questions that I left out. One of them was to check on the green building level, and that was whether or not they got the silver leads or not. And two of them -- two questions came up out of some of the speakers' comments. When Jim Collette was here, he had a presentation on toxic materials within the sediment. And the implication or the impression of that -- excuse me -- visual presentation reminded me of when we asked for whether the scientists were getting any closer to telling us why the salamanders and the frogs and the fish were getting those oxygenated internal bubbles, the memo that we got at that time pretty much said we have all these great minds and all these great institutions working on it and none of them can tell us anything. So I was wondering if we had gotten past that. And if there is any monitoring of water quality to tell us whether or not the sediment that would come in a rain event like we just had is actually toxic enough to raise it to beyond E.P.A. levels. Because that was sort of what the implication was. And if there was a chart, and I don't expect an answer tonight on this because I know you don't have the data on you, but to get to the E.P.A. levels, which are beyond the unsafe levels, what would that chart have had to show from where we were last time water quality was checked for those components, and, you know, how close we are to the levels that are unsafe and unacceptable. And then the other one was a legal question, and that had to do with when Peter said yes, there is actually a basis for saying we own the wild animals. Well, we, it was property of the state, which that doesn't help me much. If it was property of the city, I would feel much better. But can we carve that out in any way since we're a piece of the state, not state government, but we do have people in the state who live in this city. So I was wondering about the legal grounds of claiming ownership of salamanders that are being damaged. Knowing that you would have to kind of prove some things scientifically there, which is why I asked about the water quality. But back to the ones from before, can we talk about pipeline setbacks?

Mayor pro~tem, Greg is going to talk -- he will cover the pipeline setbacks and map and talk a little about some comparisons and if I understand this correctly, Greg, from the new village of western oaks and Circle~C what has been negotiated differently in terms of setbacks there, if I understand the two things that you are going to cover.

That's correct. Let me speak to the pipelines. There are primarily three pipelines that traverse the property. The one who gets the most discussion is the Longhorn pipeline and I'll cover it in more detail in a second. But this is from 1826 Mopac is over here, to the north is the village of western oaks, Circle~C north, and the Longhorn pipeline cuts through tract 102, then cuts along the southern boundary of the village of western oaks, across the top of 103 and 106 and travels on to the east. It's approximately 60 feet wide of an eastment, 30 feet of which is on the north side, which actually is in the backyards of the homes in the village of western oaks and 30 feet that crosses to the south and goes through some of the homes in Circle~C and the Stratus properties. The other two are the Phillips pipeline and the shell pipeline, and they are very close together. They cut towards the bottom of 102 coming across, cut through the lower portion of tract 103. This is where Escarpment could potentially go through. And then -- potentially go through and across through tract 107. This is a survey of tract 102. The large water tank that is at slaughter and 1826 is up in this area. This is Circle~C north, barstow coming down, the village of western oaks is over here. This is the Longhorn pipeline that would cut through. On the lower pipelines, the shell and Phillips are further down. They have similar a 60-foot easement area. As you jump a little further to the east and show you this is tract 106 and 107 is further to the south, and this is the Longhorn pipeline. Mopac is along this area. These are the apartments that are within the village of western oaks that are constructed and then the single-family homes in the village of western oaks are located in that area that currently terminates at the pipeline of Longhorn pipeline. This exhibit depicts the village of western oaks to the north and tract 103 immediately to the south. Escarpment dead ending at this point and Escarpment coming up with slaughter along the south. The Longhorn pipeline -- slaughter along the south. The Longhorn pipeline, you can see some of the houses actually constructed within the village of western oaks. According to had photo there are houses developed almost all the way across with the exception of one or two lots. You have the Phillips pipeline that cuts through at this point and the shell pipeline that cuts through along this line. Now I would like to talk to you about society setbacks that have -- some of the setbacks that have been discussed. Currently in the City of Austin we have compatibility standards, and in general they provide for larger tracts of land such as you would have on 103. A 25-foot setback from residential. There would be a -- set back would provide a setback for parking or single-family or one story or two story buildings from single-family homes. That's depicted by a white line that you see from the rear of the property lines of these single-family homes. In this particular case, Longhorn pipeline actually goes five feet further so they could actually -- it's doubtful they could build any kind of building over that pipeline. Zoning and platting commission and with the staff recommendation recommended a setback of 100 feet for any parking. That's this red line that you see. Then the yellow line is 150-foot setback for any building. For 40-foot-tall building and the zoning on this is recommended for LRMU, which would allow building height of 40 feet. If you had a 40 "foot building this would set back substantially a farther distance. Normally you are only set back 50 feet for a 40-foot building or approximately a three-story building. This is suggesting 150-foot. I was provided by Stratus this evening additional options that have been given to the village of western oaks, to Stephanie stone, I understand is on the board, for tract 103. They provided I guess two options that dealt with building and parking. There is a 175-foot setback, parking setback under one option and a 225-foot building setback, buildings were limited to three stories in height so this goes a little further out for both the parking, which would probably be a distance of about this far, and then buildings going out 225 feet, which are probably looking at some point out this far from the homes. The second option was offered was 125-foot parking setback, which would be between the red line and the yellow line. Then 175-foot building setback for two-story buildings, and as you progressed further away to a point 200 feet back, then the buildings could go up to a height of three stories. This also mentions several other incentives that I was not personally aware of. 100% masonry material at ground level. Down putting of lights. Low impact signs. Limiting trash collection between 7:00 A.M. and 10:00 p.m. Providing some trail conclusions. Some additional -- connections. Some additional decorative iron, masonry or landscape fencing around the apartments. And the back of the retail areas on this tract. Landscaping ma may take the form of some BERMS depending on visibility. Also there would be some -- a provision for a transition from Escarpment to where it dead ends at tract 103, a new road section to be determined by I guess state and -- rules but actually dealing with this connection. And finally I guess there was a reference to two solar-powered [INAUDIBLE] monitors to be paid by Stratus. That is what I understand has been offered on that tract. Tract 106, which is further to the east, right now for many of the residential there was a provision for a 100-foot setback, and the proposal that's been offered by Stratus to this agreement would be a 150-foot building setback and 100-foot parking set Dallas back from any single-family home. Again, that low impact signage, down putting of lights, limiting trash pickup from 7:00 A.M. to 10:00 p.m. And some additional landscaping provisions. So those are the -- primarily the setbacks and the screening and the additional incentives that have been proposed by Stratus to the village of western oaks. [One moment, please, for change in captioners] <--end 12am--> <--start 12am-->

MAYOR GARCIA: You need to show more respect with this council. We respected your rights to speak and now the council is in deliberation and we'd appreciate it if you show that kind of respect. Thank you very much.

As I was saying --

MAYOR GARCIA: Could you close the door, please. Is the fire marshal there?

As I said, it was a 250 building setback for buildings that reached a height of 45 feet and a 375-foot setback before buildings could reach 60 feet in height from the majority of the homes in Circle C. There's also some additional restrictions that are more private that may allow for buildings to be slightly closer if the ends of the building face the neighborhoods rather than being buildings that are actually running perpendicular to MoPac, so they would be less of a building face. I guess probably the majority of the set backs, probably -- [ INAUDIBLE ]

Maybe the next logical place to move to your questions, mayor pro tem, would be for David -- you were going to go over the environmental features, set backs that kind of blends with the pipeline setbacks and the compatibility setbacks. And mayor pro tem, you had asked where we stood on green builders. The wildlife center is doing most of the negotiating on both the native plants, and I understand that is complete. And they are still getting to some final details on green builders, but I got a message from Bob BRUNIG earlier today and one thing on his mind is on the commercial guidelines it appears that we are close to a standard just short of these goal standard, so actually higher than what you were thinking, and they are still trying to nail down a few things on the green builder fees, but I think they've gone a long way there.

I think the question was asking about features on the tracts in which there will be clustering. From the information that we have to date, tracts 10 3 and 106, which have those significant features on them, additionally tract 110 along MoPac is slated for S.O.S. level development, but as far as we know there are no significant features on that tract as well. There is language in the contract that if there is features found in the development when they come in that they will have to set back from those features if the staff determines they are critical environmental features, so those will be protected in the future. Tract 107 is probably one with more unique features on it. It's at slaughter lane and MoPac. It also has a few pipelines crossing the tract. And there are three features that are on this tract or adjacent to it. There's a pipeline sink, confusion sink and there's a large wet land in the property boundary. Our proposal for setbacks was 150 feet in aidious around all three features.

Which is pretty much the standard set back. You did go up to 300 feet, is that correct?

That's correct. We can go up to 300 feet for KARST features. During the past few weeks during the heavy rain we had an opportunity to go back and see if there were additional areas of drainage for these features. We identified a swale that was draining directly into confusion sink as well as the wet land that came up through the western side of the tract. We approached Stratus to see about press increasing the buffer for 300 feet on the western side of that swale. They agreed to do that. Additionally Stratus agreed to reduce the buffers on the north side of pipeline sink to the north side of the pipeline to prevent any crux from -- con instruction from cunning. Additionally we have a berm that will be adjacent to the pipeline to protect the features in the event there is a spill that will deflect any spill product and keep them from entering these features. I would also like to point out one other tract that has some very significant features that we have large buffers on as well. This would be tract 108. This will at the corner of slaughter and Brodie.

And this is where we had a concern on blowing sink, is that right?

That's correct. Blowing sink is on the city owned tract on the north, a very large sinkhole cave complex as well as Jodi lane sink just to the south and structural sink further to the southeast. And our original proposal was 300 feet on this site. And in negotiating with Stratus they have agreed to buffer up to the watershed divide on the upgrading side for these features. So we've essentially protected an area of 400 feet upgrading for these features, which is more than we get in the current code.

FUTRELL: We kind of shifted to another area. Is there anything else you wanted to know on these three setbacks?

GOODMAN: I guess not necessarily now, but I think one of the issues is rather than a piece of paper and an ordinance of any kind for the city, what I'm interested in is finding out what the impacts to potential recharge features and opportunities are. And so I think that the clustering opportunities are the most important because you might assume that those are the areas where you found the least number of possibilities for infiltration. But if there's a general information sheet that anybody has together now or in the near future about whether we have mapped out in any way all the recharge features or possibilities in the whole project, that would be good.

FUTRELL: Why don't you talk about that because I do think that's important. And one of the stakeholders that have been in this process had a particular interest in the KARST features. And I think you did some very expensive work on what was already mapped and things that were critical. So just talk through your process and then let's try -- I think later for the mayor pro tem let's put a summary page together particularly on the clustering tracts about what's around it and what the impacts and what measures we have in place.

Okay. There was a KARST survey done, a fairly detailed survey, I believe it was back in the mid '80's, by -- when all this was originally owned by Circle C, and covered all of these tracts. The survey identified a number of features, did not necessarily distinguish between major features or features that we know would be critical environmental features or minor solutions to cavities. There's a fairly large number of features on tract 115. We evaluated all of the features on this tract and identified approximately 10 or so features that met our requirements for critical environmental features. Two of the clusters of these features are protected by buffers of either 300 feet or 350 feet on the upslope side, the features in the southeast corner and then at the boundary of the recharge zone near bear lake. There are a number of other smaller features on the tract as well as a wet land and a rim rock that we also have protected with buffers. The survey did not identify any features on tract 102. 104 contains grassy cove cave. That tract will be undeveloped. There are no features on 105. Tract 111 has lacrosse cave on it. That tract will be undeveloped. I don't believe there are any features identified on tract 112. We spoke about the features on tract 108. Tract 113 had only minor features and tract 110 had only minor features. We did not walk tract 110 extensively because of the nature of the -- the report indicated the nature of these features were relatively minor and we didn't spend time to look at that. We do have -- like I said, we do have the buffers around all the major features that we know of. In addition we have buffers in excess of what we have -- can get from code on tract 108 and on tracts 115.

FUTRELL: If you will put on your follow-up let's do a summary sheet of impact, particularly on the clustering tracts and we'll put that in the backup for everybody to have. Maybe the next thing, Terry, you're going to talk through the mayor pro tem's question on the regional magnet and traffic and trips.

Thank you. The planning definition of a regional magnet in terms of transportation planning would be a major activity center that has a sphere of influence that is in fact regional. This means that the distance of the impact extends well across or through the entire urban area. An example would be the central business district of the downtown. It might be a mall, a major employer such as the IBM complex in the golden triangle. So a major activity center. It serves the need for services and provides jobs within a region. And usually that means within a two to three-county area. A regional magnet is associated with longer trip length. On the principal arterial systems and major transit systems. For those trip desires that are met on the arterial road systems that's associated with longer trip length, as I mentioned, and higher vehicle miles of travel these trips that are traditionally made on freeways, expressways, major arterials. The purpose for these trips is usually home to work, work back home, and then home-based non-work types of trips. And those are travel between the home and large retail or major activity centers that I mentioned. They're primarily small office and neighborhood scale retail. The market area is sub regional. There are clusters of neighborhoods that are intended to be served by those facilities. Trip lengths are shorter, four miles or less generally to access them. The vehicle miles of travel are therefore lower. The trip purposes are the same, but the traffic impact is lower because fewer vehicle miles are traveled. In general those kinds of services might be expected to generate approximately 20,000 vehicle trips per day or less. In contrast a regional magnet might be expected to generate 40,000 or more vehicle trips per day. And I'd be happy to answer any further questions about that.

GOODMAN: Okay. I'm not sure if you know the answer to this one, but let me try it. It's not strictly a roadway question. Is there anything that you can think of to give us sort of a landmark visualization of what 750,000 square foot of office is compared to 2,046,000? Is there anything that exists that anybody knows of that you could say, okay, 2,000,046 is like Lakeline or something to compare?

FUTRELL: I see a lot of people back here.

I know we have some comparisons. I think in a moment or so we can probably come back and answer your question.

GOODMAN: Okay, great.

FUTRELL: Then Allison, why don't you -- because I think we feed in from this actually to the next series of questions that the mayor pro tem asked. And one thing you might do just to segue from what Terry was talking about is what's in the agreement on the retail. If I remember correctly, individual pads or occupants can't be more than 50,000 square feet?

There are two tracts where they can be that large. And that would be 102, which is the convenience stores, and 107, which is also the tract can be 50,000 square feet or the pad sites. The other tracts are limited to 35,000 square feet on any pad site that any one retailer can occupy.

FUTRELL: And the goal here was to try to have this retail, just neighborhood supported retail. This would be like a Blockbuster video or I'm trying to think of a visual. Maybe a small --

An Eckerds.

FUTRELL: As opposed to a home depot or a mall. So with those few exceptions all the pad sites were very small and tend not to be draws, but are just on your way home supported retail.

GOODMAN: I'm sorry, I didn't quite here the square footage on that.

There are two tracts that allow greater than 35,000 square feet for the retail. That is 107, which allows 50,000 square feet, and 102, which also allows 50,000 square feet.

FUTRELL: But 35,000 --

But 35,000 on each of the others that have retail occupancy.

FUTRELL: And the other two things I had on the list before we do maybe the -- maybe Nancy can follow up with water quality monitoring and the salamander status report, what we know is the funding for the perpetual maintenance of the water quality structures and the chapter 245 language, the stipulations that should this development agreement pass, Stratus made from the development agreement.

All right. I'll start with the 245 language. On Page 1 of the development agreement recite Als, B and C concerned the 245 rights. What the city has done is recognized that Stratus does have 245 claims. We do not in any way validate the claims, we just recognize that the claims have been made. Then we say that there is a controversy because of those claims and that the development agreement settles the controversies that were raised by those claims. And the controversy would be the City's position and the 245 rights. And that's where the controversy is because there are different levels of development that would occur under both of those scenarios. And then you get into the development agreement that we have been discussing here, which is essentially to have 17 -- less than 17% overall impervious cover on the whole 1250 some-odd acres and to have significantly decreased density over what would be allow under a strict tract by tract S.O.S. We do not in any way say that the Stratus claims are valid, we just recognize that they have claims. On the funding for the maintenance of the ponds, there's two different scenarios. First you have the bear lake P.U.D. And in the bear lake P.U.D. there will be homeowners' restrictive covenants that will assess a fee, part of the maintenance fee that is assessed against each and every one of the households will go towards the perpetual maintenance of the ponds that are on the bear lake P.U.D. site. For the commercial ponds that are on any of the commercial sites, there will be restrictive covenants in the commercial development that assess a similar type fee to all of the commercial landowners in order to be able to provide perpetual funding for the maintenance of the on-site pond.

GOODMAN: And have you talked about the third-party administration and inspecting and monitoring and enforcement, meaning the Barton Springs/Edward's Aquifer conservation district?

No, ma'am, we have not.

GOODMAN: Maybe later that's a question for the developer.

And I believe that mayor pro tem asked one other question, which was about the option tract. And on Page 9 of the development agreement is states that at any time within six months after the effective date of the agreement, the developer can add option tracts. It then references Exhibit D, which is a metes and bounds description of each of those option tracts. Because very few people truly understand how to read metes and bounds descriptions, we did not elect to include those on the website, but rather referenced people to the map that is on the website. And I will walk around to the front and point out in lot 301 some white space and in parcel -- I'm not sure. I think it's 113 or 111 additional white space which is where the director lots are actually located.

FUTRELL: The last set of questions before we go to law and sort of the ownership of wildlife issue is sort of the general discussion of water quality monitoring and what we're seeing in the water and maybe a recap of a little bit of the -- what we've been doing on trying to analyze the gas bubble issue with the salamanders, what we found and where we are.

Right. Starting with the salamander, I'm afraid I don't have anything really new to report since last week when I told you the series of investigations that we have done. The salamanders have been under a lot of water here lately and we really haven't been able to do any additional monitoring or looking for any kind of effective salamanders at this point. In general I know there's been concerns about whether or not we have enough relevant data in the Barton Springs zone. We've been doing monitoring in the Barton Springs zone for over 20 years, but about four or five years ago councilmember Slusher proposed and the council supported an additional allocation of money for us to do that type of work. And since that time we have launched a very elaborate and extensive monitoring program. We monitor the surface water, the creeks that contribute to the aquifer. We monitor the groundwater, both Barton Springs and all the other major springs as well as springs in the contributing zone. We monitor during space low conditions when it's not raining. We monitor during storms. We monitor the sediment,. We monitor the biological communities that live in the creeks and we also have done a great deal of dye tracing in conjunction with the Barton Springs, Edward's Aquifer conservation district. We have used that data to try to look at trends, what's happening over time in all those systems. We look at it to try to understand the impacts of specific land uses, what a golf course is doing, what is effluent irrigation doing, what is residential land use doing, all the different types of land uses and activities that are happening in the aquifer. And we have also tried to use it to look at the effectiveness of some of our ordinances. One of the hardest things that we have tried to do is to monitor the effect of the S.O.S. ordinance. It's extremely difficult to monitor in areas where the S.O.S. ordinance is in effect because it really doesn't result in the kind of runoff or in the kind of a discharge stream that other types of water quality BMP's have. It's also difficult to monitor for the impact of the S.O.S. ordinance because it's so patchily implemented. We simply don't have subdivisions or large areas that we can monitor that have been developed under the S.O.S. ordinance. So that's been a difficulty for us, but we continue to try to do that. Again, just to recap on groundwater, we now have continuous monitoring. We have hydro labs that stay continuously in Barton Springs itself as well as at upper Barton Springs. And now these hydro labs, which is kind of the equipment that we use, are outfitted with new probes that also measure the amount of dissolved gas since we now have this concern with the dissolved gases. That's sort of just a general overview of the type of monitoring we're doing. I can tell you and I know that you received probably over a year ago now the report in which we analyzed the data that we now have on Barton Springs and we did determine that we're seeing some declining water quality in the springs. One of the other great difficulties that we have in understanding this data is that we cannot determine whether the degradation is coming from old development or from new development. That is, we can't say whether or not development that's occurring under the S.O.S. ordinance is causing any degradation or not. Much of the -- I think councilmember Goodman, you asked for a little bit of information, more information on some of the data that Jim showed up earlier, and we'll get you some more information on this later. We recently put together a two-day presentation for EPA and fish and wildlife service as they were considering the recent biological opinions on the salamander, and we'd be glad to get you that information. But one of the things -- one of the PAH's that he was talking about here has in fact -- we've seen a lot of PAH contamination at levels that are at what we call effects levels. They're levels that are known to affect aquatic life. And as a result of that we've done some investigative work and traveled up Barton Creek and up into the tributaries to try to determine if we could find the source of those PAH's. And we have found a tributary where the PAH contamination is very high and we are now planning a retrofit project to try to eliminate the source of that contamination from further getting into Barton Creek. But we'll get you additional information on that -- on all the analyses and the summary of the data that we did for E.P.A. and fish and wildlife service.

GOODMAN: Okay. Since I really don't know those elements that you were talking about, when you found the tributary with the higher concentrations, is that the -- since I don't know what source or what product products this and and the runoff or whatever, the point or non-point?

Well, it gets to be sort of a fine line. That kind of contamination is generally considered to be non-point source because it comes indeed from all over the watershed, but when it's coming from a concentrated source, then we Saturday to think of it a little bit more as a point source, but in general I think I would call it a non-point source.

GOODMAN: So is it like something that somebody's putting on their yard or is this, you know, dumping something somewhere that you don't normally dump?

We think actually the most probable source of this particular PAH is crumbling asphalt. Which is probably very, -- we know is very common throughout the watershed, but this is in a particular area and we do not know why, but it seems to be extremely high levels of the PAH.

GOODMAN: And do we know if the increase was steady and gradual, but identifiable, or is it more specifically notable during a storm event or is there a correlation to years and increase of levels?

Well, actually, David looked at -- David, do you want to speak to that? Did you just do that -- was it the PAH that you looked at? I'm not trying to call you up if if you don't -- I thought you might have looked at this recently. No, never mind. We don't know. We haven't always sampled for PAH's and sediment. This is again something that we started to do when we intensified our monitoring program. So I really can't answer that question whether it's been there for a long time or whether there was a sudden increase in the contamination of that site. And it patchy. It's not like this contamination is always there. Many times we take a sample and these levels of contamination are not there and the sediment comes and goes in the system. After this flood event it will be very interesting to see what kind of levels of contamination we see in the sediment. David is showing me --

FUTRELL: He's testing you to see how quickly --

David is showing me the data in which the two incidents where we saw the highest levels of PAH contamination were following storm events in which the Barton Creek came over the dam.

GOODMAN: Okay. The last thing on that is how long have we been monitoring?

We've been monitoring in the Barton Springs -- I think the monitoring program started over 20 years ago, not that -- we didn't take -- I haven't been there that long, but we didn't take anywhere near, of course, the samples that we're taking today. Today we have, you know, what I -- I would describe as an extremely extensive monitoring program in the Barton Springs zone. And it was, again, enhanced about five years ago following our report to the council on the data that we had been collecting in Barton Creek.

GOODMAN: Thanks very much. Councilmember Alvarez?

ALVAREZ: Ms. McClintock, we spoke earlier about this very issue to see if -- if part of what's happening here and part of the concern that's been expressed and because of the the reasons it seems to be apparent and the water quality and how that's affecting the salamander, so we were talking about in the last five years is it actually a marked or measurable increase in the pollutants that we've been seeing. And you said yeah, actually, that's when we've seen the biggest change is the last five years. And so -- I know it's hard to determine whether it's those developments that we're able to develop under some other criteria because of when they were approved, but I guess I'm wondering if during that five-year period we can make some kind of determination about, okay, we approved so many single-family homes or so many multi-family or so many -- so much square footage of office development in the recharge area so that we can start trying to figure out over a longer period of time -- I know etcetera difficult from one year to the next, but over a five-year period say this is the development we saw, whether it's S.O.S. or not, but just in gross terms, and see if there can't be some correlations made, but I'm probably oversimplifying the issue, but I think that's kind of what-- at least what's been articulated is folks want to see something like that that says if we're going to consider something like this kind of agreement with Stratus, then we'd also like to know or have some kind idea of what might be the corresponding impact. So I certainly want to continue that discussion of what might be possible in terms of estimating what kind of development may have occurred in this area for that same period of time.

Uh-huh. And that falls a little bit into pat Murphy's bailiwick, to talk about what we know about specifically what kind of development has occurred in the last five years. It is difficult because I think -- I think pat would agree with me that the vast amount of development that has occurred has occurred not under S.O.S., but under prior ordinances. So you're right, it's very difficult to keep those things apart. The other thing I want to add is that we collected a lot more data than we've ever had before in the last five years, and that gives you some statistical power and some ability sometimes to see some trends that we had not been able to see before. Patted, is there anything you want to add to that? But we'll continue to talk and to think about that as we discuss -- as we discussed before.

SLUSHER: Ms. McClintock, can you tell from that roughly what's coming from roadway pollution, what's coming from lawns or landscaping, chemicals, or at least what those sources of -- what the things in the solution are?

We can make some generalities. There are things like nitrates and nutrients that we know predominantly come from residential areas and areas that are heavily maintained turf, sometimes golf courses, but those -- nitrogen also comes from car exhaust, so -- pesticides as an example. Certainly in the Barton Springs watershed, we think that mostly comes from residential areas. There are some agricultural pesticides that are in use, but many of them we know are coming from residential areas.

SLUSHER: And -- I mean, I'm guessing, but -- or assuming that if you look back that when there was more agricultural use in the area than now, because it's been taken over by residences, that those levels of pollution were lower from -- what are you saying it might be agricultural, it might be residential? Is that an accurate assumption on my part?

That they might have been lower historically?

SLUSHER: If that's the case, I assume it would be coming from the residences rather than any agricultural use.

Well, you know, there's another problem with our monitoring data, which is that historically we didn't have as good a detection limit as we have now, so even though we were monitoring 20 years ago, we were not at that time necessarily able to detect pesticides that may have been present. We're certainly seeing them more now. We see more different types now, but our analytical methods are so very vastly improved, even in the last couple of years, so it's difficult to talk about trends over time with those sorts of contaminants.

SLUSHER: But you agree that there is a lot of pollution that can be cleaned up by if folks had more environmentally sound practices in their lawn care?

Oh, I couldn't agree more. I think it's one of the primary, best management practices that we really need to focus on right now. And we are focusing on. We have a new education campaign that we started last year at the request of you and of the rest of council, and we're going great guns with that. We'll get back to you with an update on that soon.

SLUSHER: Thank you.

GOODMAN: My questions, I guess the only thing left is the legal.

FUTRELL: And I believe, Marty, are you going to --

As you all remember last week, you heard from Rene Hicks and she did discuss the issue of wild animals and property. Rene was not present this evening when the speakers spoke concerning the state law that he referenced or the new information that he was imparting. We need to look into that for you and get back with you on that and especially respond to your particular question concerning whether if a wild animal as property of the state, if indeed that is the case, whether that can translate into something that gives the city some kind of property rights. We'll need to look into that and we'll also need to take a look at the research that Rene Hicks was looking at and compare it and get back with you with a thorough answer that is responsive. We'll be happy to do that.

GOODMAN: Okay. And along those lines actually, the recent rain events and the flooding and the fact that the backups and the manholes and all that kind of thing, in a situation like that, would that be considered proof of imminent destruction simply because of the volume of water that's now virtually impossible to contain? And because our climate may be changing actually. Who knows? You know, with the greenhouse effect and all of that, the warming effect. So that this may not be such an unusual rain event. And I know that's real speculative, but in such a case would that be good enough scientific data to point to if it's a series of the last three flooding events?

I think we'll have to talk to Rene about that. And one of the things we have to consider is, as you correctly note, whether there is enough scientific evidence and whether we have the data that reflects that indeed that presents a threat. How much of a threat that is and under the case law whether that does come within the parameters of imminent. And we're going to have to get -- we'll have to get with Rene on that, and we will and we'll work through that legal analysis and get back with you on that. And I believe Terry wanted to follow-up on your question.

We do have information that was handed out to the councilmembers which provides some comparative data on office development and scale of development. And the large map, the landscape version map, depicts locations of office development on MoPac between the river and loop 360. That represents a total square footage of office of about 1.64 million square feet of office development, and that would be on the east side of loop 1 between Zilker Park and loop 360. So a comparable amount roughly at 739,000 square feet would be buildings 1 through 5 and 11 in the Barton oaks complex that are highlighted on the east side of loop 1. And that's roughly from Zilker Park on the east side of loop 1 southward to just north of Barton skyway. In other words, excluding building number 6. So the overall total in the corridor is 1.64 million, and then by contrast you see the area, the cluster of buildings 1 through 5, plus 11 at 739,000 square feet. The other map indicates that the frontage on south loop 1 for tract 110 is also comparable to the 1.75-mile area for the data that I just referenced, the office square footages. For tract 110 that MoPac frontage is 1.15 miles.

SLUSHER: Mayor pro tem, could I ask a question before she sits down? I just wanted to here, one of the speakers had mentioned -- I think this was the way it was put, that it would only general -- only generate 2800 vehicle trips and yet there were five thousand employees. Would you explain that for us? I think the actual number is larger than that. That was the vehicle trips -- well, I'll let you explain it.

Certainly. I think that the assumption was all vehicle trips from that particular tract would access loop 1, and that's not the case. There are many different routes to that development. And they include slaughter lane, SH 45, south loop 1, to a certain degree other arterials such as slaughter to 1826. So there are many ways in and out of that development. And it would be an erroneous assumption to make that all of the traffic would only take one route. In fact, travellers' desires are usually satisfied in many distribution Dereks depending on where their or general actually is.

SLUSHER: So you didn't say that there would be less traffic -- less car trips than the number of employees at the development? That was just one particular road that that figure was quoted from and portrayed like it was the whole development.

That was just one particular roadway. The contribution from all of the Stratus-generated traffic on that one particular segment, yes.

SLUSHER: That's all I have.

ALVAREZ: Mayor?

MAYOR GARCIA: Further questions for staff? Councilmember Alvarez?

ALVAREZ: I had several different questions. It's kind of hard to jump in there. A couple of legal questions that I just want some clarification. The whole question of vested rights that was mentioned by at least one speaker. And is that some language that's used in the actual agreement or is that just -- I mean, is there someone who can clarify if that refers to locking in certain regulations, what exactly do we think that refers to?

Allison Galloway.

The mayor pro tem had asked me to explain what recitations were in the development agreement with regard to how the city and Stratus characterized the 245 rights. What the agreement does is recognize that Stratus claims to have 245 rights and that because of those claims there is a controversy that we are settling by entering into a development agreement. It doesn't speak to the vested rights at all.

Councilmember Alvarez, I think also the term vested rights might refer to the grandfathering rights in chapter 245, that argument of vested rights was kind of equivalent to grandfather rights.

ALVAREZ: Basically we'd be agreeing that those are the rules --

Yeah, I think we're missing the councilmember's question. I think what you're saying is by entering into an agreement that spells out what can happen and can occur on these tracts for 30 years, if it's a 30 year term and some of the speakers talked about it and this agreement does then create vested rights. We are in in effect settling the 1704 claims, but looking in what can occur on these tracts.

Yes. And what Stratus is doing by agreeing to enter into this agreement is to give up all of its claims to 1704 rights, and it is also agreeing that regardless of what the legislature does, that this agreement will control all development on the property for 30 years. And that could be some -- the legislature could enact laws that allow the city to be more strict or it could enact laws that allow the city to be less strict. Regardless of that, we're being bound by what is in the development agreement.

ALVAREZ: And I think this is another legal question, but early on in the presentations from the public there was a map that was displayed here that was the original land use plan or it had -- I'm not sure if was it was the M.U.D. land use plan or a different land use plan from 1983 or '84, whenever that was.

I believe the one that they displayed was the 1993 M.U.D. land use plan.

FUTRELL: But let's talk about --

ALVAREZ: Village one, village 2, village 3, village 4. That seemed different to me than the M.U.D. use plan that I've seen. So I'm trying to figure out why are we choosing one map over another map?

Let's just answer that question because that was raised by one of the speakers because there were several documents that are tied in to the grandfathering claims that Stratus claims on these tracts. We may even have copies with us hopefully of both of those documents, the '84 and the mid '90's document. Maybe not copies, I may have the originals here.

ALVAREZ: Hopefully we can check again.

Of the two -- we have them here.

We're going to borrow one here.

Explain the difference between the two documents. What do they both mean and what was different between the two.

You're asking me the difference between this land plan -- I didn't hear the whole question.

Go to the two core documents, the 1984 -- I guess that was the M.U.D. land use plan.

1985 M.U.D. land use plan?

Yes. Explain why there are two of them, what's the difference between the two.

Okay. I may need to -- I won't have real specific information for you. It's more general. As the M.U.D. in '85, the M.U.D. land plan was basically amended to add MoPac. That was the major amendment to the M.U.D. land plan. The original M.U.D. land plan was attached to the consent agreement in '83 did not have MoPac at that time. So in '85 the major change that was happening was MoPac was being added. And also there was a shift in uses that was requested in order to be able to do appropriate land uses along that pneumopack corridor -- MoPac corridor. And those changes were made in 1985. If that was at the point in '85 that we added some things to the M.U.D. land use plan, and it was approved by council as a condition of that approval. And in speaking with Mr. LUKINS today, who had been administering the M.U.D.s since forever, Ben pointed out that that that's when this chart showed up first was in 1985. We started adding F.A.R. limits and we started adding intensity limits overall for the first time and we were much more specific about where those uses were going to occur in those intensities overall. So the '85 revision basically clarified the intensities and got much more specific about where there was going to be, but the main thing that happened in '85 was MoPac triggered all of that occurring. So during the negotiations for the request by the mud to accommodate MoPac, we had some intensity incorporated into the plan. The '93 plan there was administrative approval. And by '93 we had even gotten more specific. So as you look at these old land plans you see that they got progressively more specific as time passed as to where uses were going to be occurring. And the changes that were occurring on some them were somewhat minor. There might have been shifts in uses across the tract that was clearly allowed under the consent agreement which were revisions that could be approved administratively. And many of those changes between '85 and '93 were those sorts of shifts. But there were never any increases overall in the intensity of those different uses. That would have been one of the conditions that would have always persisted through the changes in the M.U.D. land use plan.

ALVAREZ: We had the rights that we had -- we have -- the rules that were in place at the time when we applied or what should be applied to it essentially, so why again if they started off with the plan in '83 or '84 and then -- so why -- if their plans have changed, we're honoring to a certain degree it seems like because we're talking about the latest version of these land use plans, and then -- I'm trying to figure out why it is. If the rules were in place -- these are some legal questions.

Let me try to answer at least your question from a context of my work with chapter 245. Chapter 245 claims that Stratus has for their property do not depend on the mud land use plan. The city has not recognized M.U.D. in their consent agreements and land use plans and chapter 245 as allowing for chapter 245 claims. In fact, the chapter it 45 claims for these properties relate back to subdivision approvals which occurred in the early '80s and mid '80's. All of the land in the Stratus properties had subdivision proflz which occurred during that time, either preliminary plans or in the cases of Circle C west, I believe those tracts are final platted. So they even were recorded plats.

These are tied to the subdivision approvals which as chapter 245 explains it is it's a series of permits. So during the time that the mud consent agreement and the M.U.D. existed at the time, the series of permits would have been subdivision and then for the commercial would have been subsequent to that site plans for. For the residential it would have been subdivision and building permits because those are required under the agreement.

ALVAREZ: At what point did we get to the tract by tract definition of F.A.R. and -- what's the other?

F.A.R. and units and density. That -- in my discussions today with Mr. LUKINS, Ben LUKINS, that first occurred in 1985 where those showed up.

ALVAREZ: Okay.

There was an overall basic limit on that in the consent agreement, but it first got defined to the specificity of the notes on the land use plan in 85.

ALVAREZ: Okay. Thank you. Thank you for walking through that. Because we have discussed a lot about the M.U.D. land use plan and I think different folks bring up different parts of that plan that we should be making sure we're complying with all of these provisions of the M.U.D. land use plan. [ONE MOMENT, PLEASE, FOR CHANGE IN CAPTIONERS]

By and large, all of the development intensify that could be transferred out of those tracts was going to occur over time. And the understanding at that point was that eventually we were going to get all of these areas somehow set aside as open space. They may not have been dedicated as park land, but it was all going to be open space.

But pat, it's important to make the distinction between the park land and that critical water quality land because the impervious cover can be stripped from the later; is that right?

Correct. The park land originally dedicated here was dedicated as a part of a dedication from polly Branton books with the development rights intact. The overall intention for the remaining credital and transition zones was that the code allowed you to transfer development intensity. For each acre of what you set aside or dedicated, you could get more development in the Uplands area of your tracts. As the Circle~C was being developed, and about the time that we stopped seeing development coming into the city, I'm going to say that was the early '90s she late '80s, but early '90s she at that point we were talking about them dedicating additional land in these areas in order to be able to support the subdivisions that were coming in. I was just going to say the original M.U.D. land plan showed about 900 and something acres of this sort of open space in combination with park land, but you have to understand that all of this here became part of a conservation easement. This is IRA Yates property. And so a good deal of the land that we were going to be seeing overall long term became parts of conservation easements and so forth.

Alvarez: So that --

[INAUDIBLE] [LAUGHTER] paragraph.

Well, a good deal may not be the right word, but IRA is here. He can tell you more about that. I'm basing this on discussions today with Mr. Lucas.

Alvarez: I guess in terms of the lands being dedicated now, that's not going towards -- or it's not necessary to fulfill the commitment under the M.U.D. land use plan for dedication of the --

There's no commitment required any longer because any requirements for that went away when the M.U.D. was annexed.

Take it beyond that, pat. Whether the commitment went away or not, the tracts of land that are open as part of this proposal were either open and we did not take the intensity off of it as part of this development deal, or they were listed as office or some other use and are now going to be open. We went tract by tract through them this morning.

Yes. And I can go back to this to show you that. Tract 112, we've never said that it had any development intensity on it. It was all critical in transition zone. 111 and 113 were shown as development parcels. 109 was originally shown on the M.U.D. land plan as critical transition zone. It was never dedicated. That tract under today's regulations and under S.O.S. is -- has allowable net site area within it so it's part of it and would be dedicated as open space. But it was always shown to be a greenbelt type open space tract.

Alvarez: If you could take the impervious cover, whatever impervious cover you could have developed there and use it elsewhere.

Correct.

Alvarez: And same thing with those other two tracts.

Correct.

Alvarez: And the other two would be 102 and 103, is that right?

104 and 105 are also proposed to be open space and become part of the Circle~C metropolitan park.

[INAUDIBLE]

They were originally shown to be office tracts on the land plan.

Alvarez: Okay. One more question about the M.U.D. land use plan and that has to do with the issue of fire station.

Yes.

Alvarez: In the original plan, the site for the fire station was going to be --

That's here at Escarpment and 45, and it was originally shown to be a multi-family, retail tract.

Alvarez: And so that was going to be just donated to the city under the M.U.D. land use plan or what was the agreement --

Well, there was no fire station under the M.U.D. land use plan this this location. I'm not aware -- there was a fire station here on the original M.U.D. land use plan. I do not know whether that was supposed to be dedicated or not. I don't know the answer to that.

Futrell: And what's important there is that although we talk about the fire station site as part of this proposal, the council did a settlement with the Circle~C homeowners association after -- after annexation and after the water quality district, the water district was done to build a fire station site. Our call. A fire station site. And a road actually as part of that. So with or without this proposal, we are underway of buying that land and designing that fire station as part of a prior settlement agreement council made with Circle~C homeowners association.

Alvarez: That's what I was remembering we had some kind of commitment --

That location is right here on tract 110. Near the intersection of Escarpment and 45.

Alvarez: Okay, I just was wondering if that was an additional investment we had to make beyond the 15 plus what we're considering in terms of the incentive package.

Futrell: No, you already had the land budgeted, and john, you might correct me if I'm wrong, I believe that is a cash station and was already appropriated as part of the settlement. It was a cash C.I.P.

Alvarez: Just a couple more questions.

Slusher: Can I interrupt just a second? Thanks. City manager, I would like to see on the question of the park land dedication, I would like to see a written response on that before we get to next week.

Futrell: You and I are thinking alike. I've already made a note we need to give you a summary and everyone can see exactly what was required on the M.U.D. land use plan and what occurred and how plans tracts played into it.

She can get you a much better answer that I was able to give enthusiasm evening.

Alvarez: The next question might be more of a zoning question, I don't know if Greg or someone is around, but we've been looking at these graphs of the different proposals and the intensity of development that is allowed under the different proposals. So I guess we have the one with -- under the current agreement, proposed agreement, and it stipulates a certain amount of square footage for retail and a certain amount of square footage for office or residential. I guess I'm wondering because I haven't looked at each and every zoning case, but is there something in each zoning case that says this is the most that can be developed here, or how are we ensuring that if indeed that's what's approved, that they can develop no more than that?

I think the agreement, the proposed agreement goes in more detail about the square footage just in general. The zoning will certainly set caps. Part of the platting commission's recommendation that was a cap of 35,000 net square feet of leasable retail area. On most of those tracts that have retail uses. So you wouldn't have a big box. But the actual square footage is not specified in each individual zoning case.

Alvarez: So we don't know, like, even though each -- one of them says 55,000 and one says 20,000, whether in fact -- [INAUDIBLE] couldn't happen.

Futrell: Allison, I think you need to help and talk about how we're controlling exactly what these commitments are.

The development agreement speaks to how -- which tracts can have in excess of 35,000 square feet. All of the other tracts are prohibited in having any one retail use larger than 35,000 square feet. So it would come in the development agreement. And then --

Alvarez: Okay. So if a tract can have more than 35,000 square feet, then the agreement says this is the maximum in these tracts?

Yes. The convenience storage, which is on tract 102, is 50,000 square feet, and the grocery store, which is on 107, is -- can be in excess of 50,000 square feet.

Futrell: Go outside of retail and answer the broader question. If only X amount of office, we're saying this whole agreement has X square footage of office, how is that controlled?

Each time they come in with a site plan or a building permit, they have to provide the city with proof that they have sufficient impervious cover and sufficient development density to achieve the building that they are trying to build at that location, whether it's an office or whether it's retail. When it comes to the single-family residence, the mere fact that the lot is platted for single-family or duplex residential use and there is a plat note restricting it to that use is sufficient. They do not have to provide additional information. The multi-family, the apartments would be treated as if it were a commercial building.

Alvarez: So then if we're saying that 750,000 square feet of office and I can't remember the exact figure, 300,000 of --

It's 250 for retail.

Alvarez: 250 for retail. Then, again, is there an ultimate cap in the agreement that says --

Yes. Absolutely.

Alvarez: All these tracts, no more than this.

Yes.

Alvarez: All right. And then the last series of questions was about traffic. I think miss McManus, if she is still here. Several I guess of the different communications we got or we received sort of had some -- raised some concerns about the assumptions utilized in the assessment we did on traffic. But -- in one of the areas where there was concern was in terms of how we estimated retail or the traffic generated from the retail uses, so if we could just talk a little about the assumptions we used and why we used those assumptions.

Certainly. First of all, the analysis that we did is regional. It is cumulative. It's done with a regional travel demand model. This allows us to, first of all, account for interaction of residential, non-residential land use. It provides us with the ability to assess secondary growth impacts. It's cumulative. We can take all 15 tracts and associated development in the area southwest area into account at one time. It's consistent with all of the tools, methods and models that are being used in regional transportation planning, both at the state level and at the county and at the NPO planning level. It's consistent with CAMPO. In terms of traffic generation rates, we're very confident that the rates that we have used are appropriate. Our regional travel demand model and the modeling technique that we've employed here doesn't use ITE trip rates or institute of transportation engineers trip rates. And that was a misunderstanding in the interpretation of this analysis and some of the results of the analysis. The study, as I mentioned, is based on traffic generation rates that are produced by the Texas transportation institute and are accepted national practice. These trip rates have to be validated before this model can be used. In other words, at approximately 12,000 different locations where we have known traffic counts, when we first test this model for the existing base year condition, we have to be able to match using our trip rates, match these traffic counts before we step onward to do future year forecasts.

Futrell: Terry, can you explain the advantages and disadvantages or the weakness or strengths of doing a councilmember la active model versus taking it -- cumulative model -- not even tract by tract, it can actually be part of a tract by part of a tract literally by almost every permit. What's the advantages and disadvantages?

The advantage is we do not have to look at traffic impacts in isolation. We do not have to view traffic impacts on a piecemeal basis. What we can see is not just the part of a contribution of a development to the transportation system, but the entirety of that development or that proposal in terms of its impact on the transportation system as a whole. The overwhelming advantage again that I'll emphasize is that it allows us not only to look at that one development, but other approved developments, and even beyond that because this analysis has looked at the year 2015 growth that's associated in the entire Travis County region that we anticipate by the year 2015. So we can pick out how much of the impact is associated by the year 2015 with this proposal, and any number of other scenarios, for example, that might be higher or they might be lower, but it allows us to identify up front transportation improvements that can mitigate these impacts that I've spoken of. One of the things that I think we've accomplished very successfully throughout this negotiation process and very much as a result of the method that we have used here is the ability to reach an agreement up front for a transportation package with approximately $1.6 million in transportation improvements. And that is something that we typically do not achieve piecemeal as we work through the development review process.

Futrell: Thanks.

Alvarez: And so for using these TTI numbers or -- I'm not sure how you referred to them, projections or estimates, depending on the type of use, I mean is that what -- is that how you arrive at a figure for each type of use or an estimate? Like let's say you have 5,000 square feet of office or retail, then you have a set number of trips that you assign to those uses?

Yes. Based on the number of residential units by type and also square footages for non-residential by type. Trips are generated, both attraction ends and -- so trips have two ends, they are a beginning and ending. According to about ten different trip purposes. I won't enumerate them, but essentially they have to do with the type of origin of that trip, whether it's at home or at work, for example, or whether it's outside the region, and then the other end of that, which is considered to be the destination. And we know because we have in fact tested ITE trip rates. So has the Texas transportation institute, CAMPO, ourselves, that ITE trip rates, and I believe this to be the root of the misinterpretation in this analysis specifically in terms of traffic generation, is that when ITE trip rates are used, you will generally overestimate traffic by about 50% because these attraction ends or one end of the trip associated with employment, with retail, with office development has already been accounted for and taken into account with the traffic that has been generated or estimated to be generated by a residential dwelling unit. Another way that we're fairly confident that our trip rates are in line and quite sufficiently appropriate and high is that in 1997, the vehicle miles of travel per capita in the Austin region was 26.8. If over time the vehicle trip generation rates that we were using were in fact too low, as has been suggested, then that VMT or these vehicle miles of travel per capita would go down or stay the same. It would be too low. But by the year 2025, the vehicle miles of travel are 34.2. So we're showing an increase from existing in 1997 in the Austin region of 26.8 vehicle miles of travel per day on an average to by the year 2025, 34.2 vehicle miles of travel per day. So there are a series of statistical results that we check, verify, look at to make sure that the parameters and the data that we're using are reasonable.

Alvarez: And now these particular figures from the Texas transportation institute, have there been studies about those too, about whether they underestimate or overestimate or how close they get to reality when you are doing projections?

They are very close because we go through an initial upfront validation process before the models are ever used to do any sort of analysis, they need to actually be able to replicate existing counted traffic on the ground. And that is what is known as calibrating a regional travel demand model. So that taking existing dwelling units, existing non-residential development, square footages and your assumptions about trip generation rate and a variety of other parameters, your methodology can actually reproduce counted traffic, and ours has done that at 12,000 location that are monitored every three years in the Austin metropolitan area.

Alvarez: But do we have like whatever projections we had made five years ago and then compared it if we were using these same estimates, you know, or the same model to project traffic generation?

We have from previous year model runs travel demand forecasts. Let's say from 1990, we could go back and look at year 2000 projections and compare them to what we've currently counted on on loop 1. I think that's the question you are asking.

Alvarez: Uh-huh. That would be helpful if it's something we can -- information we can get our hands on.

That's something we may be able to get our hands on and provide.

Alvarez: The other thing is if you can just provide a list of -- for the different types of uses, the assumption of how many trips those particular uses would generate depending on the square footage involved. The other two questions --

That is something that we definitely can provide and have already calculated are the number of trips by tract, by dwelling unit type, and also by square footage, by type. So that's readily available.

Alvarez: Now, the other two questions is just in terms of when we see the numbers on these graphs that you are showing about the number of trips generated, are those at peak hours? Is that what we -- I mean is that what we are to assume when we see the numbers for south Mopac or SH 45? Those numbers would be the peak hour?

No. The numbers that are in the report are average daily traffic, and I believe the maps are annotated with the forecast average daily traffic in the labels, and then the existing average daily traffic. -- annotated. Table 4 in the report summarizes the -- according to the two different scenarios that we looked at, summarizes existing traffic and in an average daily or 24-hour period and then compares it to the forecast for average daily traffic.

Alvarez: One of the things we discussed is whether or not the trips generated by this proposal or agreement would necessity I guess up grading either south Mopac or SH 45. I guess I'm wondering do you use average daily traffic to determine whether to upgrade a roadway or do you use the peak -- you know, the peak traffic numbers in order to make that determination? Typically.

Typically in long-range transportation planning, what we use to determine whether or not additional lane capacity is necessary on arterial roadways are average daily traffic volumes. A general rule of them is that unless the forecast traffic is equal to at least one lane of additional capacity, it does not serve as a trigger for an improvement. In other words, we don't add one lane at a time. We add two. At an intersection level of analysis, it is appropriate to look at A.M. and p.m. peak. In attachment 2 in the report enumerates A.M. peak existing and p.m. peaks of service at 14 intersections. These intersections were identified specifically as those that would be impacted potentially by the Stratus development, and these were also intersections that served as a candidate list for the selection of the traffic signals that have been included in the proposed agreement. So for the capacity on arterial and main lane improvements, average daily traffic is what is typically used as a standard. A.M., p.m. peak hours of service at intersections to improve flow and address signalization and turn lane issues.

Alvarez: Okay. Sounds like I need to get a copy of that report. I think I just have table 2 or table 3, so maybe that would help. And then the last question was just in terms of -- because you said with this model you look at -- take a regional approach in terms of how you calculate the traffic that is to be generated. And so you have that traffic generated by the tracts associated with this agreement, and then you have traffic that is generated by off-side or tracts or development not related to this agreement. So what was the assumption in terms of, you know, the traffic growth or -- outside of this agreement, you know, for these -- you know, for this area?

We've used population and employment control totals that are produced by the Texas state data center. They are the recognized U.S. census bureau forecasting entity for the entire State of Texas. They produce county population forecasts for all counties in the State of Texas, and they aggregate out to meaningful control totals both at the state and also then again at the federal level. For Travis County in the year 2000, population was approximately 812,000 persons. For the year 2015, the population projection by the state data center and the one that we've used is 999,000. So 812,000 to 999,000. And it is a forecast that reflects constraints on development in the southwest area. It reflects the deduction of acreage that is not developable, in other words, that is in proposition 2 water quality protection land, 100-year flood plain, steep slopes in excess of 15%, land that is already developed or existing. And also recognizes an emphasis on encouraging development in the desired development zone.

Alvarez: So then I guess then when you make your estimate, are you estimating a certain level of growth or are you just plugging in these population projections for that time period? And then how does -- I guess I'm trying to figure out what we're assuming and historically, you know, what have we seen to be true in terms of traffic growth along these arterials.

The additional population and employment, that increment is distributed to smaller geographic areas, and there are about 1,117 of these zones inside the modeling area. Along with that, background development, we have included two scenarios for the Stratus proposal. One at the higher level possibly achievable under 1704 fish consultation and the other possibly achievable here with the proposed agreement. So the stratus traffic generation and specific development proposal was apportioned into these traffic serial zones according to the two different scenarios, and the results of that are contained in the transportation analysis report.

Alvarez: And I guess can you tell me, I guess, how much -- I guess how many additional trips this development would generate, you know, based on the tracts that are part of this agreement that's on the table, and then how many trips are being, you know, generated other than by this agreement or that if it were to be approved?

Approximately 44,000 daily vehicle trips would be generated according to a 1704 fish consultation scenario. 27,000 vehicle trips per day based on the agreement. So about 38% less under the proposed agreement.

Alvarez: Now, I understand that, but I guess I'm wondering --

The overall urban area in total?

Alvarez: You are going to have an additional -- I guess an increase -- I see what you are saying. So I guess in terms of -- I mean I can see -- the numbers you gave me show what the difference is between the two different proposals, but I guess I'm wondering, you know, of that -- of these figures you quoted me, which -- which part of those trips were developed by the tracts associated with this agreement and which were generated by other development outside of this agreement. So I think those two numbers each could be divided into two different numbers.

No. The number that I'm referring to for the 27,000 is tracts -- Stratus only. 27,000 average daily vehicle trips.

Alvarez: Oh, I see.

Then 44,000 average daily vehicle trips, Stratus, assuming a 1704 fish consultation scenario. That's both apples to apples just Stratus only but only the two different scenarios.

Alvarez: Okay. Just Stratus only.

Correct.

Alvarez: The part that I'm not seeing is in addition to that, how many other trips are going to be generated from other development? What isist projection?

For the entire modeling area by the year 2015, 5,219,000 would be the total. And that includes -- Arizona besides the ones you quoted?

Yes. All of Williamson County and all of Travis County and Hays County. Because that area is included inside this overall transportation modeling area.

Alvarez: Okay. I'll leave it at that. I'll maybe ask you some questions afterwards or between meetings here.

We may be able to pick out the numbers for a smaller area than just the metropolitan region.

Futrell: And I think get a copy of the full analysis report to councilmembers.

I apologize, this report should be in the agenda backup.

Futrell: I thought it was too, but I haven't double checked to see.

Alvarez: It may be in the backup. I was looking at the other stack of Stratus --

I understand. We'll make sure that you all receive copies.

[INAUDIBLE].

Mayor Garcia: I got it. It's late. What we have tonight is we have two groups of actions that I need to explain to you. Items on the agreement itself, items 24, 25, 28 and 29 are resolution or what might be called non-ordinance items and we don't need to take those up tonight. We can take them up on the 18th. So we will be actually considering items 23, 26 and 27. Those are posted on the agenda for first and second reading. And that means that there needs to be a minimum of five votes on each one. So let me -- I just wanted to point that out, so the questions we have tonight and the clarification points concentrate on those items, 23, 26 and 27. And with regard to the zoning cases, items 30 to 42, all of those are ordinances. First and second reading, that would require a minimum of five votes. Further questions or clarifications?

Wynn: Mayor?

Mayor Garcia: Councilmember Wynn.

Wynn: Thanks for the advice. The City of Austin obviously has a big annual investment in both scientific staff, scientific studies, and legal staff, both inside attorneys and a tremendous amount of investment in outside attorney legal advice, all geared towards protecting our environment and proportionately Barton Springs. If we can do that oftentimes we're assailed for doing that. It's easy frankly for me to defend it because we see the personification of this community's desire for us to do that, for us to be cognizant of the environment and disproportionately Barton Springs. I can't imagine another city certainly in Texas that puts forth the effort that we do financially, spiritually and otherwise to do that. In regards to this particular complex situation, complex land deal and uses, that, in my opinion, has been very well complimented by the work of mayor pro~tem and Councilmember Slusher in bringing their long history of not only environmental protection and perspective in this community, but with specific regards to this issue; that is, the recharge zone of Barton Springs. And the effort that they have put in following up on a two-year effort by the city's scientific and legal team has presented a deal and a set of ordinances and resolutions I feel comfortable in supporting. I move approval on first and second reading only of the ordinances related to the proposed settlement, those would be items, as you said, 23, 26 and 27.

Mayor Garcia: Okay. Motion by Councilmember Wynn on items 23, 26 and 27. And there.

Second for that motion? Mayor pro~tem mayor, let me ask if the maker of the motion would be comfortable with first rather than second? And the reason for that may become evident in the discussion of a motion.

Wynn: Yes, ultimately we're going to get to the third reading and last reading at one pointed. I presume somehow the posting or the coordination of staff --

Mayor Garcia: Well, the staff posted it as just to give the council that option.

Wynn: As long as we don't -- doesn't have an impact on the posting language, I'm fine with first reading also. Hopefully we're working towards a final reading, and there is obviously some details and work to be done before we get there mayor pro~tem I would second it if it was for first reading only okay, so the motion by Councilmember Wynn is for first reading on items 23, 26 and 27. And is there a second?

Goodman: Mayor, I have seconded it for first reading.

Mayor Garcia: Okay. All right. Discussion?

Slusher: Mayor, I have some amendments to offer, mayor pro~tem.

Goodman: That's okay. I'll wait.

Slusher: I know the staff has been negotiating these since Monday, I guess, or maybe even before, but when I sent out my announcesment, no gas stations in the recharge zone, is that -- have I to ask staff, is that in the agreement already that we have before us? Has it already been add understand or do I need to add it right now?

That would be part of the zoning. It would need to be change understand the zoning because currently only two tracts allow for gas station use. That would be tract 106 and 114. 106 is in the recharge zone. 114 is not.

Slusher: Okay. So that wouldn't be as part of this, as part of this motion.

Mayor Garcia: Not part of this motion, part of the zoning.

Slusher: So tell me not my number, but what we have before us at the moment.

Mayor Garcia: Right now we have items number 23, 26 and 27. And those relate to the agreement itself.

Slusher: Okay. Well she here's one that relates to the agreement itself, which is that I would like to before the next reading for the city staff to work with Stratus and finalize an agreement that would establish a funding stream for land acquisition, open space acquisition for environmental preservation. This is the best way to protect water quality. And if I had my way, this development wouldn't be at this particular place, but things are not quite that simple. And but if we can through this development again get a funding stream for more open space acquisition, because the city spent tens of millions of dollars on this, 65 just in the last few years, and so we are -- don't really have too much of a funding stream right now, this could really help to do that and there are a number of properties that would really be good for the aquifer if we could acquire. I would offer that as friendly amendment.

Futrell: Allison, I'm going to count on you to guide us as amendments are made they are made to these numbers and not zoning and it looks in this case this is where this would fall.

Mayor Garcia: winn and goodman, is this -- Councilmember Wynn and mayor pro~tem is this okay?

Wynn: Fully anticipated.

Mayor Garcia: Mayor pro~tem?

Slusher: That Stratus would build the water quality controls to city standards that are current at the time the construction occurs. Ms. McClintock or someone from staff, would you address the conditions that have been negotiated on this? Here she comes.

Yes. We have been talking with Stratus about their willingness to construct water quality controls at -- construct water quality controls at whatever specifications we may be recommending at the time that they build out, with some conditions that they will do those more current water quality controls as long as they don't affect the impervious cover that they've been allowed under the agreement. And also that they will cap the additional expenditures at 10%, and that the benefit that we get from the enhanced water quality controls would be concomitant. In other words, we would need to get at least 10% benefit from the water quality controls that they would be willing to spend 10% more for.

Slusher: Who will determine that?

Staff.

Slusher: So that would be my second amendment.

Mayor Garcia: Is that friendly?

Wynn: Yes, sir.

Mayor Garcia: Okay.

Alvarez: Let me see if I can ask a question about that for a better understanding. So the proposal is to say that water quality controls would be --

Slusher: Here's the intent of it. Right now under S.O.S. there are certain standards, rules governing water quality controls. And so if those were to change for the city as a whole, they would change for Stratus too, but with these conditions that Ms. McClintock just stated, so that it's an attempt to keep -- in case there are advances in science or --

Alvarez: That's not with the water quality ordinances. The water quality control is part of the ordinance?

Slusher: Right, because they are already written in as the standards, water quality they are complying with. But this keeps -- if we move the -- if better standards are set or better rules for water quality controls, they would then comply with these. This actually came from a suggestion from Ms. Arnold, Mary Arnold. Okay. Did I get that one accepted?

Mayor Garcia: Yes.

Slusher: Ms. McClintock, please don't leave yet. Then -- and we've been able to negotiate then on tract 107, the setbacks go from instead of 150 feet from the sing holes to 300 feet?

Yes, sir. The setbacks that David was showing you earlier on tract 107, that was what we have negotiated. It is 300 feet to the west. To the north it's actually short of 300 feet, but it extends fully over the pipeline easement. And that was the additional concern that some members of the stakeholder group had, that that easement be extended to reduce the risk of some sort of pipeline rupture as a result of construction over the pipeline.

Slusher: Okay.

Futrell: And is that a zoning or development agreement?

Development.

Futrell: All right.

Slusher: Okay. And -- okay. I'll wait -- did I get that one in?

Mayor Garcia: Is that a friendly amendment?

Wynn: Yes.

Mayor Garcia: Urology, councilmember.

Slusher: I just want to note that I am -- the green building and the native plant agreements are very important to me and I'll be looking those over very thoroughly before the next vote. This, I don't think I need to add this as an amendment, but I talked to Hays County judge Jim powers on Monday, and he agreed to co-host a regional planning summit focusing on protecting the aquifer sometime in the fall hopefully in September and talked to Bob bruninging at the wildflower center and the wildflower center is willing to host that. So I'll bring whatever it takes to formalize the city's role and that will be brought forward. And the idea and Mr. Powers is going to invite folks from cities in Hays County, the aquifer district should be involved, citizens from all -- from both counties, and hopefully this is a challenge, a very serious challenge because, for instance, counties have limited regulatory powers, but all these kind of issues will be on the table. And judge powers was very willing to do it. That's all the amendments I have now, mayor.

Mayor Garcia: Further amendments?

Goodman: Yes, mayor pro~tem.

Mayor Garcia: Mayor pro~tem. Let me say first that all the questions I was asking staff about have to do with some of the issues that I'm looking at that I'm not comfortable with language or that I think we need a little more hopefully scientific data or at least some trends or indicators that we can get on handle on for some of the issues now and in the future. So I have two I think solid amendments for the moment, which is why I only wanted first reading. And this is the easy one. I'll start out with the easy one.

Mayor Garcia: It's always a good idea.

Goodman: That there is a provision of a funding mechanism to guarantee perpetual performance, maintenance, remediation and repair of water quality protection measures compliant with city ordinance requirements as agreed to elsewhere in this document. Through third party administration of said funds for inspection, monitoring and enforcement of this provision by the Barton Springs, Edwards Aquifer conservation district.

Wynn: Quite easy. Friendly, whatever.

Goodman: Thank you. Now, the other part requires a little intro, so let me say I passed out, I think, a copy of a little packet from the conservation district to everyone. It says at the top "project statement." This is of the habitat conservation plan information. And I'll point out that -- did you get one?

Slusher: Yeah, I think it's in this stack somewhere.

Goodman: Well, there are just a few high points that I think you need to know about right now, and you can read it word for word later. But on the first page, there is an issue that we should think about when we're talking about the aquifer, and it has a broader scope than simply quality, especially with our ordinance for S.O.S. and how people are able to comply with that ordinance. And that is recharge itself. Quantity of recharge. Because the threat to the salamander and to us ultimately as people and users of the springs and the creeks is as water quantity is conceivably lowered, obviously the water quality will be lesser because the renewal or recharge of the water supply itself will be more pollutant laden, for lack of a scientific term there. So the district is also very interested in making sure we pay attention to droughts or to any other significant cutoff of recharge sources. And on the second page, there is an objective for what they are trying to do here. This is to give you some idea of how they propose to go about pulling together a habitat conservation plan and environmental assessment and with a document for a product for that. They've already been trying to go around to try to get partners on this because they are going to go for fish and wildlife, U.S. fish and wildlife grant. And they have had good success with some partners, both private and public. Save Barton Springs association in fact has committed to 5,000 a year to contribute to the matching grants on this end. For, you know and I know it's not a lot of money, but it's a lot of money for us. So as they ask other entities to join with them in coming up with matching funds, they've also come to talk to the city, and I don't think we've done anything yet, but we do have management revenue allocated I think for prop 2 lands, and maybe this is consistent with that. The objective is to allow for the preparation of draft habitat conservation plan environmental assessment document that identify the effects of ground water pumping on the species and set forth comprehensive measures to minimize and mitigate for those impacts including incidental take as a result of permitted pumpage, et cetera. Back further on page 7, let me just quickly read this one paragraph. While addressing the interLACED issues of ground water quality availability, sustain ability and biological needs at the springs, the district has south partners with a diverse group of stakeholders. I think as we talk about a planning summit being asked for, that we don't invent too many wheels, that we try to maybe make they can work all together on one cart. That's a really bad analogy, I'm sorry, it's late. But to introduce into this agreement somehow the participation and support of this development because it is such a large undertaking is something that I hadn't figured out the language for, and so on first reading all I'm asking for is to amend it to include a provision for participation, agreed to participation because I think this is one of the most critical things that we'll come together on. And so it's very conceptual what I'm asking for.

Futrell: Participation and, Lisa, help me with this. Allison, this is one that I'm not up on. Is this something that we have already discussed? Is this financial participation? Is it practiced participation? Is it participation in the development of the plan?

Goodman: Are you talking about for us or them?

Futrell: I'm just trying to see where it fits.

Goodman: For us to participate both financially or in kind, in services, whatever. I mean we have a vested interest in it with prop 2 land.

Futrell: The City of Austin participating.

Goodman: Yes. I'm not asking to amend that, I'm asking to amend this agreement to include their participation. I'm not asking for financial commitment, although it's a fine, fine cause, and of course I'm sure they will be grateful for any money.

We have spoken with the district about this project and certainly staff has been involved in these -- we have an interlocal agreement with the district, and staff will be working with them and have worked with them on this project. We are also looking in the budget in watershed protection for some money to propose to council that we use to help their -- in the -- about $10,ooo a year, and they would like to have additional -- $10,000 a year. They would like to help in the next two years. We have money we are not going to be able to use as we had hoped for hydrilla management this year, so if it goes the way we think, we're hoping to get the money there.

Futrell: My question really was have we talked about this amendment with the Stratus party of their participation?

Are you proposing that Stratus be involved in it.

Goodman: I'm proposing that Stratus, as a stakeholder and as a possible property owning impactor of conditions that are being studied for habitat plans, be one -- agree to be one of the stakeholder participants.

We haven't discussed that with them.

Futrell: But looks like we have someone stepping up from the side to speak directly.

Councilmember, that would be fine. We would certainly do that.

Goodman: Thanks.

Futrell: For right now to keep it broad while we work through the details, we'll talk about stakeholder participation as part of this. All right.

Goodman: Uh-huh. Well, there are some other little ones relative to the questions I asked that I don't have specific language and I'm not even sure what it is I would ask for at this moment, so those were the two absolutes that I wanted to get on first reading. And I will just say there is plenty to be WARY of in this agreement, but there's also some really important things if we're really talking about survival and sustainability of the springs. So those are too important to me not to talk further on, but we should make it clear to everybody that when you have an ordinance, you have three readings. And if you go for readings separately, especially if you just go for first reading, you are sending a very clear signal that you are going to continue talking. You are also sending a very clear signal that what's on the table right now is not something that you are ready to approve. And so the three readings at whatever time they come in will finally be an approval only if passed on third reading. And whatever is included in third reading is what is passed. So I hope folks are listening to that. That's typically what we use a separation of readings to accomplish. That there are issues to be discussed, there are issues that are not fully fleshed out, and for me there are issues that are deal breakers in this agreement right now.

Futrell: Just for the sake of advancing the discussion, there is one other major issue and we have a thought on just the language to lay it on the table and Allison or Lisa would you like to -- we're talking about the downzoning issue.

There's been quite a bit of controversy over paying Stratus fair market value for the diminution in value, and in recognition of that, we have discussed, although we have not finalized the language, that if council were to initiate a downzoning, that that tract will be pulled out of the deal, as well as the five tracts that have been donated to the various groups, the city and the wildflower center. And that all of the down -- the downzoned tract taken five tracts would then be put back into place as of the day before the development agreement were signed. And they could then develop the tracts without benefit of the agreement.

Futrell: But what we want to have on record because we know you are not there with that and neither are we, is simply to acknowledge that we are working on this issue and the language and we will be working with each of you to see how we can accomplish this. [One moment, please, for change in captioners]

DUNKERLEY: I know a lot about the money issues related to this, but you all have been very, very helpful in bringing me up to speed on the development and the environmental issues, so I really thank both of you for take a leadership role with me and help willing me over some hurdles, so thank you.

MAYOR GARCIA: Ditto. Okay. Are we ready for the vote.

SLUSHER: Mayor, I want to say a few words too. I agree with mayor pro tem Goodman, there's still work to do on this, but I'm hopeful that we can settle this long dispute. It really dates back to 1984. Stratus has been rolling it since 1992 or 1993. So I hope we can settle this. I think we've made some real progress towards protecting the springs and settling a long-running battle in our city. And I think settling it and protecting the springs are good things and they have to go together. I would like to have seen in the debate or the hearings -- I think it would have been more especialliful to us if we would have had some discussion instead of the agreement of what some other alternatives might have been. I've already gone over the three I heard mentioned, but I think to me it was too simple just to say, if you do the agreement, it will damage the syringes springs. If you don't do the agreement, then that savings the springs. I think that as elected representatives of people, we would risk Barton Springs if we assume that reality is that simple. Let me just look at a few things. I know it's late --

MAYOR GARCIA: I was going to say, these speeches tend to be replayed, so make it short.

SLUSHER: Thank you, mayor. For years -- I have said this already, but I'm going to say it again -- I've called on Stratus to comply with S.O.S. So have many other people. And under this agreement they comply with S.O.S. except for the CLUSTERING, which we've heard Ms. McClintock say that served Barton Springs just as well. We've heard folks say that they want down voting. Well, I'm not ready to say yet that the springs are going to go down. I'm still fighting to protect them. I'm not going to accept that we're going down. And we've seen exactly what is gained by fighting if we risk that. Well, they would have to build to S.O.S. Well, they're building to S.O.S. except for the clustering. And we've heard just say no. Well, once again, I don't think it's that simple. And I've seen some of the effects of just saying no. There was a mention earlier of the Barton Creek P.U.D. and not getting the sewer. It's true. The part getting the sewer, the commercial parts haven't been built yet. That's outside the city, by the way. This development in question is inside the city. So the part that needed a sewer hasn't been built. We were right about that, I was right about that. That was quoted earlier today. But the part that didn't need the sewer, that -- you go out there, drive out there today, it's heartbreaking to me. It looks like southern California with the hill tops and the hillsides are covered with houses. I think that's polluting the aquifer. Now, I have to say people have said that Stratus is threatening us. Well, they're not threatening to do that kind of thing. I haven't heard any threat during these negotiations, but I do think that those houses out there that were built after the previous agreements were turned down are polluting the aquifer. I'm not saying that means necessarily those should have been approved. They might could have been improved. I'll tell you, there is -- let's just go to court they said. Well, you look at those -- a lot of people talk about those developments behind Zilker Park, the I hop, the Texas land and cattle company, the office Building 8 Jay sent to that, that tears me up too. It's heartbreaking to me to see that. Well, that's the result of a failed legal strategy by a previous council. That's why those buildings are there. The lawsuits settling after the city lost. This council couldn't do anything about that. I also think that we're going to have to clean up this existing pollution, some of the neighborhoods folks who come down here tonight, I'm glad they want to protect the aquifer. I hope we can take off with neighbors and have them talk to the neighbors and have the chem lawn trucks out of the neighborhoods and stop having the chemicals on the lawn. I'm not saying that anybody here tonight is, I don't know, but I do know there is pollution coming out of the neighborhoods that are already out there. And we hear about pollution in the aquifer, pollution in the springs. It's true. None of it is being caused by this development we're talking about because it's not built yet. So we have to prevent the pollution, but we have to clean up a lot of what we have if we're going to save Barton Springs. I'll leave it at that, mayor. I kept it reasonably short by my standards.

MAYOR GARCIA: Further comments? If not -- Councilmember Alvarez?

ALVAREZ: Yeah. I've been studying this a long time like a lot of the folks here and I want to thank everybody for their hard work, the planners, Mr. Drener and his folks, they've been through a grueling process just like the citizens have been through a grueling process here trying to figure out what's the best action that we can take to protect the springs as well as my colleagues on the council and our city staff that has worked I know incredibly hard over the last several months on this issue. And I'm going to try to just focus on the act considering the settlement and not necessarily the zoning. I'm going to try to address those issues or concerns that I have because when I saw the options, the different terms of the agreement, what stood out for me prosecute the very git-go was the 15-million-dollar incentive to, I guess, mitigate some of the development I suppose is what we're trying to do, but nonetheless it's 15 million -- it's hard to not think about it going to facilitate a certain level of development, maybe not the level of development we think might happen, but then facilitating to a certain degree. And I guess in general with the kinds of agreements or incentive packages that the city has put together in the past for the desired development zone and for affordable housing, smart housing, it was tough when I came on the council to try to get comfortable with the fact that we were providing some incentives because I just had sort of a philosophical problem, I guess, with incentives. But you get here and you realize there's all these needs in the community and you try to do something to address some of the adverse or the problematic things that you see happening. So I've supported some incentives packages for development in downtown partly to make sure that development is happening where we want it. And then in downtown is another peculiar place because of the property values are so huge. It's so escalated because of the density you can have there and so it's really hard to get the development right there where we need it. The same thing with affordable housing is if we can -- that being the crisis that it is, if we can provide some incentives for folks to develop more affordable housing, that's going to make an impact in terms of the housing crisis. And so I've been trying to think about this issue in terms of. I've been trying to think in terms of the environment what we're trying to get for the incentive package that's on the table. And so when we provide incentives to develop downtown, you know you're getting a development in the desired development zone and in an area where it might be a little more difficult to develop than other parts of town. And when you're providing incentives for affordable housing, you're also -- you can say we're going to have X number of units because of these incentives that we've provided. And so in this particular case I was trying to figure out what is the benefit that we're getting, and I think there's two different ways of looking at it. One is that we have I think what the fish agreement, 1704, consultation with Stratus and the fish and wildlife, and then we have the agreement that's on the table, and so one way of looking at it is we have this scenario that we think is bad and then this agreement here that we think is less bad. And that's what the incentive package is getting us. But, you know, just in thinking about it, I think for me the more I thought about it, what I felt more was essential is, you know, with this financial incentive are we assuring that we're not going to kill the aquifer? And so because of the problems that we've seen with pollution and water quality degradation in Barton Springs and the fact that we can't really say, okay, if we have two million square feet of development, is that going to kill the aquifer? We know for a fact that that one million is not going to kill the aquifer? So I feel like for me that's the fundamental issue is if we're going to put up this kind of incentive package then there needs to be more assurances that providing the incentive for that level of development isn't still going to produce an outcome that we don't want to see happen. So partly for me it's just the level of investment or incentive, I should say, because not all of it is cash out lay, but the other issue in terms of the $15 million is the fact that we're actually paying for infrastructure being extended into areas where we have said we don't want development. At this point I really don't feel that I can support the financial settlement, I guess, the settlement which includes all these financial incentives. [ CHEERS AND APPLAUSE ].

MAYOR GARCIA: Comments?

WYNN: Mayor? Councilmember Alvarez, why don't we just take the $15 million off the table and go back to two million square feet or do a sliding scale, maybe for seven million dollars they only build 1.5 million square feet? Do you prefer two million over the other?

ALVAREZ: If a million square feet kills the aquifer, why are you contributing 15 million towards that? Can you or anyone else tell me that contributing that 15 million isn't going to produce that result? And that's where I'm having difficulties.

WYNN: So what's your alternative? Which of these alternative strategies we've heard tonight do you advocate for? A legal contest right now?

ALVAREZ: I think there's -- certainly a legal -- a legal -- there's different legal avenues that we could pursue depending on the outcome of this whole discussion, of course, but then I like the idea of again if right now we don't really know what's causing the degradation in the springs and in water quality, well, let's take a step back and try to figure out what is causing it. I really don't see what Stratus has to lose by slowing it down if they in the end can develop more [ APPLAUSE ] . It relates back to this whole idea of the Bradley deal that we're going to be doing some regional planning or planning in this area to figure out in the future what -- what kind of development should we be advocating. And I'm really glad that we're talking about pursuing that, but I really think that maybe if we can get some of that done before jumping into this, that's something that could only, you know, reassure myself and reassure other folks that the actions we're going to take are not going to have the adverse consequences that we're all afraid of.

WYNN: And '97-'98 were you supportive of the $12 million this incentives that were paid on just one of these tracts to keep Motorola off of it? Remember that? $12 million on one tract to get Motorola not to move there. Were you supportive of that?

ALVAREZ: Back then I wasn't following the Barton Springs development issue so much, I was focusing on the development in East Austin. So I do apologize for that, but I do believe that, yeah, if that was something that was -- again, that was a positive thing for us not to have such a great generator of traffic and of development out there.

MAYOR GARCIA: Okay. Well, let's --

SLUSHER: Mayor, I just wanted to add one thing because it's been kicked around a lot about the Bradley agreement talked about neighborhood planning. Actually, what was said at that time was that the homeowners would advocate for Stratus to come in at S.O.S. levels of impervious cover just like happened in the Bradley agreement. And that's exactly what has happened. So it's not accurate to say that there was some agreement made at that time that wasn't followed up upon. It was followed up upon.

MAYOR GARCIA: Okay. Any other comments? Mayor pro tem, did I hear you request --

GOODMAN: Yeah, yeah. Because all of what we're talking about really is relative to the planning summit and that more regional approach and also what I was talking about was conservation district and I think neighborhood planning and area planning relative to suburban and urban development is also a part of what has to come into that, nobody can tell you right now if S.O.S. protected anything. So we sure can't tell you if anybody that was grandfathered in any point that contributed to a much increased and more rapid degradation of water quality, and nobody at this moment can even tell you why the salamanders and frogs and fish are developing these gross things that are killing them. So the issue here is a broad one, but if we don't start moving toward anything in the planning sense, then there is no way to have any kind of moratorium on construction. So that's why I wanted to make sure that the players, the significant players relative to protecting water quality and the future of the springs and the creatures that make it valuable to us begins at every opportunity. I'm also a little uncomfortable with the 15 million. I kind of go back and forth on that -- or 15 million worth of value. But then you ask yourself, okay, how much is the aquifer worth to you? If you're going to try to lessen development, what are the options open to you? We don't have the money to buy it if they were willing to sell. At the moment we don't have money to do much of anything, so we're all looking for creative ways to protect and to lessen and to try to give ourselves the tools to move further. We've spent the last 10 years using every political nickel we had just to protect that piece of paper. Well, it's time to move on now because everybody knew S.O.S. was not Taylored enough to guarantee in any way the protection of the aquifer. So if there are opportunities like this, then they're worth talking about because it is imperative that we look at ways that are going to protect us in more ways than environmental context. It has a very definite impact on the economy, on the psyche of the people who live here. And when you get down to quality of life, if the City's not a good place to live any more, only those who can't afford to live will be here. So those are the issues behind my push, and I think that if you don't like the 15 million, take it out.

MAYOR GARCIA: Okay. Well, I want to thank the staff and all of you for -- and staff and for putting this together. It's taken a long time. And I hope that we did not miss some things that we should have attended to, but this is critically important and I think you have done a great job. We appreciate that. And there will be some tweaking that will be done between now and the time that we do third reading. And that is expected. And I also appreciate the people that came to talk to us. I apologize for two weeks ago because I lost a little bit of control of meeting and I couldn't figure out who was speaking on what and I had too many people signed up to speak, but I think tonight everybody had a good -- reacted well to the proposal that we made to make sure that we had good public input. We had 13 hours or so of public input and I think that the issues were well covered. So thank you much to everybody. There's a motion and a second on the floor to do first reading on items 23, 26 and 27. All in favor.

Aye.

MAYOR GARCIA: Opposed no? Vote six to one with Councilmember Alvarez voting no. Okay. The next item is the ordinances related to 13 zoning cases, items number 30 to 42. And I'm going to recognize councilmember Slusher because one of the issues dealing with the gas stations was -- the staff mentioned to you that it would have to be included in the zoning issues. And I don't know exactly where that specific one fits, so councilmember Slusher?

SLUSHER: Mayor, if someone wants to make a motion and then I'll make an amendment?

MAYOR GARCIA: Okay. Is there a motion on cases 30 through 42? Motion by Councilmember Wynn. Is there a second? Seconded by Councilmember Dunkerley.

GOODMAN: On first reading.

MAYOR GARCIA: First reading.

SLUSHER: Mayor, I would offer an amendment that there be no gas stations in the recharge zone.

MAYOR GARCIA: That's a friendly amendment? Is that a friendly amendment?

WYNN: Yes, it is. Recognizing, of course, it takes negotiations --

SLUSHER: But they've agreed to that.

Martha Terry, assistant city attorney, what you would be doing on agenda item 36, you would be amending -- you would be amending the ordinance as proposed to prohibit the gas stations in that -- on that particular tract because that's the tract that's in the recharge zone.

SLUSHER: So under this they could only have one gas station as part of this agreement and it would not be over the recharge zone. It would be on -- I can't remember the number. It would be on the -- thank you, mayor. What number is that, Mr. Gurnsey? I'm sorry.

Right now it would be on tract 114 unless there's another tract that's being considered.

MAYOR GARCIA: That's item 36, Mr. Gurnsey?

Item number 36 is tract 106 where the service station would be deleted. Tract 114 was the zoning and platting commission's recommendation for the alternate tract. I believe there's some discussion about tract 102.

Placing it on tract 102 CZ. What we can do at least on this point is prohibit it on -- by amending the ordinance, which is agenda item 36, and then we can continue the discussions about where it's going to be and amend those other ordinance when we bring those back or bring the proposal back to you.

SLUSHER: Okay. I thought those talks were concluded, but if we need to finalize it for the purposes of the amendment, we can wait until next week, I guess.

We can go ahead and amend -- we can amend the zoning ordinance attached to agenda item 36 with the prohibition of the gas station on that tract that gets it off the recharge zone.

SLUSHER: Okay. There is more to do, but I think we're in agreement on that.

MAYOR GARCIA: Okay. Any other amendments?

GOODMAN: Mayor, let me ask for clarification on that one if I could? Does that preclude any gas station of being part of any of what we are talking about in zoning tonight or does that allow a gas station on another tract?

SLUSHER: It allows them not over the recharge zone, but it would allow one on another tract.

On the contributing zone.

SLUSHER: On the contributing.

GOODMAN: Would you consider amending your amendment to prohibit gas stations period?

SLUSHER: Yes, I would. I think we should engage in those talks with the applicant over the next week.

MAYOR GARCIA: Okay. So the amendment is to -- for item 36 is to include a prohibition for gas stations on case number C-14-020,040.106. Further amendments? Further discussion? If not, all in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

MAYOR GARCIA: Opposed no.

ALVAREZ: No.

MAYOR GARCIA: Motion carries on a vote of six to one with Councilmember Alvarez voting no. Those are the items that we have. I need to indicate to you guys that we will have to do something with regard to procedural measures on the two Stratus items that have gone to zoning and platting. And we'll talk about that during the week to see how we are to proceed on that. Council, that's all of the items that we have tonight. I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

SLUSHER: So move.

MAYOR GARCIA: Motion by councilmember Slusher. Seconded by me. All in favor, signify by saying aye?

Aye.

MAYOR GARCIA: Motion carries. And we're adjourned. (2:30 a.m.)